Barack Obama: His Genius At Work

If Barack Obama possesses any sort of genius, it is not the sort of genius that works toward something positive. It seems rather obvious that the man has a gift for obfuscation, and of covering his tracks. Let me show you a perfect example of what I mean.

The question that Barack Obama answered Wednesday night that set off such a firestorm about alleged police incompetence and alleged racial profiling (and race-baiting) after an unfortunate incident that led to an arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was rather straightforward. Here it is as asked by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times:

"What does that incident [the arrest of Henry Gates] say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?"

Of course, we all know how Mr. Obama answered.

But let us note how he defended that answer in his interview with ABC News' Terry Moran:

"...But I was asked [by Ms. Sweet], you know, uh, 'Did it make sense for it to escalate to the levels that it did?' I said, 'Probably not. And that, uh, it, it would have been more sensible for everybody to just, once it was established that Mr. Gates was in his own home, that, uh, we should just settle this thing down.'"

So, before the eyes of the whole world, Mr. Obama does two things. First, in his press conference on Wednesday night, he admits that he does not know all the facts about an incident, and that he is biased. And yet, despite that ignorance and bias, he chooses to denigrate the Cambridge police, accusing them of "acting stupidly."

Second, confronted later by a reporter about his statement, he not only rewrites his answer, he rewrites the question. Mr. Obama WAS NOT ASKED WHAT HE SAYS HE WAS ASKED. Hence, he responds to a fiction, a fabrication. In fact, what he does is shove blame away from himself: he creates a false loaded or leading question that he was not asked, and by doing so he implies that the real source of his mistake is OUTSIDE OF HIM, it is in the questioner, and not in his answer. Please, read the quote above again. Look what Mr. Obama has done.

Moreover, please listen to Mr. Obama's entire response to Terry Moran. Notice the red-herring dragged through the whole debate. This red-herring is typical Obama: he is surprised by this "distraction" (one of his favorite defensive tools, only implied in his comments here) from the real issues of our day, like "health care" and "two wars."

Seriously, listen to Mr. Obama when Mr. Moran asks essentially a second time, "Do you still believe the Cambridge Police acted stupidly?"

Here's Mr. Obama's response:

[leans head back, tips it to right; looks down]

"Well, [serious face turns to big smile, laugh, head back, chin up] this is, this is, this is a, Terry, [head down, looks to his right] I think this is a classic example, at a time when we are talking about health care, energy, we got two wars going on, uh, that, um, issues like this get elevated in ways that probably don't make much sense."

And please note the next sentence: Mr. Obama goes on to say that the behavior of the Cambridge police department made "no sense."

If I was Terry Moran, my next question would have been, "But Mr. President, wasn't it you who 'elevated,' as you just said, this whole issue by pronouncing judgment on a case that, by your own admission, you knew nothing about, and this at a time when you were talking about health care? Aren't you the one who actually allowed things to escalate by speaking when you should have remained silent? Didn't you lose control and let things get out of hand? And how do your words and actions make any sense?"

This is all so stunning. And ironic.

I have to say that I am appalled that people are focusing on the minutiae of the "he said/he said" battle that occurred in Cambridge, MA between a policeman and a professor. What is at issue here, what is clearly appalling, is the behavior of the man who sits in the Oval Office. He is the one who has abused his power; he is the one who has allowed things to escalate. And yes, he is the one who is playing the race card.

All this from a man who publicly admitted -- his admission was his preface! -- that he did not know all the facts.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

[Contratimes on the road.]

En Passant: Words Out Of Nowhere

Over the last few days -- perhaps only in the last day -- I've noticed the use of the word "presser." Apparently this hip new noun denotes press conferences, like the one last Wednesday night in which Barack Obama discussed health care. This word is even so new Wikipedia has yet to hand out a definition; a search online reveals presser is fresher than any other word in this post.

Presser strikes me as just a little too hip, a little too self-consciously au courant, a little too intentionally insouciant or blasé. It's got the over-worked feel of planned spontaneity, if you know what I mean. It reminds me of those folks who go too far in proving their familiarity or mastery of certain things by speaking, dressing, or acting in a manner too casual for their standing or place. They present themselves as so involved or familiar that they could really care less.

It's all a bit like calling the president POTUS (a new hybrid oriental flower, I hear) or prezzy. Or yo.

I recently noticed, too, the seemingly ex nihilo creation of the word Norks, or norks, used in commentaries, blogs and headlines. This seemingly new noun denotes North Koreans. One day, well, there it was: Norks. For a moment I thought it might be some twist on a new type of dork, or even some queer reference to an underground secessionist movement in New York.

I swear, too, that Twitter, and more importantly, tweet, were not in my internal lexicon, at least as they are now, until just a few months ago. I do recall adoring the very lovely word twitterpated, first presented to me as a child watching one of the greatest scenes in Disney film history (see below). But tweet as a signifier for a type of human communication? Oiks!

Of course, I have readily absorbed blog as an effective noun or verb, but I admit I do not use it without feeling a tiny bit low-brow. And though I initially loathed 24-7 (or 24/7), I've come to use this without the slightest compunction.

But presser? I don't know. That word sucks. It is just too mule. It's not, at least for me, the least bit fly. It strikes me as even a bit of a diss, particularly since it emerged as a noun indicating an Obama press conference. Really, word! For some, I am sure it is totally chill, even downright dank. But for me, well, it ain't given props to the POTUS, that's for sure. There was a time I would have been up with being down with it. But not now.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Our Pusillanimous Commander In Chief

Barack Obama, the US Commander in Chief, chose cowardice today in his back-pedaling statements on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Mr. Obama did not manifest any of the manly qualities one expects of a commander, nor did he show any of the courage common to the average police officer. Refusing to apologize, the unrepentant commander chose instead more obfuscation, and more hair-splitting, mind-numbing rhetoric. What we get is a person who believes, at best, that he "could have calibrated" his language "differently." (Please note that he says he could have, not should have.) What we are left with is a man safe-guarding his pride, his apparent infallibility and popularity; the very keys to his power.

Somehow, Barack Obama expects us to reconcile his contradictory statements:

Proposition 1: "...the Cambridge police acted stupidly..." (July 22)
Proposition 2: "It doesn't make sense, with all the problems we have, with all the problems we have out there, to arrest a guy in his own home if he is not causing a serious disturbance." (July 23)
Proposition 3: "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley, specifically." (July 24) [bold added for emphasis]

I am sorry, but Mr. Obama is lying. Of course he meant to malign the Cambridge police in general and Sgt. James Crowley specifically. How do we know this? Perhaps because he maligned the sergeant and the Cambridge police department in his statement of "regret" offered today:

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. [bold added for emphasis]

Note the language! Note what this man thinks! He continues to believe "that there WAS an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his house" (professor Gates was NOT PULLED); this is a statement of fact presented by Mr. Obama. But then he offers -- again, abusing his power in order to protect his friend -- a statement of probability: "I believe... that Professor Gates PROBABLY overreacted as well."

This is not a man of principle. This is no leader. This is despotic and reckless: this is a man protecting his self-image, i.e., his power, who is also protecting his friend. In other words, and I can't say this enough, this is another ABUSE OF POWER.

And then this coward -- sorry! -- tosses a red-herring into the whole debacle:

The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of society. Whether I were black or white I think me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to something constructive — as opposed to negative — is part of my portfolio.

Ah, hah! So this is not about his ABSURD, RECKLESS comments; this is not about his abuse of power, or his abuse of the office of president, or that he is using his presidency to protect a friend! No, no. All of us who are reacting to his despotic, arrogant, self-aggrandizing abuse of the Oval Office are really struggling with race!

Such a dire, desperate lie has probably never before been uttered by a president. This man clearly and undeniably made a huge blunder; he has shown he is either incompetent in handling the law or he is equivocating about the law in some effort to draw all power unto himself. But instead of taking RESPONSIBILITY LIKE A MAN, he sloughs it all off onto us, onto America. It's America's fault, for we are still struggling, mired in racial division and all he did was highlight that divide. This is a "teachable" moment, and his pedagogy is just part of his "portfolio."

What crap!

Shame on this man!

Let me say this WITHOUT ambiguity or equivocation: The issue at hand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! NOTHING!

And what is that issue? It is that the president of the United States has purposely abused his office and power to protect a friend and besmirch an entire police force. For this he should -- and must -- resign.

(And this is not the ONLY issue at work here. But that will have to wait for another day.)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

What If "Stupidly" Was Meant To Distract?

Just for fun, let me be a blogger gone wild.

Allow me to suggest that Barack Obama's advisers believed he could gain some political cover if he distracted America from spotting the systemic weaknesses in his party's health care reform plans by claiming the "Cambridge (MA) Police Department acted stupidly." Perhaps he also sought to distract Americans from the fact that his health care press conference performance was rather mediocre (at best). Call it red-herring politics: drag a stinky fish across the trail to prevent the dogs from finding the sickly fox posed as health care reform.

OK. Fine. Let's say that Mr. Obama and his team thought this a good idea. There even seems some evidence that this is not one whit fantastical on my part for the simple reason that Mr. Obama ENDED his press conference on health care by taking a question about the arrest of his friend, Robert Louis Gates Jr. (Reports I've heard state that the president was told beforehand to expect such a question.) But if this is true, what a ridiculously risky tack to take: it seems the Obama Yacht will smash into the breakers. But...maybe not.

Barack Obama today has called the attention his remarks have earned a "distraction" and "an obsession." How nice. Every dubious thing this president has done, as well as the dubious things his associates have done, are dismissed by him as a distraction. But what if this really was meant to be a distraction; what if the president sought protection behind this "gaffe," and his health care objectives actually pass through the House and Senate? What then? Was his gaffe a mistake? Was it worth the risk?

But if his health care goals are not achieved in part because of his gaffe, intentional or not, Mr. Obama will find himself in far more trouble than if he had simply said Wednesday night, "No comment."

(I doubt he did any of this to cover himself.)

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Cambridge, MASSACHUSETTS: Blowing Up In The President's Face

It is utterly ironic that the city dismissed so often by conservatives (and self-effacingly by some liberals) as the People's Republic of Cambridge (Cambridge, MA), the arguable center of New England and perhaps even American liberalism, is the epicenter of Barack Obama's largest domestic problem to date. It may be the very epicenter that fractures his presidency.

I am watching the Cambridge police departments' and Massachusetts police unions' press conference right now. Needless to say, the rebukes directed at Barack Obama are stern, clear and unwavering.

He is in trouble. And the source of that trouble is an event involving a black intellectual, Barack Obama's friend, in the city where Barack Obama probably has more friends per square inch than anywhere else on the planet and where he studied LAW at arguably the most prestigious university in the world.

The police department of the city that loves Barack Obama expects an apology. Not only does that department deserve an apology, the country deserves one, too. But I do not see how the president can apologize without ending his presidency. For if he can be so reckless with something he so obviously should have avoided, something quite simple, how can he be trusted with anything else? If he can be so WRONG, when even the guy on the street without Barack Obama's legal credentials can get this matter right, who can take Barack Obama seriously? Is not his gravitas lost?

If not, it should be.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama: The Abuse Of Power Will Be His Waterloo

For those of you who are outside New England or are unfamiliar with the controversy around the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department, please let me state the obvious: This story is going "nuclear." By this I mean that it is expanding quickly and exponentially. This is no flash-in-the-pan kind of story. This is a story that reaches to the very heights of America. And as more information comes forth, the recent remarks made by Barack Obama -- remarks that were apparently premeditated -- that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly," may not only define his presidency, they may end it (and I believe they should end it). Call it whatever you wish. Call it a "tipping point." Call it his "Waterloo." Call it Gates-gate. Whatever it is named, it reveals two important things: It reveals an abuse of power by Barack Obama, and it reveals that he lacks competence and/or integrity. But before delving into these bold assertions, a relevant aside might prove helpful.

___________________

GETTING UP TO SPEED

If readers have not closely followed this story, they should, because this is history in the making. Real history.

First, this tidbit reported by the Associated Press (also reported here) is nearly too good to be true:

"Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class on racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming."

Readers should know by now that Mr. Gates, who is apparently rather famous, is a professor at Harvard University and is touted as something of an authority on race relations. Forgive this writer's undue lack of deference. All I can say is that I had not ever heard of Mr. Gates until this week. I cannot vouch for his credentials, though I will admit that, on paper, he is surely a qualified academic. But there is something richly ironic in the fact that the policeman Mr. Gates accuses of being a racist, is himself something of an authority on race relations, particularly on how race plays out in law enforcement.

It seems quite safe to say that Mr. Obama, who admitted before calling Sgt. Gates stupid that he did not know the facts, was profoundly ignorant of the amazing fact that Sgt. Gates is considered a specialist in racial profiling.

Another important thing is to hear what NPR's Juan Williams, a left-leaning black journalist who moonlights on Fox News, said about Mr. Obama's unarguably reckless remarks. Check out Mr. Williams in this video:

_____________________

MR. OBAMA'S FALL

Please note the one thing Juan Williams highlighted about Barack Obama's remarks. He highlighted that Mr. Obama was trying to sell a plan to sweepingly reform health care in America, and yet, in a senseless incident, shifted attention from that important topic to something not only irrelevant to health care, but to something incendiary, controversial, and divisive.

In fact, the Obama mistake seems so foolish as to suggest that Mr. Obama's advisors led him to commit political suicide before the entire country; it was as if they intentionally set out to make him look the fool. What, pray tell, was he thinking?

Here are a few of things to understand.

First, Barack Obama is, as president of the United States, ostensibly the chief law enforcement officer of the land. It was to this post he was elected; people expected him to enforce the laws that keep the peace in America. He was NOT elected to serve as Race-Relations Expert-in-Chief. In fact, his position is to be race-neutral in a very real sense, as he is the incarnation of the body politic: he represents us ALL.

Second, since Mr. Obama's first statement on this issue was to say that "Skip Gates" is a "friend," and that as a result, he might be "biased," it behooves us to note that Mr. Obama failed to add that, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, and as the figurehead of a democracy who was, at that moment, speaking as PRESIDENT of the United States, he is also and PRIMARILY the "friend" of all law enforcement officers in the country. Hence, he should have at best recused himself completely; at worst, he should have said that he would withhold judgment until he KNEW ALL THE FACTS. But he had already admitted he was ignorant of the facts; the sophomoric summary of the facts he presented proved that the facts he thought he knew were utterly fantastic and invented.

Hence, Barack Obama ABUSED HIS OFFICE, he abused his POWER, by throwing the power of the presidency into the assertion that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly," and Mr. Obama did this in order to protect his friend, Henry Gates. Mr. Obama assumed a privilege of clairvoyance and understanding he believed his office gave to him intrinsically; he believed that, despite his ignorance of the facts, he could nonetheless conclude that the Cambridge police were stupid.

Third, Mr. Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND simple law regarding disorderly conduct. Either that, or he lacks the integrity to admit that he made a huge mistake in prime time. Even today, Mr. Obama continues to conflate the breaking and entering report with disorderly conduct. He seems to think that, because Mr. Gates proved he was rightfully in his own home and he rightfully broke into his own domicile, the Cambridge police had no business arresting him for disorderly conduct. This idiocy on Mr. Obama's part is doing him no favors; it is only compounding his problem. What is also compounding his problem is that his spokesman yesterday said that his remark that the police "acted stupidly" did not mean he was calling the arresting officer "stupid."

All this shows a man -- arrogant to no end -- clinging to power by saying whatever the hell he feels like saying. Mr. Obama either clearly DOES NOT understand law, or he does. If he doesn't, he has no right being in the White House (nor should he have ever been editor of the Harvard Law Review). But if he does understand the law, then Mr. Obama is being dishonest: he is manipulating language in order to save his position. But if this is the case, then the man lacks integrity. He is a deceiver, a charlatan, an equivocating con man.

Without question Mr. Obama has backed himself into a corner. What are his options? Can he say he made a mistake, that what he said was stupid? I doubt it. Can he continue to equivocate? Can he continue to conflate basic trespassing or illegal entry with disorderly conduct; can he continue to act surprised that a man "with a cane" could be arrested for disorderly conduct even after proving he was in his own home? No, he can't. There is no out for this man, is there?

Bottom line: This was, and continues to be, an abuse of power on the part of Barack Obama. He will do as he wishes; he will speak as he sees fit, and to hell with the consequences. Because he is president, he will pronounce judgments from his bully, thuggish pulpit against a police officer in order to protect a "friend." And he will make those judgments even if he -- by his own admission -- does not know all the facts.

For this, and for his inability to square with America and the nation's police, Barack Obama should immediately resign.

___________________

A BRUTAL IRONY

Recall with me that the first people in America to deny that Barack Obama was authentically black, were black intellectuals. Mr. Obama's credentials as a true African-American were called into doubt precisely because his narrative did not include one essential ingredient, namely, that he was a descendant of African-American slaves. In fact, Mr. Obama himself admitted his struggles with black identity; he "chose" to self-define as black despite the fact that his story was not typical at all. Nevertheless, as time passed and he gained political advantage, his critics pulled away from their claim that he would not be the first black president. His critics became his supporters.

Henry Louis Gates is, without doubt, a black intellectual. Since he is a "friend" of the president, I doubt he ever dismissed Barack Obama as inauthentic. However, what is amazing is that this lofty professor, this Harvard intellectual who was trained at some of the world's finest schools; this expert on race relations in America, may have, in his petulant temper tantrum wherein he played the race card, fatally damaged the presidency of the "first black president in US history."

Wall Street Journal on-line columnist James Taranto, whose work consistently impresses me, was so incredibly wrong in his analysis of most of the Gates/Crowley/Obama story that he may have lost my adoration. Here is what Mr. Taranto wrote yesterday:

As he is the first president who is black, Obama’s views on a subject involving race relations were bound to be of interest and to carry considerable weight. And Obama evidently did have a strong interest in the matter.

Because this was ESSENTIALLY a legal and not a racial matter; because Mr. Obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the land; because Mr. Obama was not elected to weigh in on matters of race; because Mr. Obama chose loyalty to a black friend over his duty as guardian of law; Mr. Obama's words on the matter should not have carried any weight in matters of race. NONE.

But because Mr. Obama is convinced he is bolstered by millions of people who think like Mr. Taranto, he believed his skin color -- and his POWER as president -- entitled him to speak with reckless abandon.

This all may become the most ironic moment in presidential history. And we witnessed it.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Mr. Obama, You Just Acted "Stupidly." Please Resign.

Dear Mr. Obama,

I was wondering if you had ever really thought much about racial profiling. Have you? Permit me to ask you a few questions.

How many times a day in America's cities do you think a white police officer hears something about racism from the African-American men and women he (or she) arrests or detains? Do you think white policemen hear this sort of thing only rarely? Do you think white policemen rarely hear from a black man or woman that white law enforcement officers single out the "black man" because he's black and the officers are white?

From your comments tonight, I am tempted to conclude that you've never really thought about this issue all that much.

When Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department walked up to Henry Louis Gates Jr. and asked him to produce some sort of identification to prove he had not just broken into someone else's home, do you think he would have expected that a man of Mr. Gates' standing and ability would play the race card? Do you think he expected that a man like Mr. Gates would commit racial profiling of a WHITE man? And do you think he expected Mr. Gates to start raving and screaming in his face when all he was doing was protecting Mr. Gates and his property?

Mr. Obama, you need to apologize immediately to America, and to Sgt. Crowley. And then you should resign. Your remark uttered before the world -- remarks rooted in your self-admitted ignorance -- that Sgt. Crowley behaved "stupidly" is an affront to every law enforcement officer in America. Shame on you. It is you who has acted stupidly.

Sgt. Crowley was called to Mr. Gates' home by a concerned neighbor who saw someone attempting to forcibly enter through Mr. Gates' front door. The details of the story reported today indicate that Mr. Gates' door had been damaged by an earlier break-in, one that Mr. Gates himself reported; it was this door that Mr. Gates himself was trying to enter forcibly because it was still damaged. A neighbor saw this; a policeman responded. (Other reports have indicated that Mr. Gates' neighborhood had seen a recent increase in daytime burglaries.)

Mr. Obama, have you ever responded to a burglary in progress? Had you ever spent any REAL time on America's streets, you would have known what was going through Sgt. Crowley's heart and head as he pulled up to Mr. Gates' lovely home. Sgt. Crowley was, for all he knew, stepping into a life-threatening situation. And what does he find? An ungrateful, abusive, caustic man who accuses him -- in front of eyewitnesses -- of being a racist, a bigot. Perhaps this was easy for Mr. Gates because he knew he was in greater Boston talking to a cop named Crowley.

But that Mr. Gates should have chosen belligerence when he is such a high-brow intellectual is simply dumbfounding. And it must have bewildered the good sergeant. But surely you have the capacity, don't you, to see that Mr. Gates' identity is irrelevant to his disorderly conduct? Just because Mr. Gates PROVED he was the owner of the home it does not follow that he should not have been arrested, as your statements implied. After all, even someone as steeped in law as you allegedly are MUST know disorderly conduct could EASILY HAPPEN AFTER Mr. Gates proved he was the homeowner and not some hapless criminal. Surely you MUST know that countless people have been arrested after traffic stops of alleged stolen vehicles; when the drivers have proven that the vehicle is NOT STOLEN, they still have been arrested for disorderly conduct, failure to obey a police officer, and so on.

No doubt Mr. Gates escalated things; one can see it from the photographs taken at the scene. Of course, it is quite possible he was provoked. OK. Let's stipulate that he was. Does that give him license to act like a lunatic? Does that give him license to resist the police or turn abusive and unruly? I think you should know that the law does not permit him to act like an ass if the police act like asses first.

But, and here's the point: BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION you DO NOT know what transpired in Mr. Gates' home, and thus you should have said NOTHING. Sorry. But you even admitted that you were a "friend" of Mr. Gates; that you were biased. Doesn't a REAL president in such circumstances deliberately and thoughtfully choose silence rather than take sides or inflame a situation that has been nearly extinguished? The answer is yes, a REAL president chooses silence. Yes, a REAL president does defend the rule of law. And a FRIEND of the alleged victim would choose to recuse himself from making public comment, particularly when that friend is the presumptive chief law enforcement officer in the United States, and thus is also assumed to be a friend of every police officer on the job.

You may think that because the Cambridge police department dropped the charge of disorderly conduct against Mr. Gates that charge was unwarranted. But we are not so stupid. Those of us with REAL street credibility know how the game is played: people who in the strictest technical sense deserve to be charged with a crime frequently find those charges dropped. You know this, or you should know this. Moreover, dropped charges do not imply innocence of those initially charged, nor does it even NECESSARILY imply that a case against the alleged perpetrator could not be successfully tried in a court of law.

And what were you thinking when you said that you did not know "all the facts" and yet went on to speculate on the incident, even to the point of getting the facts you said you did not know so dreadfully wrong?

Lastly, your conspicuous use of the words "jimmy" and "jigger" were in rather poor taste, don't you think (and are, at least phonetically, racially insinuative)?

If it is true, as I have heard, that you vetted the questions you would be asked before your press conference tonight, then your reckless and injudicious remarks were premeditated. Is this the BEST we can expect from you? If so, you really have no right being in the White House.

Someone should show up at your house and ask you for proof that you know who and what you really are.

(Sorry. I don't mean to be so insensitive.)

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.