A Perfect Example Of Petty Political Corruption In 2015.

Link: Mayorkas and Rodham Deny Wrongdoing

There are times that I glance over the domestic news and giggle, and then there are times that I'm left feeling discouraged.  Today is one of those days in which I'm red-ass pissed off.  I'm not so much angry that another flock of Democrats have been caught abusing their office for political or personal gain, I'm angry because there never seems to be any recourse.  This particular scenario, involving Department of Homeland Security No. 2 Alejandro Mayorkas, is so obvious in its abuse that Politico, never known to be an enemy to the left side of the aisle, provided my link today.  As the link details, Mayorkas was busted because of an internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security Investigator-General.  Actually, the issue here involves two individuals.  Mayorkas, who involved himself in Virginia Governor's efforts to win federal funding for a fledgling electric car company called GreenTech Automotive.  When Mayorkas was Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (he has since been promoted to Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security), his department controlled the investment-based program known as EB-5.  Initially, officials working in Citizenship and Immigration Services, denied a regional center's application to receive EB-5 funding to manufacture electric cars.  Mayorkas intervened, reversing the original denial.  Now we discover that Virginia Governor and Democrat bigwig Terry McAuliffe had invested in GreenTech's little electric cars.  To cut to the chase, Mayorkas abused his authority as Director of the EB-5 program to reverse a decision made by his staff, in order to protect the financial investment of a fellow Democrat.  Since Barrack Obama was elected in 2008, how many abuses of this nature have been exposed?  We can start with the IRS, which was politicized in a manner not seen in a century in the federal government.  "Anyone that gives money to Conservative Groups, especially the Tea Parties, can expect an audit".  I wasn't there to hear it, but I'm fairly confident that the previous statement was made by Lois Lerner.

I'm not going to waste this post on revisiting all the shenanigans of the Obama Administration.  I won't close this commentary, though, until I've had the chance to introduce you to Tony Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother.  You see, Tony ran an EB-5 visa investment known as Gulf Coast Funds Management, which, coincidentally, directed funds to the above-mentioned GreenTech.  Hillary Clinton just happened to be Secretary of State during the time that Gulf Coast Funds Management and GreenTech were pressing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (and Director Alejandro Mayorkas) for approvals to accept investments that could lead to green cards for foreigners willing to pay more than $550,000 in principal and fees.  When Tony Rodham decided to get involved in this venture, what was he thinking?  Was he pondering how nice it is to support research into alternative energy?  Or was he thinking, I am make an investment that can't lose, because the funds are guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayer, thanks to my connections.  Well, if he was thinking the latter, he was correct.  The folks who are the veterans at U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, who know the job better than anyone, recognized that GreenTech was a loser and did the right thing by denying their application for funding.  Here comes well-placed Alejandro Mayorkas to smooth everything over for both McAuliffe and Rodham.  This particular favor probably had a lot to do with his subsequent promotion to Deputy Secretary.

Now lets get to what really pisses me off.  During the Obama Administration, the federal government was purposely seeded with political appointees who have no business being where they are.  they don't have the knowledge or the experience to be sitting in their offices.  They received positions based upon their loyalty to the Democratic Party and nothing else.  Now passing out political favors is nothing new, and Republicans have done it as well.  But until 2008, both parties limited this type of largess to the occasional Ambassadorship.  Washington DC in 2015 reminds me of South Africa.  In South Africa, it is virtually impossible to find a government ministry that is not flooded at the managerial level by ANC members.  And its very frustrating for the political opposition because so many important investigations into government fraud and corruption get whitewashed.  Sound familiar, folks?  When was the last time you heard anyone resigning from this Administration? The Modus Operandi of the Obama Administration is to deny, defend your fellow Democrats, don't give an inch, wait for the smoke to clear, and get your promotion.  One of the more entertaining examples of this type of behavior involves New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez.  Senator Menendez has deflected accusations of an interesting variety in the last decade, including reports that he "partied with" underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, and that he wasn't disclosing private gifts as required by law.  While Senator Menendez was behaving like a good Democrat (from a powerful state), and voting the right way, the Obama Administration kept Menendez safe.  But once Menendez expressed his disagreement with Obama over Cuba and also over these "cloak and dagger" negotiations with Iran over the Nuclear issue, he has been thrown to the dogs.  Poor Bob can expect all sorts of FBI inquiries, because that's how business is done.  Its one of the traditions Obama transplanted from Chicago.  Once you have the authority, do everything you can to make sure you never lose that power.  Step one is to fill every vacancy with a political selection, regardless of qualifications.  And the recent promotion of Alejandro Mayorkas to the second-highest job at Homeland Security, even while he was being accused by his own Investigator General of unethical behavior and abuse of authority, is a perfect example of petty political corruption in 2015.    

When Did Christianity Become So Unfashionable?

Link: Wikipedia on Religion in the United States.


(Before reading the post today, please keep in mind that what I write is solely my opinion.  It is not my intention to inflame, or aggravate, any person who holds opposing viewpoints.  If you have difficulty with the idea of a pluralistic society and freedom of expression for all, then maybe you should stop reading this and go pick up last month's issue of Mother Jones.  Cheers.)

I have always been fascinated by the need to portray every U.S. presidential candidate as a "devout church-going Christian".  When I was just a boy, I decided (a bit prematurely, it turns out) that as soon as I was an adult, I would quit going to church because it was so "boring".  Then I see these guys, fighting tooth and nail to be president, making a show of their absolute thrill of being in church, at least as long as the camera was rolling.  I have to give credit where its due: President Barrack Obama doesn't pretend to be a churchgoer.  He is our first president to not attend church (except on those annoying important days, like Christmas and Easter).  If there is one thing that really pisses me off, its affectation.  I don't believe that people should do things just for appearances sake.  If Obama doesn't agree or appreciate what is being expressed on the pulpit, then he should just head to a Golf Course somewhere (no reason to waste the day).  I do have a bone to pick with the president when it comes to religion, though.  As much as I appreciate his candidness today, where was that candor for the past twenty years?  The Obamas were regular attendees at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and they had the unique opportunity of hearing Reverend Jeremiah Wright speak every Sunday.  In fact, Reverend Wright baptized both of Obama's daughters.  I'm sure everyone remembers the controversy regarding Reverend Wright and his sermons, which regularly included hateful lectures directed at white people.  And we're not referencing just a few sermons.  Reverend Wright believes that white people purposely enslave blacks in America, and he considers the USA to be rotten at the core.  President Obama claimed that during the almost two decades that he attended Rev. Wright's church, he couldn't recall ever hearing that kind of message.  Interestingly enough, others who attended during the same time period, couldn't recall ever NOT hearing that kind of message.  So this is my observation: President Obama does not feel the need to attend church regularly now that he's in the oval office.  We can assume his daughters will receive whatever religious instruction the Obamas, as parents, believe is appropriate.  Obama attended church in Chicago.  He doesn't attend anymore, now that he lives in the White House.  Let me explain the difference between Chicago and DC.

President Obama is not a closest Muslim, although many Red-Staters chose to believe otherwise.  If Obama is a Muslim in hiding, he's in trouble.  Remember, Muslims have five obligations that stick around for life.  I have yet to see Obama pull out the prayer rug, and say a prayer in the direction of Mecca five times a day (Salat), and I think any diet choices because of Ramadan would have been detected.  In fact, I don't believe that Obama is a Christian, either.  He might be.  Most self-identified Christians no longer attend services on Sunday, so its possible that the Obamas fit into that group.   Personally, I don't buy it.  If anything, Barrack Obama is religious about his politics.  He wants badly to affect change in our society, because he views our country as terribly flawed.  He continued to attend Rev. Wright's sermons because the good Rev. Wright wasn't actually preaching about religion.  He was demagoguing about social justice and political action.  Obama has no problem attending religious events and ceremonies as a speaker, because he can control the message he is delivering.  And the line between religion and social justice is fine indeed......if it exists at all.

I have a number of great friends who are Mormon.  I also have friends who are Methodists and others who are Lutheran.  I recently met an amazing young man named Kevin who I'm convinced will one day be President himself, and Kevin is a regular, church-going Baptist.  Just in regular conversation, I learned that each of these Christian denominations are active overseas, working to feed people, build homes and vaccinate children.  And I don't believe for one second that their assistance is contingent upon a Baptism Ceremony.  I am referring to people who have accepted the truly rewarding obligation of helping others.  As a Roman Catholic who has spent a bit of time researching the Holy See, I am aware of the countless outreach efforts that the Catholic Church sponsors.  You will find Priests feeding the hungry and treating the wounded in Syria, and you will find Nuns burying the deceased and treating the sick in Ebola-ravaged Sierra Leone.  No one has a monopoly on philanthropy.  But I find the approach from the U.S. government to be confusing.  When George W. Bush was in office, the government went out of its way to assist private charities and aid organizations, regardless of religious affiliation (if any).  Bush made it a hallmark of his presidency to encourage young people to return to volunteer work.  I'm curious if Peace Corps numbers increased during the Bush years;  I'll check and get back to you.  In 2015, the Obama Administration continues to encourage people to volunteer resources and time, but anything with a religious tag needs to be avoided.  I understand that it can be a slippery slope.  If the US government works with one religious charity but choses not to work with another (possibly because it presented fraudulent documents, etc.), then Uncle Sam can be accused of playing "religious favorites".  But the avoidance of all things religious goes way beyond charity or the First Amendment.  I used to live in DC, and recently I returned to visit a friend.  We set aside two days to visit the White House and the Capital Building.  In fact, we did the loop; we started at the White House, walked to the Lincoln Memorial, around to the Washington Monument, hopped across 15th Street, up past the Smithsonian and on to the reflecting pool and the Capital Building.  I love DC so much and I recommend it for tourists unreservedly.  But something has changed about the Capital.  Religion has disappeared completely.  You won't see a mention anywhere.  It was a Sunday, and I couldn't find anyone who appeared to be either on their way, or returning from, church services.  I heard no bells ringing, and no historic tours with a religious theme at any of the museums.

I can't say, in good conscience, that religion has become unfashionable.  Au Contraire.  Its cool to pop into a Hindu Temple and educate yourself a bit, and Buddhism can be fascinating as well.  Linguists teaching Arabic are a valuable commodity in DC, as young diplomats at Foggy Bottom and young diplomats in-training at Georgetown University buy up all the Barnes & Noble copies of "The Idiot's Guide to Islam".  But Christianity is, like, yesterday's religion: a bit stale, old-fashioned, and boring.  Please don't quote me.  This is what I assume is going on in the minds of twenty-somethings nowadays.  And our president manages to be the most uber-cool of all.  he goes on Jimmy Kimmel, he makes out a NCAA basketball bracket, and he no longer goes to church.  The truth is, America is changing, and its not Barrack Obama's fault  In fact, if you're a Christian, you have to have faith that all of this scary, bad news fits into His plan somehow.  Before 2008, the United States still seemed determined to find its own way, and let others follow.  Now its 2015, and we are right in step behind Europe, which is exactly where the Progressives like Obama believe we should be -BEHIND Europe, not leading, but following.  When I think of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the United States over the past six years, I almost lose my breath.  The number of folks who are dependent on Washington DC for everything, from food to wiping their ass, has skyrocketed.  And if you try and motivate people to do for themselves, you are a cruel, racist, hater.  Our military is shrinking, and veterans continue to have trouble finding appropriate medical care.  I have to say that the disappearance of Christianity from everyday life has coincided with a host of bad news.  Its high-time we embrace the simple message in that statement, and turn this ship around.

Just A Sign Of The Times......

Link: Did Obama Threaten To Shoot Down Israeli Warplanes?


Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us.  For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable.  When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me.  It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed.  When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old.  Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty?  She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old.  So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate.  But my age is immaterial to this post.  Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic.  How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway?  Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven.  Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect.  Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary.  Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet.  I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way.  Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted.  I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut.  What a circus. 

Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us.  I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term.  My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing.  If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars?  Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin.  The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements.  The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen.  Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability.  There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave.  I can't think of anything more un-American.  But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran.  Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.?  Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign?  But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed.  President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second.  Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.

Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors.  But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo.  Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action.  We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well.  What have we become?  And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time?  I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate.  Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children?  I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke.  I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency.  Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal.  Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction. 

Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions.  His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams.  The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow.  Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone.  By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people.  he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.  The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake.  Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error.  In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me.  But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years.   The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama.  This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary).  I guess its all just a sign of the times......  

Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part I)

Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
           B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?

If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected.  I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective.  And that, basically, is what the blog means to me.  It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world.  Now my perspective is biased by definition.  I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences.  But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country.  But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France.  That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints.  One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS).  I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important.  The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations.  We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K).  Both links are well-written and ideally sourced.  I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information.  But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise.  I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts.  And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.

Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  I see many similarities.  The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently.  The history of the AQ movement begs to differ.  AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value.  AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan.  I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom.  Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception.  Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will.  Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!).  I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States.  President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time.  Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard.  He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally.  He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere.  I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner.  But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game.  But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct.  in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received.  Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq.  Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism.  He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy).  If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige.  First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network.  Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place.  The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri.  Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact.  As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous.  Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization.  I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has.  What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.

Rudy Giuliani's comments...too abrasive and disrespectful for a public leader?

Links: A. Giuliani's Comments About President Obama
           B. Opposition to Giuliani

Well, we should've seen this one coming.  From 2000 until 2008, politics in the United States suffered through an infusion of hatred and personal vitriol that was bound to set a precedent.
Its the same point I make to defender's of President Obama's use of Executive Authority:  if you let a poisonous snake loose in a small room with you and your enemy, chances are, if you handled the release properly, that your opponent is going to get bit.  But after he's finished with your enemy, then that same snake is coming for you.  The accusations hurled at president Bush before, during, and after Operation Enduring Freedom, sit clearly in my memory.  What is the worst accusation to toss at someone?  I think "babykiller, murderer" etc. rise to the top of the list, but some of the more traditional names, like "misongynist, homophobe, and racist" still pack a punch.  President George W. Bush was called these names on a regular basis, not to mention "despot, and election thief".  The comments that bothered me the most were the accusations of "murderer".  If President Bush was a murderer, then by proxy, so were our troops in the field.  Some of the comments made, in particular by members of the Black Congressional Caucus, crippled the tone of civility in Washington DC.  Four days ago, Rudy Giuliani, in a speech at a private fund-raiser, opined that President Barrack Obama did not love the United States.  When he was approached later and asked about his comments, he didn't hide or back away; he didn't use semantic games about the true meaning of certain words.  He frankly and honestly repeated his original opinion.  And since then, he has been castigated in a worthy example of typical liberal hypocrisy. 

When Howard Dean, or Bill Maher, or Debbie Schultz-Wasserman decide to spew personal insults, we must have thicker skin, and appreciate their candor.  Rudy Giuliani didn't insult anyone, unless you believe that saying someone doesn't love their country is an insult.  And that, my friends, is a matter of opinion.  I know Americans who are proud of their lack of love for the United States and its history and traditions.  During the Iraq War, we watched a decent-sized group of protesters set up shop outside of President Bush's Ranch, and chant all day long about the evilness of "imperialist Amerika".  And what about that nasty, filthy, lazy, stoned mobbed of freaks that called themselves the "Occupy Wall Street" movement; did you listen to their diatribe?  The United States was barely, just barely less offensive than Nazi Germany on their list of bad guys.  Lets not forget that many on the Left, including some members of Congress who are feigning "shock", supported this gathering of human filth.  Since we do live in a free society, and our young men and women continue to this very moment to put their lives at risk to defend our freedom to have differing opinions, its legal to hate the United States.  And that particular protection of the law extends to the protesters in New York City.  It extends to me, and to the office of the President as well.

Personally, I would not have made such a comment at an event with so much media coverage.  I understand that he's entitled to express his opinion, but why piss off people in that particular time?  I don't believe that the venue was an ideal place for someone of Giuliani's stature to make that controversial of a comment.  But I'm probably about to make the same mistake.  I agree with Giuliani; I don't believe that President Barrack Obama loves the United States of America, at least not the USA of which I am familiar.  I don't make that comment to piss off people, and I'm happy to explain myself (another problem of Giuliani's: for a former successful Prosecutor, his seems to have completely lost the ability to make a convincing argument).  I believe that when President Obama creates a mental image of the United States, it is dominated by visions of dead American-Indians and Reservations, unlimited and ecologically crippling industrial complexes, Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II, Africans being chained and inhumanely transported to North America to be slave labor, marches of the Civil Rights Era, and efforts by Segregationists to deny racial equality.  He would be correct to include these images, as long as he was also including the advances and discoveries in transportation and farming, the abolition of slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment, the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers in two costly World Wars, the inventions of the automobile, airplane, television, radio and incubator, Satellite technology, the creation of president Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations and the sponsorship of the United Nations, landing on the Moon, microchip research, the rebuilding of Europe and Asia following the World Wars, and the creation of a Constitution that still to this day, is the most important representative legislation that the world has yet seen.  No doubt, I've excluded many unpleasant and shameful events that were caused or defended by one U.S. government or another (the USS Maine comes to mind, as do the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments), just as I've skipped over the greater part of contributions to society that were delivered by the United States and U.S. citizens.  But its not my job to record either list; there are plenty of academics who never tire of just such work.

I believe that President Obama strongly supports monumental changes to our government, our social structure, and our foreign affairs.  In my opinion, President Obama sees the current status quo, the existing government structure, organizations, agencies, and our military history of intervention in support of Democracy, to be the reason why equality and racism still exist in the United States.  He believes that a wholesale change is needed, not just in attitude but in the way we go about our business.  Obama sees the United States as an international bully, determined to stamp our brand of political and social advancement onto the Third World.  This was the argument of the hippy, anti-war, counter-culture movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and also happens to be the environment in which Obama was raised.  His parents were both quite intelligent and dedicated; they were also proud Socialists.  As a teenager, when Obama wasn't getting stoned, he was exposed to a regular conveyor belt of academic, anti-American elitist types, including Assata Shakur and Bill Ayers.  No doubt he became familiar with his father's political manifesto, which reads like a guide to violent revolution like nobody's business.  I am mystified as to how this country twice elected to the Presidency someone with so many unanswered questions and affiliations.  To be frank, we also voted for someone whose only job experience was as a "community organizer", a lecturer, and a politicians.  The nation was suffering from serious Bush-fatigue.  Even the most hardened Red Stater was tired of looking at Bush's shit-eating grin. 

I use the words "shocked", and "mystified", and "surprised", but at the end of the day, it takes something special to really leave me scratching my head.  Reverend Jeremiah Wright was more than special.  Private citizen Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's Chicago congregation.  Illinois State Senator Obama was a member of Wright's congregation, as was Barrack Obama, father of two beautiful little girls, a member of Wright's church.  The Obama's had their children baptized by Reverend Wright.  We've all heard the sermons, including the "God Damn the United States" comment, which was repeated on a number of occasions.  During his tenure as Reverend, Wright regularly politicized the pulpit to a degree seldom seen in a basically secularized nation.  Every sermon was connected in some way to the idea that white people continued to enslave and brutalize the African American community.  The Police Department is racist, and the local, state and federal governments are all designed to keep the Black man without hope or opportunity.  I'm repeating some of the less-profane comments made by Reverend Wright.  And all the while, barrack Obama continued to attend service with his wife and two children.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would expose their children to such garbage, but they Obamas came back, almost regularly but often enough to be considered members of the congregation.  When the story broke in the media, all Obama had to say was that he didn't pay attention when Wright started preaching about race issues, and that either he respectfully disagreed with Wright, or that he didn't notice any of the offensive rhetoric.  All I wanted was for Obama to admit that he was present, but that he renounced Wright's inflammatory and racist comments.  I waited in vain.

Rudy Giuliani is being labeled a racist in many circles because of his comments.  In Europe in particular, one does not speak ill of Barrack Obama.  Any criticism is a clear indication of latent racist tendencies.  Rudy Giuliani's career is a clear indicator that the man does not differentiate by race.  But legitimate criticisms of the Obama Administration usually end up in this corner of the boxing ring; its the usual location for KOs.  If a criticism or an unfavorable portrayal of Obama survives the first few attempts by the sycophants and the main stream media to render them inert, then racist card is played.  Obama has encouraged this type of labeling, and the result is that race relations in the United States are at their worst point since the 1960s. 

In this post, I've dropped the gauntlet on the Obama Administration.  I really don't like to inject partisan politics into the blog.  No doubt, that is exactly what I have done with this post.  I avoid getting political because I've learned that my chance of changing someone's opinions regarding politics are basically zero-to-none.  This generation of Americans does not like to admit being wrong; a change in political perspective is exactly that.  An admission that you made a mistake, but that now you see things more clearly.  In my lifetime, people were more comfortable with accepting a mistake in the voting booth.  I remember once watching Reverend Pat Robertson on a news broadcast at McDonald's, waiting for my number to be called, when the stranger standing next to me said, "and to think I voted for that religious bigot.  I'm so glad he didn't win (the nomination)".  I know a number of folks who admit that their vote for Ross Perot, who never had a legitimate hope of winning, was a mistake.  And how many Jimmy Carter voters regret their decision? But in 2015, admitting that you made a bad political decision is considered an indication of ignorance. So people will stick to their choices until the bitter end, looking for any wild, hair-brained conspiracy theory to explain why their candidate was busted "in flagrante delicto" with a transsexual prostitute in the bushes of Central Park.  People don't want to admit that maybe Obama was not the best choice (in either instance).  Another huge issue is the concern regarding the legacy of the Office of the Presidency.  Almost every American, especially yours truly, wanted the first African-American President to be a success.  The reality is quite different, unfortunately.  Our economy is wheezing in fits and starts, our employment numbers are way past the point of alarm, we've doubled the national debt in six years and have nothing to show for it, who knows what will become of Obamacare, our veterans are treated disgracefully by their own government, and our foreign policy, on a good day, is rudderless.  The last six years have not been a success, but it has about as much to do with President Obama's skin color as it does with Rudy Giuliani's shiny bald head: not a damn thing.  Barrack Obama is an extremely intelligent, hard-working man who obviously adores his family.  I just believe, like Rudy Giuliani, that he doesn't love the United States as it is today.