Many of you will recall the almost shrill alarm in the voices of some who were extremely concerned about many of Barack Obama’s friends and associates. Also about the lack of any kind of history; nobody knew any more about Obama than his handlers wanted them to know. Such as who were his friends in those ‘blacked-out’ years? Where did he live during those years? Did he work to support himself? Was he a member of any groups or clubs? Was he involved in politics, school or otherwise? To whom does he owe allegiance?

            Those who interview or interrogate people for a living will tell you that when the individual with whom they are talking or about whom they are trying to learn gives intricate details of his activities for a certain period of time and then sort of glosses over other parts, it is that ‘glossed-over’ part that grabs your attention. That person doesn’t want to talk about that period of his life, and there is always a good reason that he is reluctant to do so. 

            In years past, that sort of omission or lack of content concerning Obama’s past would have incited the interest in a press out to protect the American people. They would have been frothing at the mouth to discover what that individual was trying to hide. Present-day media people seem entirely disinterested. I wonder why?

            There was the eighteen to twenty years that Obama sat under the often vitriolic preaching of his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Is there no curiosity as to how much Obama was effected by that often vicious, anti-white, anti-American preaching? Is it possible to sit and listen to a man with whom you have bitter disagreements (we learned of those disagreements somewhat belatedly, to be sure)? Maybe he did not go along with all he heard in that church, but there could not have been significant differences between what Wright preached and Obama believed, for wide disparity them would surely have resulted in a deep and rancorous rift between those two strong personalities—before April of 2008.

            How about Obama’s association with self-confessed bomber William Ayers? Ayers, a member of the anti-American Weather Underground, made his home available to Obama for the announcement of the his initial foray into politics, his run for the Illinois House of Representatives. In addition, the two of them served together on more than one board where decisions were made as to how charitable funds were to be distributed. One of the things funded by a charity called the Annenberg Challenge was the Chicago school system. In order to qualify for those funds, applicants had to come up with a futuristic, different, dynamic approach to education. Now, with Barack Obama on the Board of Directors for the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago (1995-99) and William Ayers a founding member of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (1995 - ?), the curriculum introduced in some Chicago schools had a heavy emphasis upon racial matters and a revisionist history that was very critical of the United States. Ask yourself honestly whether a patriotic American, with aspirations for the Presidency, could hold his own country in such low regard that he could have any part of such a program. 

            By the way, Mr. Obama said that the crimes of which Ayers had been accused occurred when Obama was only a child, and Obama had nothing to do with it. Oh, and hasn’t Ayers apologized for those things? (No, he has not. And Jack the Ripper’s acts occurred before Mr. Obama was born. I wonder whether Mr. Ripper apologized for his crimes? Apparently, that would have made those grisly murders acceptable). 

            Then there was Tony Rezco, soon to be serving time in a penitentiary for fraud and other crimes. Rezco was a supporter of Obama, holding events to raise money for his candidate and contributing considerable resources himself to that candidacy. Rezco also took a very large loss on a house and lot he helped to secure for the Obamas. The Obamas then sold a partial lot next to their newly-acquired home to Rezco for a good deal more than the property was appraised. By the way, the plot (no pun intended) was too small to qualify as a construction site for another home. Why did Rezco want that useless piece of land? Do you think he expected no return on his investment?

            Do you begin to see a pattern here? Many of Obama’s known associates are, shall we say, ethically challenged or anti-American—or both. Having one of these people—Wright, Ayers or Rezco—as an associate might be an accident of their having just been thrown together. Two such associates could possibly be a long-odds coincidence. But three, and quite probably many more unsavory associates? What are the chances that so many of the people with whom one is closely associated would just happen to be anti-American, anti-white, crooked—or all of the above? I’d say the odds against that occurring by sheer chance are astronomical. That is, unless the man with whom they are allied is of a similar mindset.

            We are told that Mr. Obama’s experience as a Community Organizer gave him the requisite experience to be President of the United States. What is a Community Organizer? One of the first to dedicate himself to that profession was a man named Saul Alinsky. Like Obama, nobody was ever really interested in defining the things that made Alinsky tick. Alinsky himself stated that he would work with Communists, Socialists—it made no difference to him—as long as he could accomplish his goals. Alinsky defined Community Organizing as finding something that the community is angry about. If they are not angry about anything, find something to make them angry, and then organize that anger and the people you can persuade to be angry into a group of agitators. Then agitate for “reform” by staging sit-ins, disrupting civic and private business meetings, demonstrating against perceived wrongs and demanding that the leaders against whom you are railing address your ‘grievances’. Alinsky found that many civic and business leaders had a low threshold for pain and annoyance, and thus found them routinely acquiescing to his demands—as one man described it, they ‘folded like a cheap shirt in a hot wash’.

            Obama learned while he was a Community Organizer that a petitioner must not go to the authorities with his hat in his hand. No, he must make bold demands, and criticize, ridicule and castigate the authorities if they do not accede to those “reasonable demands.”   And keep the pressure on.

            If you are uninformed about Wade Rathke and the National Welfare Rights Organization, you owe it to yourself to find out about that group and that man. There is abundant information on the internet, where it remains hidden from our TV and newspaper media.  Rathke, who organized the welfare recipients and the ‘working poor’ into the first ACORN Chapter (then the Arkansas Community Organizers for Reform Now), later also founded the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose headquarters is in New Orleans. Is it coincidence that these two entities (ACORN and SEIU) share a building that serves as a clearing house for hundreds of millions of dollars received from radical donors and institutions from all over the United States and the world? There are limited to no records maintained as to where this money comes from or how it is spent. You could get long odds against any of it going to conservative causes, however.  We have no idea how many "charities" or philanthropic foundations have been hijacked by liberal attorneys and converted to support of radical causes.

            Perhaps you have noticed another pattern: almost all the groups with which President Obama was associated prior to his ascendancy to political prominence probably considered themselves to be poor, disaffected and disenfranchised. That, in and of itself, should not be a disqualifier for a man with national political ambitions; those associations might be viewed as admirable, even honorable. However, there is no information extant to which voters have access to date that would substantiate the contention of Mr. Obama that he has the necessary broad experience a President should have, along with a demonstrated ability to care for others outside the poor and the disenfranchised, and a concern for the welfare of ALL the people of the United States. Those attributes would seem to be a requisite for election to the office of President of the United States.

            Mr. Obama has denied that he is a Socialist. But if you have an uneasy feeling that the President’s actions to ‘stem the recession’ (that he has in the past insisted is the ‘worst financial crisis since the great depression’) are very similar to the actions one would take if his goal was the complete destruction of America’s economy, don’t let anything I say dissuade you from that idea. Will these policies succeed in stemming the recession, or will they bankrupt America? I believe that the latter is much more likely, perhaps inevitable. Is it the desire of President Obama to bring our country to ruin? In my estimation, it may still be too early to make that call.  It is NOT too early for serious discussion, concern and plans to overturn the results of his disastrous policies.        

If you hated this country and were looking for ways to diminish it, punish it or absolutely destroy it—what would you do?

            Among the things you might do is to discontinue this country’s War on Terror. Never mind that the terrorists (oops, we can’t call them that anymore) who won’t quit fighting; we can unilaterally stand down. How? We can begin by refusing to even acknowledge that what we have been engaged in since 2003 is really a war on terror but is instead is only “An Overseas Contingency Operation.” We could follow that up by closing down the prison where those who have been captured in the act of killing or attempting to kill Americans have been held. We can put those “lawbreakers” in with the rest of the criminals doing time in our prisons in mainland America, where they will have access to an inexhaustible number of disaffected people with a penchant for violence. They will be able to recruit Jihadists to their heart’s content.

            We can hang on in Afghanistan for a few more months, and then acquiesce to the tremendous pressure to get out of an unpopular war that is none of our business. Pull our troops out of Iraq early, as we have persuaded their Prime Minister to request, and that war will also end up in abject failure.

            You could then set out on a witch hunt to find an punish those individuals who following, the advice of the Justice Department and legal advisors of that day, elicited information from captive terrorists by employing methods that, in retrospect, our new Presidential administration deems “illegal.” You can make certain that these methods of interrogation, whether they were successful, are never used again—and assure any future enemies that they will not be placed in any discomfort upon capture. You can ignore the fact that such a witch hunt as described above will destroy morale and the effectiveness of the organization charged with the responsibility of gathering information to keep our country safe.

            Another thing that you might do is devise a means of increasing this country’s debt many-fold, under the guise of lifting us out of a terrible depression. The debts thus accrued can never be paid back, and might well lead to insolvency for the entire nation, and eventual bankruptcy. For added measure, you could increase the already onerous tax burden upon this country’s working-class citizens and small businesses, thereby destroying incentives to achieve and prosper. To further exacerbate the lack of incentives, devise a program to redistribute the wealth by taking from the producers and giving that largesse to the non-producers. This is guaranteed to worsen the already acute problem of wealth and class envy. In a subtle way, using the government to distribute ‘charity’ (welfare of all stripes) removes the personal involvement in that process that each of us need not now experience. We will remove from public discourse any references to personal and family responsibility for ourselves and our progeny.

            Someone wishing ill to America could travel all over the world making abject apologies on behalf of this country fro every ill known to man, real or imaginary, whether America had anything to do with creating the problem(s). One could refuse to say anything positive about America, either on foreign soil or at home. This would reduce pride in our country and its accomplishments, and hopefully make America susceptible to suggestions that she should become just like all those wonderful European countries that are far more sophisticated, civil and urbane than upstart America. Why should we talk about America’s special gifts, talents, contributions and wealth? There’s nothing so special about this country.

            We could announce that we are no longer seeking and drilling for oil in America, that we do not wish to drill off-shore (we do not want to interfere with the Cubans and Chinese, who ARE drilling off our shores!), nor do we want to drill for oil in those pristine northern reaches of Alaska, where there is a vast pool of oil. We will not allow drilling to be done in the mountain west, where there are proven oil reserves that would satisfy all this country’s projected needs for fifty years. No, we will instead say we are going to develop alternative means of fueling our factories, running our cars and heating our homes. That way, those nations who have oil (most of which do not like America) can charge us whatever they wish for their product, and we will have no choice but to pay that price—until we get our alternative sources up and running say, in 2030 or so.

            One other initiative we could… well, abandon, in this instance… is the missile shield that we had agreed to erect in Poland and Czechoslovakia to help protect those countries from the possibility of attack by the rogue nation of Iran. That will accomplish two or three things. Number one, it will relieve us of the onerous responsibility of having friends in Eastern Europe. These countries are not important, anyway. Secondly, the shield we were set to erect is not as good as the one we will have ready in 2018, so why waste time putting in a system that will only have to be replaces in nine or ten years? This makes the United States much more vulnerable to a missile attack by Iran and Russia—at least, or coastal area of the eastern United States, but everybody has to pay a price for hope and change.

            Let’s see—you insult all your friends (England, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Germany, Georgia, etc.) and praise what were once your enemies (terrorists in Palestine, terrorist Muslims the world over, Hugo Chavez, etc.) and keep telling Americans, “There is no such thing as a bad Muslim; they are only misunderstood. We are not at war with them.”

            That should pretty well do it.

Somebody please help me to understand the liberal concept of what is and is not acceptable in times of crisis. In a recent piracy of an American-flagged cargo ship (that eventuated in the Captain of that vessel offering himself as a hostage so that the rest of his crew and the ship were freed), the President and our United States military decided that the Captain’s safety were of “paramount importance”. Fine. I can’t disagree with that approach.

            The Captain was being held by four of the pirates. One of the four gave up, and left the lifeboat where the other three were holding the Captain. When the opportunity presented itself, three U S Navy Seals blew large holes in the heads of those three pirates remaining. Boom! The Captain is free, and the United States, its President and Congress all basked in the glow of victory, the word being put out that the President himself gave the orders to “take them out”. I rejoiced along with them. It seemed the perfect way for that crisis to end.

            Now, the Congress is shedding great crocodile tears because some of our nasty CIA interrogators placed three Gitmo detainees (same number of ‘victims’ as in the piracy incident) under ‘duress’ for a maximum of forty seconds at a time. Thank goodness those three pirates were saved from the ‘torture’ of having to undergo the duress to which those detainees were subjected! The three men at Gitmo were ‘water-boarded’, a process that simulates drowning—indeed, the one undergoing the treatment perhaps believes he is drowning; he fears for his life—for a maximum of forty seconds. There are medical personnel present at each water-boarding incident to ensure that the person does not drown. Each of the three men who experienced this terrifying event is still alive and well.

            Would it be appropriate to mention here that many of our own Special Forces people are water-boarded as a part of their training to assist them in building a strong defense against the kind of pressures an enemy might put them under in order to solicit information from them in the event of their capture? Many, many of our own military personnel have attended Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school (SERE) where most if not all of them undergo water-boarding. No casualties reported to date. If this sort of treatment does constitute torture, why does our military force their own people to endure such a thing? Really, I don’t think the military has to coerce these Special Forces people to submit to water-boarding. These are some of America’s finest, toughest fighting men. Let me stress again that to my knowledge, no person that has been water-boarded by American military or CIA personnel has died as a result of the treatment. Certainly, if we are going to stop the process of water-boarding our enemies, should we not also stop water-boarding our own people? 

            Or are our enemies in this struggle that we can no longer bring ourselves to call a ‘war on terror’ entitled to better treatment than that afforded our own military personnel? That question is not rhetorical if one accepts the likely premise that a large segment of the liberal left-wing in our country is decidedly anti-American—or at least, they do not like the America that the founding fathers conceived and constructed; the one conservatives respect and love. 

            Our President, on his many trips abroad, has told friend and foe alike, ad nauseam, that most of the things that have gone wrong in the world are the fault of the United States. We are arrogant, we are dismissive and occasionally derisive towards the rest of the world, he has informed them, and we have completely ignored the fact that the Europeans have made many more contributions to civilization than has the upstart USA.

            To be fair, the President did say that a few Europeans are somewhat anti-American, but taken in context with the rest of his statements it is fair to assume that he believes that attitude is quite understandable and acceptable.   I’m certain that Mr. Obama has said some positive things about America during his overseas trips, but these were omitted by a press committed to spreading Obama’s message of apology and negativity.

            This missive will be read by few people, and would be completely ignored if it did enjoy wider circulation, but I would like to go on record that I wish to exclude myself from the profuse apologies Mr. Obama has proffered. I do not apologize to the French, the British, the Germans, the Polish people, the people of Belgium. In fact, it is my firm conviction that it is unnecessary for Americans to apologize to any nation in the world!   So all of you who have accepted Mr. Obama’s apologies, please discount them by at least 1/327,000,000^th with the removal of my portion of those apologies.

            Funny, Mr. Obama seemed to want to be elected President of the United States—until he won that office. Since then he cannot seem to apologize enough for our shortcomings, as though he is embarrassed and ashamed of America. Richard Nixon set an excellent precedent that Mr. Obama should follow if the embarrassment becomes unbearable. Or perhaps we could work out a Presidential exchange with Romania or Bulgaria or France, Chad—some nation of which Mr. Obama could be proud. I think it is unfair of America to put him through such humiliation.

            The desire to appear sophisticated, urbane and European may be the very reason that President Obama disclosed all our shortcomings at Gitmo—and everywhere else, it is to be assumed. I am not certain whether it is his desire that the Europeans perceive America as urbane, etc.—just as long as OBAMA is viewed as such. I have seen little in the actions of Mr. Obama that would reflect a deep and abiding concern for the country that he leads. Perhaps I should rephrase that. He seems unconcerned for those who have contributed to making America one of the most productive nations in the world, and who have done it without a union card!