"Silence in the face of evil is always on the side of the aggressor."

April 16, 2008
Obama: Silence in the face of evil
By Peggy Shapiro
"Silence in the face of evil is always on the side of the aggressor."
- Elie Wiesel
Barack Obama, the eloquent speaker who mesmerizes the media, the man whose orations make women swoon, the candidate who promises to embrace dictators and terrorists in conversation, falls strangely silent when his words are needed to stand up against evil, intolerance or injustice. In a dangerous world with evil regimes aspiring to destroy the United States and the values we represent, the silence of an American President would be an
unthinkable disaster.

We know that for over twenty years, Obama listened attentively to his pastor's diatribes against the United States and Israel and said nothing. Confronted with outright lies that the United States created the AIDS virus to destroy Africa and imports harmful drugs to destroy African Americans, Obama was silent. When the church website and newsletter carried the message of Hamas, labeled as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and the E.U., Obama maintained his silence.

Obama has not availed himself of other opportunities to speak out against injustice. When his words have taken take a stand on behalf of human decency and not be empty platitudes, Obama chose silence. Take the case of the anti-Islamist Muslim journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was imprisoned and tortured by Bangladeshi authorities when he requested a visa to attend a conference in Tel Aviv. Securing his release became a bi-partisan issue. Richard L. Benkin, who is spearheading efforts to release Choudhury, notes "Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it. And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one. Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism? That's right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama."

Obama's record in the Illinois legislature established his reluctance to take a courageous stand. In 1999, he was faced with a difficult vote to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Voting "yes" would help create the image of a man who is tough on crime, but many in the African-American community opposed the law. Faced with a moral dilemma, he did what was most comfortable: nothing. He sidestepped this issue and 130 others by voting present. "If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover," said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. In the United States Senate, where there are no "present" votes, Obama consistently sought the safety of voting 96.7% of the time with the majority of Democrats. That is, when he voted. He has missed 39.3% of the votes during the current Congress.

Obama has found a comfortable spot straddling the fence on any potentially controversial issue. At a town hall in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Obama, was asked about U.S. policy toward Tibet and Darfur (the site of ongoing genocide against the Christian population), especially in light of the forthcoming Olympics in Beijing this summer. He equivocated, "It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong...And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China." Obama never once mentioned Tibet or China's relationship with Sudan.

This week when history demanded his voice, Obama once again opted for silence instead of courage. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders have strongly condemned Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with Khaled Mashal, head of the Hamas terrorist organization. Both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated their leadership in a bipartisan letter to the former president entreating him to refrain from using his stature to undermine U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas. (Hamas is committed to the complete eradication of Israel and has forsworn any negotiations in favor of violence.) Among Democrats speaking out on the House floor was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), "In light of Hamas' continuing violence and calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, I strongly urge President Carter to reconsider his decision." Others warned that meeting with Hamas would not only undermine U.S. policy and the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, but lend legitimacy to the group that thwarts all efforts for peace.

Obama, stunningly, declined to take a moral stance and instead chose silence. He said it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter... "I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with," Obama (Reuters April 11, 2008)

If Obama wants to be President of the United States, it is his place to speak out for what is true, what is in the interest of the nation, and what is morally right (even if it costs him a few votes). It is called leadership.

Posted by me Thursday, April 17, 2008



April 16, 2008
Obama, CEO Pay, and the Politics of Class Envy
By Lee Cary
Populism uses the politics of discontent. Barack Obama's recurring comparisons between CEO and average worker salaries is a class-warfare play on resentment with just enough truth to make it work with many voters.
Senator Obama has made frequent reference to the spread between CEO compensation and average worker pay. For example:

1. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day

"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

2. Radio ad in the Texas primary race

"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

3. April 11, 2008, REUTERS article quoting Obama in Indianapolis

"Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."

The parameters for Obama's comparison continue to drift, but few notice. His is not an exercise in mathematics. It's an appeal to voter discontent.

When a politician bemoans the salary-disparity on the Jay Leno or David Letterman Shows the crowds applaud. Never mind that Jay makes $123,000 and Dave $154,000 for each show - considerably more than the average U.S. worker makes in a year. Entertainers, including sports figures, are exempt from salary comparisons. They have talent. And never mind that Obama has leveraged his support from Oprah Winfrey to gain votes. At an annual income of $260,000,000, The Oprah makes a million dollars per weekday.

Obama's floating pay equations have generally been specious. Here's how.

Let's start with the average annual salary (AAS) for a U.S. worker as computed by the San Francisco Chronicle using U.S. Department of Labor statistics: $39,795.33 (Q1 2005). We could use CNN's computation of a 2006 AAS of $29,544, but they relied on the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy; that lower figure factors in both full- and part-time salaries. Therein is a challenge with computing comparative salaries; not only do the numbers lag behind the calendar, but some sources spin the numbers to support their policy agenda. In October 2005, a third source put the ASS at $40,409. We'll use $40,000 as the ASS to test Obama's equations.

Forbes placed the aggregate pay for the CEOs of the top 500 U.S. companies at $5.1 billion, or a CEO average of $10.2 million. Another source notes that the range of 2005 CEO pay is from $10-15 million. We'll use the higher number - $15 million.

In all of Obama's equation he uses the word "some." It's a word that baths generalizations in the warm waters of perceived accuracy. If, for example, you own twin pug dogs that are the only canines that ever learned to play checkers, you could rightly say, "Some dogs play checkers." But, truth be told, most dogs don't. Obama has said this,

1. "We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

Here's the math: The 2005 AAS for 10 months was $33,333.33. Based on a 40 hour week, a CEO making more than $33,333 in ten minutes ($3,333.33 per minute) would have a weekly (2,400 minutes) salary of about $8 million and an annual salary of about $416 million. How many CEOs met that qualification? The answer is (drum roll here) - none. According the Forbes, the highest CEO salary for 2005 was Yahoo's Terry Semel at $230 million. (He's right there in Oprah territory.)

2. "Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

Oops. This equation pushes the "some" CEOs annual salary up to nearly $500 million. That's equivalent to about what the top three highest paid CEOs made in 2005 combined. So this equation is clearly bogus. Then, finally, Obama lowers the numbers.

3. "Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."

Okay, now Obama is into reality with his math, although he was careful not to put the word "all" before "their workers." But, some CEOs do make $10.4 million a year. In fact, as we've seen, that's about the average for the top 500 companies. Some Obama supporters do even better, including Steven Spielberg, who makes $110 million a year; George Clooney, $25 million; Matt Damon, $24 million; Will Smith, $31 million -- and good for them. CBS News reportedly gave Katie Couric a five-year contract making $46,149 per evening news broadcast. So Ms. Couric receives more for 20-odd minutes of teleprompter reading than the AAS of U.S. workers. You suppose CBS News has aired any stories on the disparity between CEO compensation and worker pay?

Where's Senator Obama going with all these sliding comparative equations? The answer is that he's appealing to class envy.

It's not as though the spread between CEO compensation and worker pay isn't already under considerable scrutiny. For a review of proposed and passed legislation pertaining to executive compensation see here. And, for a comprehensive overview of the issue you can read "Excessive CEO Pay: Background and Policy Approaches," a February 2007 publication of the Congressional Research Services (CRS). Here's a summary from that report describing how the government has been addressing the issue.

"There have been two general approaches to executive pay reform. First changes to securities laws and regulations have attempted to strengthen the bargaining position of shareholders by (1) requiring more complete and comprehensive disclosure of CEO pay, (2) making boards more responsive to shareholder interests, or (3) requiring direct shareholder approval of executive pay packages. Some of initiatives are the result of regulatory initiatives, while others are or were legislatively based. Second, Congress has tried to restrain the growth of executive pay by eliminating the tax deduction for compensation paid in excess of specific caps." (p. CRS-3)

So it's not as if Senator Obama is doing the nation a public service by surfacing an issue that's been ignored. No, he has another agenda.

Quote #1 above came from Obama's MLK Day speech wherein he said, "Unity is the great need of the hour. Unity is how we shall overcome." But exploiting class envy is not a unification tactic. It's a divisive tactic and represents the same old liberal politics of discontent. It offers no vision for the future of the nation except friction and stridency.

In the wake of Senator Clinton's attempt to exploit Obama's recent statement about small town Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion, Obama said, "Shame on her." In this case, it's shame on him.





Return to the Article



April 14, 2008
Obama Chic
By James Lewis
Geraldine Ferraro wasn't quite right: It's not just Obama's race that has made him the frontrunner on the Left. It's his chic-ness.
It helps that Senator Obama is "international" and half black, but don't ignore his youth, his sonorous voice and skinniness: He's the fashion icon of the age. Shortly after Obama announced, he captured the gay vote with one photo op in a bathing suit.

If Senator Obama looked and talked like Charlie Rangel he would not be adored by millions of lovelorn liberals.

Have our greatest presidents have been chic just like Obama? There is George Washington with his wooden teeth, Abe Lincoln with his ole' prairie lawyer drawl, and Ronald Reagan with this 1950s haircut.

Still, there is something about Obama that casts a magic spell over those of a certain mindset. At Salon magazine, Walter Shapiro gushed,

"Unlike most presidential Dems in recent memory, the Illinois senator is at ease with himself -- even while bowling gutter balls in Pennsylvania."

Even flubbing a couple of bowling ball tries reflects on the man's cool. This man can do no wrong.

I have a friend who ran into Bill Clinton in the 90s one day, shook hands with the great man for a few seconds, and came away transformed. I asked him what came over him. "You don't understand!" he said. "He loved me!" So my friend voted for the Slick One, and wouldn't listen to a critical word in spite of all the scandals. True story. That's what a celebrity handshake and five seconds of sincere vibes can do to certain folks when dealing with a charismatic pol.

I thought it was degrading to be so easily suckered by an flaming con artist. But maybe that's the secret of the Democrats: they know their followers are looking for love. Like any good sales outfit they play to whatever their customers dream about: I care for you, yes you, personally, it's love, baby, sitting in front of your TV with 200 million other viewers. It's like the old radio preacher asking all the listeners to place both hands on their RCA Victor, bow their heads, and pray with him in person, one to one. Bill Clinton made "I care for you" work at the polls. Obama is doing it right in front of our eyes. Hillary doesn't have the mojo, no matter how hard she tries.

You have to admit that black Democrats have a point. If you are looking for a crowd charmer to mesmerize millions of gullible folks, why not choose a black guy? After all, could Obama be worse than Bill?

With the New Media finding out more about the real Obama, we are learning a lot that doesn't quite fit the manufactured image. Such as Senator Obama's notion of compassion toward white small-town Pennsylvanians and their well-known racial rage and hatred.

"... So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations..." (italics added)

Oops.

When Hillary and McCain promptly jumped on that remark as showing contempt for and ignorance about the voters, Obama dug himself a deeper hole:

"No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going on in Indiana, I know what's going on in Illinois," Mr. Obama said, his voice rising. "People are fed up, they're angry, they're frustrated, they're bitter and they want to see a change in Washington. That's why I'm running for president of the United States of America."

It's funny, those are feelings a lot of average Americans may have never noticed themselves --- it's unconscious racism, you you --- but the libs are sure that everybody is a racist out there. It's a miracle how Obama can read all those typical white minds with absolute, metaphysical certainty.

"I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going on in Indiana, I know what's going on in Illinois."

Call it omniscient mind-reading. It's a liberal faith that surpasseth human understanding. They and only they can see right through false consciousness of the masses.

If the media have their way, Obama chic will put all those oddities to rest. The elites yearn for an avatar of human perfection, and Hillary is just so Nineties, and simply not slender. Recognizing a great opportunity, they have switched from Slick Willie to Slick Barry, and are hammering poor Mrs. Clinton for just a few of the old lies -- while letting Obama get away with a bumper harvest of whoppers. Senator Clinton is correct. It's not fair!

Given that the Dems are now wedded to Obama, the new line is that "experience" doesn't matter to for a president. With Obama's brilliance, three years in the Senate is plenty of time to learn how to govern America in a time of war and economic fever. If you were hiring a Starbucks manager you'd look for experience. But President of the United States? Commander in Chief? Captain of the Ship of State? Leader of the Free World? Who cares about experience?

(Am I the only one who thinks that's certifiably insane?)

Even Camille Paglia has fallen for Obama chic. Normally one of the most level-headed people on the Left, she now thinks Obama's magic outweighs any doubts about his substance, character, or racially charged Leftism. Paglia is making the case for Obama's purity of heart is what really matters.

"... I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary because he is a rational, centered personality who speaks the language of idealism and national unity. Obama has served longer as an elected official than Hillary. He has had experience as a grass-roots activist, and he is also a highly educated lawyer who will be a quick learner in office. His international parentage and childhood, as well as his knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, would make him the right leader at the right time. And his wife Michelle is a powerhouse.

"The Obamas represent the future, not the past."

Senator Obama is very slick indeed, a Bill Clinton for the 21st Century. Like Bill, he is good at prettifying his dubious personal associations, politicians and influence peddlers who helped him get where he is today. He is also dexterous in skating through tricky questions.

But Obama has stumbled repeatedly on basic foreign policy knowledge, where he is absolutely Carteresque. Not exactly a man for the times, as Carter's most famous foreign affairs blunder, letting Ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the Shah of Iran in 1979, is now leading to nuclear panic all over the Middle East. Carter himself is adding a new catastrophe to all the old ones by promising to shake hands with Hamas. Is this a foretaste of Barack Obama's compassionate foreign policy? He has certainly not criticized Jimmy Carter's newest desperate grab for the spotlight.

Still, we're not supposed to be looking for flaws. Let's all pretend we didn't hear Senator Obama's off-the-cuff idea of invading nuclear Pakistan, or his notion of trying to charm A'jad out of his race for nukes by being really, really nice to him. We know how susceptible the Mullahs are to sweet reason. Carter showed us how that works in 1979.

Freud said that love is a kind of madness -- you're totally convinced that your adored one makes the world go 'round. Well, liberals have done it again. They fell in love with Adlai Stevenson; they tumbled head over heels for JFK, and then Bill Clinton. Now it's Obama's turn. The only question is, how many voters will surrender to the celebrity parade? That may decide the presidential election.

It all goes to show that Finley Peter Dunne's Mister Dooley had it right: God protects orphans, drunkards, and the United States.

At least, we better hope so.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obama_chic.html at April 16, 2008 - 11:04:34 PM EDT





Return to the Article



April 15, 2008
Further clarification of Obama's remark
Thomas Lifson
Barack Obama has had several things to say about his "cling" remarks (the cling part is much worse than the bitter part, as several others have noted). But I just read (via Ed Morrissey) some other remarks in the speech. The context clarifies Obama's now-famous words: [emphasis added by Ed]
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by - it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

Obama is calling the clingy folks racists. The crowd's laughter is the key, as Ed notes. These were rich San Franciscans sharing a chuckle over the crude provinciality of their fellow countrymen. The kind of people who give America such a bad name among the overseas elites. It was Obama pandering to the prejudices of his crowd. These people congratulate themselves on their own enlightenment when they support an Ivy Leaguer raised by a white grandmother in the best schools who happens to have black skin. The more open-minded of them acknowledge a certain charm to rural Appalachian culture manifested in folk arts like clog dancing.

This is the secret to the potency of this incident. Message loud and clear: Obama's friends are laughing at the majority of Americans. That is the very definition of elitist.

According to Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who broke the story, and whose crude recording of Obama's words is the only version so far available, there were other video cameras running during the speech. Somewhere, out there, there may well be another version of the event recorded in greater fidelity, and with pictures. Will one surface? Or will class solidarity among the rich prevent the proles in Pennsylvania from seeing the candidate's statement about them and judging for themselves?

Bob Herbert of the NYT thinks Obama knew what he was saying, but didn't go far enough:

Senator Obama has spent his campaign trying to dodge the race issue, which in America is like trying to dodge the wind. So when he fielded the question in San Francisco, he didn't say: "A lot of folks are not with me because I'm black - but I'm trying to make my case and bring as many around as I can."

I rarely agree with Bob Herbert, but I do wish the man who called for a national discussion would be honest and lead a conversation from his heart and soul, not from his carefully manufactured public persona. Actually, I should say personas, for the man seems to behave differently with different crowds. I bet he doesn't talk the same way at Trinity United Congregational Church as on Billionaire's Row in San Francisco.

So Barack Obama should tell us about their false consciousness, and maybe invite his former south Chicago neighbor Thomas Frank to tell them What's the Matter with Kansas, Midwestern and Pennsyslvanian small towns, and pretty much most of flyover country.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

illustration by Otto Veblin
Posted at 01:35 PM | Email | Permalink

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/further_clarification_of_obama.html at April 16, 2008 - 11:07:04 PM EDT