Barack Obama is John Doe Number 2

The national angst that accompanies massive acts of violence in America manifests itself in a number of ways. In Dallas, the search for a grand theme or conspiracy lead people to search for the man in the grassy knoll. In Oklahoma, they posted drawings of John Doe #2. In Tucson last year it was Sarah Palin that caused the killings to occur. No one in the mainstream media blinks at such a stretch of an accusation. Had someone said such a thing about Obama they would be audited and arrested.

In the past week we have seen the Aurora theatre shooting go from a so called unifying event that should never be used to advance anyone's political agenda to a catch all canvas for Liberal grandstanding using the victims and their families as props.

It started with Brian Ross blaming the deaths on the Tea Party. Then after a few timid forays in to the obligatory Columbine gun control sales pitch by lefty politicians became an avalanche of sermons on weapons and laws they know nothing about. On Friday, Washington Week in Review had a whole panel of pundits nodding in unison as a Manhattanite in a designer dress explained that the "Semi-Automatic" type weapons are the problem. That would include most firearms and all non-revolver handguns. She clearly didn't have any idea what she was saying and her chorus of bobble heads were applauding her emotional plea to "Do Something, Do Anything", regardless of the rationality of the statement.

Now that the city is crawling with upwardly mobile cub reporters with no compelling backdrop, they are now scrambling through the halls of the hospitals to get interviews from victims and their families. Yesterday was the beginning of the "He's in ICU, but has no Health Insurance" story lines.

So the left has a hammer and every problem in this battleground state looks like a nail.

So what is their theme? It seems to be... If Liberals had not had their programs blocked by Conservatives, this would have never happened.

James Holmes is a mad man. He may not be insane, but he is a mad man. Those on the left often feel uncomfortable hearing this, but James Holmes is evil. Evil is hard to legislate against. It is hard to fund an anti-evil program. They enjoy creating faux evil strawmen, like Tea Partiers, gun owners and opponents of Obamacare, but true evil? That befuddles them.

Just like the Villains in the Dark Knight series, these are people who can't be bought or reasoned with. As Alfred explains in a Parable about evil, "Some men just want to watch the world burn”. This was the challenge Batman faced. This was the challenge America faced on Sept 12, 2001 and the challenge George W. Bush confronted and pursued. It is also the challenge that many on the left would prefer to walk away from or exploit for their own personal gains.

When John Kerry lamented that we may get back to the day when Terror attacks will be no more than a nuisance or a distraction, like prostitution or other minor crimes. Obama has also tried to redefine the GWOT into something we can live with,...as long as the "we" is cloistered in an ivory tower and not flying coach with a panty bomber or any number of other terror plots in the last 4 years.

Obama recently tried to shame the business community as being ungrateful for all the help they have received from Big Government. "You didn't build that!!" I really don't care about the silly meme that his context was referring to businesses not building highways. The entire context and tone was clear.

Who do you think you are? You ungrateful private sector leeches that prance around vainly proclaiming your liberty and lack of dependence on Big Brother. You should be ashamed of yourself after all we've given you, so let me catalogue the gifts the New Deal and Great Society have given you. There! So now that I have set you straight that roads and bridges are here to help you and is in no way a scam to fund unions to put in new and unnecessary curbs and sidewalks so they can skim the profits and return the profits to my campaign fund. And Oh by the way, if this sales pitch sounds surprisingly identical to my failed Keynesian "Stimulus" Package,..we will no longer use the word stimulus or stimulate during the upcoming campaign months. You are too dumb and ungrateful to know how helpful my policies are, so this is what is called "Effective storytelling". So clap, faint or shut up

He erroneously claimed Big government built the internet so businesses could use it to make money. That is false on so many levels. But that doesn't matter. His argument is that if the overly intrusive government has touched you in any way, you are expected to throw yourself at his feet and weep with humility. If his Big government can fix anything with your tax dollars, is there ever a mistake that can be caused by his largess.

Let's look at the shooter, James Holmes. He has clearly been planning this evil attack for months. Those in the media that ponder how easy it was for him to get a stamp of approval by gun dealers upon doing his background check seem to be arguing that the current regulatory rules are faulty. Yet, these are the rules the left claimed would solve everything. So if you buy in to their argument that there always needs to be more, then the NRA is proven right and that is that if a single mass shooting occurs, the left will always plead for more until guns are completely gone.

But what about the question if he received help. Was their a grassy knoll or a helper? Many have wondered how he could arm himself so effectively and where did he get the money to go on a $14,000 shopping spree to purchase his arsenal. We know now.

Barack Obama is John Doe #2.

According to CBS News, Holmes funded his rampage with a Federal Grant from the NIH in the Dept. of Health and Human services:

WNEW News reports that Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It gave the graduate student a $26,000 stipend and paid his tuition for the highly competitive neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver. Holmes was one of six neuroscience students at the school to get the grant money.

Let's see if the media doggedly follows the money on this one. I'm guessing the trail will be about as crowded with reporters as the anti-gun media was fighting to get the Fast and Furious story out.

Before this broke, the media was right to ponder how he got enough money to wage this war. They may have wondered if he robbed banks or if his parents could be considered accomplices. They would have had to question what he was going to do with the money.

So then why not ask the same questions here. How did Holmes get by the NIH screeners. How did he pass the background check of Obama's money givers. If he was so bonkers that the gun dealers could be denigrated for not catching it in the process of a routine business transaction (Which some actually did), then how did Obama's HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius not have a screening process that would know whether they are handing over $26 grand to a completely mad as a hatter monster.

If you are a mass murderer and think you did this on your own, You didn't build that! Someone helped you.

What many Liberals don't understand about evil is that the monsters are watching us so much closer than the left are willing to accept. They stalk us and adapt to what ever "disincentives" we place in their paths. The Liberal mindset is one of vanity that we can fix everything with the ideas of the anointed ones. So when evil monsters study the rules carefully and then adjust themselves to evade the obstacles to succeed, they find this hard to accept. It must be we are lazy in our law writing habit, so write more rules. The Audacity of the enemies of the left to not lay down and accept their perfect legislation.

James Holmes might be a genius. He might be an evil genius. He is surprisingly similar to the types of characters that make up the villains in Batman story lines. They are truly evil. They adopt an alternative persona. They don a costume, in this case Holmes dyed his hair and dressed up as a cross between Bane and the Joker. A lot of attention has been focused on the character of the Joker in the second movie of the trilogy, the Dark Knight. Let's consider a villain from the first movie, Batman Begins. Scarecrow (Dr. Jonathan Crane)was a genius. He was a scientist that specialized in Neuroscience like Holmes. He studied those with mental disorders, but carefully disguised his complete lack of empathy for the patients at the Asylum. They were his lab rats. He was a Josef Mengele. He was a Megalomaniac with severe hatred of the human race. He had delusions of grandeur.

Dr. Jonathan Crane was a corrupt, sadistic psychiatrist specializing in psycho-pharmacology at Arkham Asylum. Crane was secretly allied with Ra's al Ghul and Carmine Falcone, smuggling the former's hallucinogenic drugs into Gotham to create fear gas to use upon his patients in cruel experiments. Crane testified in court that Victor Zsaz, one of Falcone's assassins, was legally insane and should be moved to Arkham for rehabilitation. This enraged Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes, who later accused him of being corrupt.

He worked for the government and used the system to exploit others and gain personally.

Holmes bio says his Politics are "Middle of the road", so Brian Ross' attempt to classify him as a Violent Republican murderer doesn't quite fit. His attack would be classified as a terrorist attack for every other reason except for the fact, he has no stated political or Religious objective to achieve. In this regard, he is similar to the Joker that he considers himself an "agent of chaos".

And that is often the case. Even when these mad men claim an ideology, it is confused and incomprehensible. When the left tries to shoe horn bizarre acts of madness in to their worn out Lefty playbook, it nearly always fails and often confuses the issue to the point of making the matter worse. This is the 6th day and they are still breaking in to regular broadcasting with Special Reports and Dateline Specials, but the more deadly Fort Hood Shooting which did not fit their playbook and in fact created a stumbling block for Obama's desire to de-emphasize terrorism was met with "Let's not jump to conclusions" or "Details will continue to trickle in as we wait for Obama's internal investigation to come to light". The story was back filled, buried and to this day they are still claiming to not know whether he had connections to Al Qaeda, which is ludicrous to the point of Trutherism.

So if Big Government pervades everything it should carry some responsibility for things that it touches. If the tea party is the one stop shop for blameworthiness for any conceivable act of violence, when in fact, of the millions of participants, not a single significant act of violence has ever been linked to the grannies in sneakers and mothers with strollers that attended those anti-deficit rallies. Unlike the Crime infested Occupy movement our President backed. If the Tea Party gets blamed that easy, why shouldn't Obama bear responsibility for funding the violence in Aurora.

As I said earlier, isn't it ironic how the gun control people that are letting their freak flag fly this week are the ones that blame easy access to cheap guns as being the problem, not the motives of individuals. Here we have a mad man who didn't have a financial impediment to cheap guns, because Obama gave money to a mad man. Are we to argue for Education reform in the loose standards by which the Government sends your hard earned tax dollars to Universities with little or no care for its usefulness or consequence?

And last week with Fast and Furious, the same anti-gun people who are using the same "guns kill people" argument had no interest in another story where Obama funded the gun buying habit of some of the bloodiest killers on earth this side of Al Qaeda and that is the Drug Cartels of Northern Mexico. In that situation although Obama was funding the program, the increased ease of access was the key factor, but like the James Holmes situation, the lack of discretion and oversight of the program was obvious in the fact that in both cases mad men killed innocent Americans and the media turned away. It was not until the history making spectacle of having the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the nation next to Obama himself was found in contempt of congress. A crime so serious it was listed as one of the articles of impeachment for Richard Nixon. For the media.... it earned a 4 sentence after thought delivered late in the broadcast. In several cases it was accompanied with remarks about the partisan nature of Washington. Really?

Don't expect anyone to confront the Anti-Gun people on this disconnect. Nor does anyone really notice that Obama siphoned mountains of Stimulus money to his home town and helped get his Gangster pal Rahm Emanuel in the Mayors office and the city is a massive Fallujah of murder and mayhem. Three times as many people were murdered last weekend in Chicago than were killed in Aurora.

So to the concern trolls of the media that are preaching to outlaw "semi-automatic" firearms because of their plea that we commoners sympathize with the Aurora victims as much as they (the Anointed) do, I wish someone would ask them why those in the ivory towers don't sympathize with Bryan Terry, Chicago or Fort Hood the way we do.

Obama evolves to the same position as Dick Cheney

Earlier this week Joe Biden handed another gift to the world by opening his mouth about his personal feelings about gay marriage. This pushed Obama to virtually admit that having an "evolving" position was a farce and for once the media was not able to let go of it long enough for him to take cover. This "Evolving" fig leaf was ironic as his campaign staff were hoping to make flip flopping a key component of their attack ads against Romney. Now that Obama has raised the white flag over the rainbow flag issue, I thought it would be fun to see Romney come out swinging on this. Mind you, they are waiting for Romney to drop fire and brimstone on gays, but he can hit them hard on a number of fronts without drawing fire on the Religious/Social issues that Obama's media is dying to slam him on. It could go something like this:



Gov. Mitt Romney responds to Obama's speech:





Ladies and Gentleman,



I would like to address some of the issues in the campaign that have emerged in the last few days. I know there is a great deal of discussion about infighting amongst the Democrats on issues affecting our fellow Americans in the gay community and I'm sure the Democrats will work things out. I received a gracious call this week from some of my former opponents in the GOP and I'm proud to say that as our party always strives to be a big tent and include differing views, we stand united in our opposition to the troubling path Barack Obama has put us on and we are all very encouraged and hopeful about a bright future together as we work towards a better America. There are several races still ongoing and one race in Indiana introduces a new face to the national stage, Richard Mourdock who will be their nominee for the Senate race. I also wanted to let you know that I spoke to Dick Lugar on the phone today and thanked him for 36 years of service. I asked Dick if he will join us on our mission and he graciously accepted.



In another state, North Carolina passed a law establishing marriage as solely between one man and one woman. I'm not sure if it was by design or not that our Vice President decided to let North Carolina know what he thought of them, but Mr. Biden opened up about his feelings on this issue and this kind of knocked everything else off the President's agenda for the week as he told us he supported the stance of people in the Carolinas and then he did not, and then he did, but he was "Evolving" away from North Carolinians. As usual, the President's old Chicago way campaign strategy of being on both sides of all issues and then hoping the media will provide cover or that we won't notice was clearly in full swing. But after days of crystal clear and transperent policymaking and leadership his "Evolving" settled on his decision to oppose North Carolina. I just hope he doesn't have Eric Holder to sue them like he did when Arizona displeased him, but the Attorney General is busy with criminal charges against him for contempt of congress, so the Mid Atlantic states can rest easy for now.



As I said, the GOP is a big tent. In 1978, just months before running for President, Former Gov. Ronald Reagan stood up on the side of th newly formed Log Cabin Republicans to show his opposition to the Briggs initiative in California, Mr. Reagan had nothing to gain from his high profile opposition and stood to lose quite a bit in some people's eyes. Yet, he stood up for what he believed was right and this act swung political opinion against the initiative that would have fired any school official of any kind for privately expressing support for gay issues. He did not arrive at his position after being pushed or pressured and he did not try to be on both sides. Ronald Reagan showed decisive leadership and people followed his lead, he did not ask people to give him a few months to contemplate his navel so he could evolve. He did not put his finger to the wind and see how it might effect his poll numbers. He acted on principle for what he believed in. And regardless of whether we agree with a candidate or a president, we look for clarity, transparency and character.


In the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, Dick Cheney was asked about gay marriage and although all Republicans at the time did not agree on all facets of the issue, just as they respected Mr. Cheney's views on allowing states to decide, as I do, they respected his candor. It should be noted that the Honorable Joseph Lieberman was very gracious addressing the issue, knowing that Mr. Cheney's daughter was gay. As I noted earlier regarding Dick Lugar, I should take this opportunity to also thank Sen. Lieberman for his dedication and service to his country for over 3 decades. His courageous support of the 2007 Surge which won that war cost him his membership in the Democrat Party and it will always be remembered as a moment of clarity, character and courage to oppose his own party when they were wrong.



Four years later, Vice President Cheney was again asked in a debate by Gwen Ifill what his stance was and he explained his position and not a single Republican took issue with the Cheney. After the Vice President spoke, the Democrat Party's choice for the Vice Presidency, John Edwards, then came out against John Kerry's home state of Massachssets' passage of the law that would require the state to recognize gay marriage. As I said before, as a general principle I think states should be free to choose and as of now, nearly two thirds of states have chosen one man and one woman provisions. At the time I did not favor the decision in our state, but I offered accomodations for an alternative and in the end did my duty in providing marriage licenses. At the time it seemed to some that my position and the Vice President Cheney's position would be considered the more definitive position and the one that demonstrated the big tent of the Republican party of Reagan and Mr. Cheney. After having John Edwards lecturing us about the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, I guess you could say his position evolved. Then you have the Democrat Party's current candidate for Vice President. I can only say, whether by design or not, I'm glad Joe Biden started talking about this issue because it resulted in first he and then after a long wait, his boss deciding to join Dick Cheney and I in a more tolerant approach to people being free to live their lives the way they wish. I just hope Barack Obama stands by his word and keeps his commitment after the election instead of demonstrating that flexibility he told the Russians about.



In closing I respect the wishes of North Carolina. I wish the best to the primary winners in both parties and, I heard Mr. Obama squeeked out a close one in West Virginia, he, he. I think Mr. Obama should call off his dogs in the media that are making jokes about West Virginia and the ballots they submitted. The people voted, a Texas Inmate took 40% of the ballots that could have been Mr. Obama's and mocking their choice is no way to get on their good side. He may want to consider the message they are trying to send instead of trying to spin what the message means.



But thats what its all about, Leadership, Decisiveness, not being on two sides of issues, and respecting the will of the people. It is they that make this country great and it is Liberty that unleashes their greatness. So to the people of West Virginia, the people of Indiana, North Carolina, the candidates on all sides and the many people that have been waiting for decisive leadership in Washington, join me in looking forward to a campaign of ideas and not moving down that same path that has lead us to these difficult times. May god bless you all and may god bless America.




Here is the transcript from the 2004 Cheney-Edwards debate...

IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Vice President.

CHENEY: Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax credit.

Senators Kerry and Edwards weren't even there to vote for it when it came to final passage.

IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.

We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.

But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.

This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject.

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.

We both believe that — and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about — we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't — we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134579,00.html#ixzz1uRBDhI9f

How to get deported OUT OF Mexico

There has been a great deal of talk about Mexico's poor treatment of Central American immigrants that enter in to Mexico from the south, since President Calderon's speech before the US Congress yesterday. I would like to talk about how Citizens of the USA living in Mexico of which there are about a Million, are treated under Calderon's immigration policies.

I have been traveling and visiting Mexico since I was a child. Over a decade ago I "bought" coastal property in Baja and built a small house. I still live in the US but spend a lot of time at my second home in Mexico. When I say "bought" property, it is really not buying. This is one of the first differences between our cross border relationship regarding Mexico and the US. If you are a Mexican citizen, illegal or not, trying to buy a home in the US, there is little REAL restriction in place to stop you. If you ask an American bank for a loan, there is no mechanism in place that will flag you as illegal. If you pay property taxes, the American city you live in, accepts it. You are an illegal alien in the US with a US Home.

If you buy a property in Mexico within 60 miles of the Ocean (Which is most of the property Americans are interested in), you must lease the land. It is what is called a Fidecomiso, an automatically renewing lease after a period, sometimes 99 years. It is similar to "buying", but you are not a Mexican citizen, so you are treated differently. In order to get a Fidecomiso, you must get a Mexican Visa, which makes you a legal resident, but not a citizen. It is permission to reside, but not work. You must pay between 200 and 500 dollars for the Visa, open a Mexican bank account, prove you have over $1000 in the account, supply a letter from your home town from your police department that says you don't have a criminal record, and you must declare what your religion is. And of course you must pay about $300 in property taxes each year. You also must repeat this process every year.

I have several American neighbors in my Mexican neighborhood that have failed to follow these rules, either by confusion, or out of frustration just ignored some of the many bureaucratic hoops you must jump through. Here is what happened to these so-called "Illegals" from the US.

One of my neighbors, a retiree, came south and rented a home. The following year he sold his RV and sold his Minnesota Home to live in Mexico 9 months out of the year to enjoy the warm climate. In the Summer he visits his kids back home. As the US housing bust began to effect the Mexican economy, local governments and the local immigration department was under pressure to bring in more taxes and fees. One day the Mexican police showed up on his door step with immigration officials and announced that he and his wife were being deported. They were told that his personal property would be forfeited in 30 days. After some negotiating he was told if he checked in with Mexican border patrol as he leaves the country, he would be allowed to drive himself to the border within 24 hours, otherwise he would be driven to the border.

The solution was for him to drive to the US, apply for a Mexican Visa, pay an exorbitant penalty for two years of late fees, at which time he was allowed to return to his home in Mexico. This is not an isolated incident. This is actually one of the lucky ones, when you consider the many stories of American's losing their homes altogether like the events in Punta Banda. I also know many people that have lost their homes, some worth $500k and up.

What if you want to work "Illegally" in Mexico. I know another friend who retired at 60 in my neighborhood. After a year of enjoying retirement on the beach, he decided he liked working and especially working for money and decided to start doing home repairs for his fellow NorteAmericanos. Everyday he would fix plumbing and re-wire outlets for the other retirees in our neighborhood. Somehow a local Mexican contractor that lost a bid to him, went to the local labor board and reported him as a gringo stealing his job. The police showed up at his house with a government official to appear before a magistrate for working without a work permit. The above Mexican Visa that I mentioned was not enough for him. You have to apply for a right to work permit. ...And surprise, construction jobs are protected because they are considered popular jobs amongst the local labor force. So, long story short, he was never granted a permit.

The person, that had planned to have him work on her house, paid a local Mexican repairman to do the work and she paid him and was quite satisfied with the work. Until she got word from the local government that she had failed to pay Social Security taxes for the worker. Apparently the responsibility for paying Social Security payments and other labor related fees is the burden of the person who hired the worker, even for minor home repairs.

I love Mexico and I love the Mexican people, but President Calderon's government is a stickler for detail when it comes to foreigners abiding by immigration law,...even to the point of deporting Americans by force. To many Mexican government officials Americans are wealthy sources of income and tax revenue and there is a long history of suspicion and unequal treatment of Americans who come to Mexico. Ironically, the process of filing for residency and many other "Rights" as a visitor in Mexico is different for you if you happen to have Mexican sounding name. Yes, you heard that right, by law, if you have a Mexican sounding name, but have never been to Mexico, you have certain special treatment that is not offered to the Smiths and Joneses. This would be what President Calderon would call "Racial Profiling".

As President Calderon spoke, I couldn't help but notice. If he were driving down a street in Phoenix, what officer would profile him and recognize this American University educated man as Mexican. In Mexico he might be referred to as Gachupine or Criollo in the complex Mexican Caste system that has for centuries kept so called "White Mexicans" of mostly European blood in power with few exceptions for the last half millennium.



In this case, he comes to our country and lectures us about Racial Profiling here, when his country has politically floundered for most of its entire history in part because of racial and cultural divides that he clearly ended up on the winning side of.

What we saw yesterday, was the equivalent of Bill Clinton playing the part of "The first black President". A White Mexican President comes to America and stands next to a black President of America and lectures our country that Arizona is not fair to "victims of color" like Obama and LIKE HIM. This was meant to curry favor back home with his voters to make him appear to be less Criollo, less elitist, less European, and more Mestizo or more "Mexican".

Calderon knows its a double standard and he doesn't care. It's politics and it was all made possible by Obama and his tactics of racial divisiveness and the culture of victimhood. It was another bow to a foreign government by Barack Obama. Obama, who provided the key role in killing Bush's Immigration reform gave Calderon the nod and Calderon stepped up and played his part. It was a win win for two self serving politicians and their respective political careers, but a lose, lose, lose for Americans, Mexicans, and North Americans in general who are struggling for a better life.

Obama takes out second mortgage on Bush's success

.
.



Is Bush's TARP a success? If not then why is Obama ready to steal from it?

Obama is jones-ing for a shopping spree and those darned Chinese seem to have put a hold on his credit card, so now he has a choice to find discipline, start paying back the money he has borrowed or start scrounging for loose change under the sofa cushions. He is going for the latter.

For a year now Obama and his fellow spend-aholics in congress have been pointing the finger at Bush for handing them a a "Huge Deficit". This was intended to deflect blame and basically say "You did it too". The challenge then is what did Bush spend money on and why? How did it work out? Who else was involved? Americans are not against government spending in and of itself, but who spent wisely? Obama's Stimulus package is gaining the reputation as a boondoggle, so who ran up the deficit needlessly?

Let's take a look at Bush's last two years in office under Democratic Rule.

I will not rehash the incredible economic challenges that Bush averted in his first year during the financial disasters that accompanied 911, but much has been made of Clinton handing Bush a Surplus and Bush leaving office with a deficit. Remember Clinton also handed Bush a Recession and through his neglect of foreign policy (especially terrorism) and his "Halfing" of our Military, the post 911 War and its costs were borne by Bush to clean up, much the way Reagan had to deal with foreign policy and economic disasters left by Carter.

Although it is true the Republican congress spent more than most conservatives felt comfortable with, after an initial increase in the deficit, beginning at the end of his first term the deficit began to drop rapidly, until in 2007 it was well with in range of dropping into double digits. Then the Democrats took control.

Although the left would have you believe Bush runs the economy out of his back pocket, the congress is in charge of spending and in this case it is Pelosi and Reid who did not offer Bush a 2009 budget:

Which party was in charge of Congress the last two years of the Bush administration? Why, yes, it was the Democrats. I have no problem blaming Republicans for runaway spending between 2001-6, but 2007-8 belongs to the Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, one of that party’s leaders. For that matter, it also includes then-Senator Barack Obama. Deficits in that period are on their hands.

That’s especially true for the final deficit number. Anticipating a Barack Obama victory in the presidential campaign, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid never presented George Bush with a budget for FY2009. Congress passed continuing resolutions that funded federal agencies at the FY2008 level until Obama took office in January, and then handed him an omnibus spending plan that boosted federal spending for the remainder of FY2009 — and expanded the deficit. That final deficit number belongs more to Obama than it normally would have in a transition year.

But regardless, when you look at the above graph, how much of that is TARP which was caused by Democrat fiddling with mortgage and financial institutions. Yes, Bush signed TARP, but who's baby was that? On Sept. 25, 2008, when the candidates helicoptered into the White House to discuss TARP, it was reported by all in attendance that Obama represented the majority party who was writing the bill. He did all the talking and McCain, Paulsen and Bush mostly listened to the Oratory of Barack Obama. TARP was being "audibliized" by the Senator from Illinois.

But Obama through his criticism of Bush's deficit spending is being critical of the crown jewel in Bush's "Deficit spending". He is blaming Bush for TARP. He is giving responsibility to Bush for TARP.

But wait....

Suddenly this week, with Obama in search of cash, he finds some free money rolling into the Treasury, but before the money is deposited, he wants to cash those checks. Obama's compliant media is suddenly pointing out how TARP is making money. Banks are paying back early. The Deficit is going to shrink now...right?...but whose Deficit is shrinking, Bush's or Obama's? This report says it is estimated by the end of next year, all but $42 Billion of TARP will have been paid off:

The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned to ailing companies during the financial crisis last year, with the portion loaned to banks showing a slight profit, according to a Treasury report.

The latest assessment of the bailout program, provided by two Treasury officials yesterday ahead of a report to Congress today, is vastly improved from the Obama administration’s estimates last summer of $341 billion in potential losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That estimate anticipated more bank crises.

If as Obama has conveyed that TARP was Bush's baby, then shouldn't the media be giving Bush credit for TARP?

TARP borrowed money from the Chinese, loaned it to American banks, the banks are now paying it back, we no longer owe the Chinese for it, the American Banks move on and grow, Businesses hire workers, problem solved, Thank you Mr. Bush....right?

Well, expect Obama to change his tune and take credit for TARP to contrast his miserable failure on the stimulus package, but just like a compulsive addict, expect him to raid the coffers of TARP to repeat his Stimulus mistake and then blame Bush for the returned money never getting paid back.

It is also worth noting that the $175 billion committed by the banks to pay back TARP when compared to the original $250 aloted by TARP1 leaves a single digit deficit, at least for this project alone. Bush was touted as the model of integrity for his willingness to cooperate with Obama's transition team. During the transition, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining $350 Bill for TARP, and the congress complied. So what that leaves is a very small footprint regarding the deficit from George Bush.

I think its time to reassess the Bush Deficit and consider that although his deficits were trending way down and the housing crash was thrust upon him, his handling of it may end up leaving a net impact of his final year in office a $100 billion or less deficit,....which was promptly Nuked by the New Socialist Regime.

You can expect the Propaganda machine to kick in to full force on the redefining of TARP. It will be painted as a success and an example of how big government solutions can work if given time. It will be proudly embraced as Obama's idea and Bush as a reluctant passenger. It will also be touted as grounds for a reward to be handed out for excellent performance in a lead role to Barack Obama who will take the left over hundreds of billions and formulate a dead-end jobs bill, that will push us over the brink in which case he will blame our soldiers in Afghanistan for ruining his Domestic wizardry.

This feels like an Orwellian Science Fiction story about Dystopian thugs sucking dry any form of life that pops its head up from the decaying wasteland.

Obama is playing out the Mortgage crisis on a macro scale, by cashing in the equity of Bush's TARP so he can plunge further into debt by indulging in his personal addiction that destroys himself and anyone around him. When the Chinese loan sharks come, they will ask why he took out a Second mortgage on his house when they had accepted it as collateral.

I wonder if the Obamas are still ashamed to be Americans, because I am feeling pretty humiliated right now.

Democrats: Lie to me and tell me you want more war

We often hear the left make morally relative arguments between what the left does and what the right does. I think Obama's war rhetoric exposes a key difference between GOP candidates and Democrat politicians. Democrats expect their candidates to lie. They want them to lie. In fact they are willing to build an entire false personage of a candidate, if they think it will help hoodwink those bitter clingers in flyover country.

Here is Byron York discussing the phenomenon regarding Democrats former support of the Afghan war and their new found opposition to the war:

“There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said chief Obama rival — and now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.”

Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign. In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.

But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

This is not new for Democrats and their expectations of thier own leaders. When George W. Bush says "God Bless America", they claim he is conversing with Jehovah in the back room and is mixing church and state. When Obama quotes scripture endlessly in his speeches, they consider it poetic and grandiliquent, but after a lengthy analysis of his Church going habits, most Americans accepted the idea that he spent twenty years in a church that he either wasn't listening, didn't care, or was there to conduct business rather than get in touch with his creator....in essence he "didn't mean it".

If anyone doubts that, let's see what his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright thinks of him; the man that should understand Obama's inner most moral virtues and vices:

WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They've said, "You're a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president.

(LAUGHTER)

When Obama says he opposes gay marriage,...where is Hollywood?

Oh, yeah...? ..."He didn't mean it"

When he tells America I won't raise taxes,..

When he says he won't cut medicare,...

When he says he will get tough with Iran if negotiations don't work...

All Lies.


The lie runs deep to the center of the New Left. In the 1970s, when a leftist had a T shirt that said War is never the answer, you could debate them on the silliness of the statement and the leftists nearly always found refuge in the admission that if US soil were attacked as it was at Pearl Harbor, we would fight back and they would support such a war. Sometimes they would even exclaim that they would gladly join the military and shoot 'em up. This scenario seemed quite unlikely to them since they labored under the misconception that only a suicidal lunatic would attack a nuclear power like the US.

Well, 911 called their bluff. The psychological meltdown in the minds of many on the left pushed them into a fantasy world of denial and lies. Some brave souls admitted that they had been wrong. Most on the left proved what their 30 year old promises had been meant to cover up and that is that they are really narcissistic, self absorbed cowards. Did Democrats run to the recruiting centers? hardly. Polls show that since 911, about 12% of the military is made up of Democrats. The Ivy league and the Northeast are dramatically under represented. We were attacked and they did not support it. Some did for the moment, but the Nutroots opposed Afghanistan from the outset. And what good is a temporary support of our troops. That was part of the debate too, remember? Supporters of the war said, "If we are going to war, it can't be a momentary support, we must support our troops fully if we send them".

These questions need answers:

Were hippies motivated by cowardice in the 1960s and 1970s?

Do Democrats really lack the sincerity and backbone to protect this country?

Is Obama lying now when he says in 18 months he will base his decisions on "conditions on the ground"?

I think the answer to all three of those questions is "YES". If the answer is yes, Democrats have forfeited their ability to lead.

The difference between the Dems and the GOP is Reagan said trust the common sense of the common man in America and give Americans the right to make the choices in their lives that are best for them. The Democrats believe they are members of an elite that needs to deceive the dumber yokels that are not in on the big secret.

When Obama promises something in a speech, they look to each other knowingly and say, "Don't worry, he doesn't mean it."

What congressman Joe Wilson said regarding the statement Obama made about whether Illegal Aliens would be covered by his Health care plan, Wilson was almost bodily removed from the chamber for making a true statement, considering Illegals are still in the bill. What was Wilson's crime? When the Democrats all turned to each other and nodded, "He's lying ya know, and a damn good liar he is",...Joe Wilson committed the crime of saying out loud what every person in that room, especially the Democrats, was saying to themselves. Wilson's crime was airing Washington's dirty laundry, its trade secrets to the common folks.

They all like the lies, as long as you and I never know.

UK's Gordon Brown: Not much of a poodle

During the Bush/Blair years, we were told that "the world" no longer respected us,...that our relations with Europe had completely deteriorated to their "all time low",...that if Bush doesn't admit he was wrong and apologize to our former allies, they may never side with us again.

Well it appears the glory days of them siding with us might not have been such a solid love affair after all. Drudge is posting a story that links the Libyan "oil for blood" scandal to PM Gordon Brown. All the way to the top.


After a couple years of the American left pounding Bush and making this "Allies hate us" Meme, the European left, who quite often sheepishly follow the American left, started the taunt against Tony Blair that his choice to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, was a subservient and pathetic choice of a weak and brainless pet that sits in the lap of its master. The term they used was that Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle.

Let's remember, the UK sent troops to Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO (An organization created at the behest of the UK) which had invoked the article that compels support of members to defend one another if attacked. It should also be remembered that Iraq was the result of a simmering cold war in the region that started when Margret Thatcher told GHW Bush, "Don't get wobbly on me, George". So unless your view of history is blurred by attention deficit disorder, the question here is, Whom was the LapDog here?

Implied in the british poodle insult is that Bush was on an insane binge of bloodlust driven by his insatiable craving for oil and Blair was too feeble and weak to say no, because he needed something from the US. Now that we have won the war in Iraq, Bush doesn't look so insane and polls show that most in the US think the choice to go to Iraq was the right one. But this lust for oil is an interesting one.

The British (and other European allies) for years have expressed outrage when Americans accuse them of not being reliable allies when it comes to "siding" with us when we are either jointly or individually in danger. They buckle under pressure, or won't let us fly over their airspace, or won't extradite or if terrorists land and refuel, they fail to apprehend them, or if they do try them, they release them early or accept bribes. And lets not forget the largest "oil for European politician" bribery network ever, Oil for food at the UN.

270 lives were lost, most of them American, in a terrorist attack that took place in the UK. The US State Department received a tip that a plane would be bombed and our poodle allies were warned, but incompetence and in some cases mistrust caused them to disregard the warning. It departed from London Heathrow carrying a Bomb that ultimately was traced back to Qadafi and the Abu Nidal organization.



This relationship was the model of how rogue states operated in the region. An anti-western dictator threatened America and then used secret relations with terrorist leaders who survived by scooting from place to place being harbored by other rogue states. The success of the arrangement relied on the fact that western nations rarely attacked the rogue state in response to attacks or for harboring the terrorist leaders. This model lost that advantage on September 12, 2001.

After the Lockerbie attack, Abu Nidal would make his favorite safe Haven a government funded home in Saddam Hussein's capital, Baghdad. He moved there permanently in the late 90s. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Abu Nidal was one of several terrorists living under the Protection of Saddam that Tariq Aziz offered to hand over if Bush could be deterred. Bush would not be bought. Just before the US attacked Iraq, Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad.

So in summary, the rogue dictators of the Islamic world developed a "rational" model that worked well against the european politicians that included using clandestine terror networks to attack the west, bribe the European leaders (usually with oil), and cause the Europeans to pressure the US to have a less vigorous security approach to the region. The "crazy" George Bush changed that. Obama and his supporters claimed they wanted the world to return to a simpler time when terrorists were an "annoyance" and Europe liked us. Obama wanted the old model.

The return of the Lockerbie bomber in a UK deal for oil, is a signal that the people that called Blair a poodle and Obama who called for change in European relations are getting their wish. We are going back to the way things were and soon the model that worked so well for leaders like Moamar Qadaffi will be back in place and we can go back to relaxing in front of our Televisions watching friendly news anchors telling us about the annoyances of American skyscrapers falling to the ground and Jetliners falling from the sky.

I guess the British can enjoy cheaper petrol and they won't have to worry about having their leaders act as "Poodles" to those crazy Americans. Now their leaders are poodles to the terrorists that kill their constituents.

The name of this blog, "Falling Beams adjustment" refers to the parable by Dashiel Hammet that describes the curious and almost subconscious way human beings adjust to traumatic shocks. Bush adjusted one way. Obama and Brown do not adjust in the same way.

Was Obama's statement an open admission of Racial Prejudice?

When I was younger the term Prejudice, Bias and Racist were nearly interchangeable. You don't hear the terms bias and prejudice as much these days. I was listening very carefully to Barack Obama's remarks regarding the arrest of his close friend, Skip Gates and if it does not jump out as racist, or the remarks of a person with a hair trigger racial prism by which he views the world, then at the very least it is most definitely a text booked case of racial prejudice and racial bias.

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of prejudice:

A prejudice is an implicitly held belief, often about a group of people. Race, economic class, gender or sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and religion are other common subjects of prejudice. It can be used to characterize beliefs about other things as well, including "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."

I was always told that bias and prejudice, or "pre-judging", was a matter of "not having all the facts" about a specific person or event and applying your generally held beliefs about the skin color or group identity of the individuals involved and drawing rash leaps of logic about the events or individuals based on their group identity. An example would be calling someone "stupid" or saying they "acted stupidly" based not on the facts, but on your own recollection of perceived stereotypical outcomes when members of these groups interact. If one was to make such a leap to use such an insult like "stupid" in a personal, casual, or non-public event it could be considered hostile or even "fighting words", but when such perjoratives are used in a formal public event, it is not only considered a faux pas to exhibit racial prejudice in a campaign speech, for instance, but to call someone stupid from the podium of a Presidential Press conference, even if he were referring to Kim Jung Il would be considered a major break with Presidential decorum.

Let's imagine one of Obama's predecessors making these remarks, and let's go over the transcript and see where the prejudice is. Here is the question:

LYNN SWEET: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?

I remember when GHW Bush commented on the Rodney King beating video it created a buzz that the top law enforcement officer in our government would imply guilt before a fair trial had been given. Many pundits have pointed out that two of Obama's opening remarks about not having the facts and he is a friend of mine are usually followed with, "So, no comment". Not for this President. When a Massive Health Care Presser is clearly going to the toilet, fall back on ol' faithful, race baiting.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

Not only is Skip his friend, he is one of Obama's friends that makes his salary and his celebrity status commenting on how black people are oppressed and at one point during the campaign Obama wanted and needed the support of this group, many of which questioned his "blackness", which sounded troubling and disturbing to many Americans. So Skip and Barack have a bond that Obama values for political reasons amongst other things.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

People should be concerned about their Neighbor's homes, regardless of their race right? ...and remember the home had been broken into recently, so the neighbors and police were on the ball here.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

This hasn't been addressed much, but I am thoroughly offended and disturbed each time Obama and the First lady joke about or discuss the different ways that our president might be killed. I consider it an exercise in self importance and drama that has been traditionally an off limits topic for all Presidents and why this one gets away with repeating this again and again is beyond me. It makes his security detail's job more difficult and puts our governments stability in danger.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

We are soon going to hear the tape of this "exchange of words" the President is skipping over when the Cambridge Police release the tapes. He was not arrested immediately after providing Identification, he pursued the officer when the officer said he was leaving.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. BUT I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry;

Every young white male is going to be questioned by a police officer at some point and most will, at least once, be accused falsely or at least treated with suspicion by a police officer, or told to cooperate or move along or whatever, at a time when you are minding your own business and not doing anything wrong. This has happned to me many times. Most young white males will witness a friend or other white male who talks back to the officer or is in some way uncooperative. This type of behavior nearly always has an unhappy ending for the youth, when the officer attempts to encourage compliance. Little kids know this stuff, this is not the type of material that needs to be in a university sylabus. Apparently Skip Gates has not experienced this reality in the mean streets of the Harvard Commons or at his home in Martha's Vineyard, but unlike the young white youth, he seems to think harrassing an officer who has rushed to his aid, is an opportunity to uncover some cosmic truth and that is that he is an oppressed victim struggling against a massive conspiracy to keep him trapped in his nightmare of being forced to live with million dollar salaries and luxurious homes and being forced to appear on regular television shows and awards dinners. I have never been angry at a police officer who approached my house for any reason and the few times I was frustrated or unhappy about receiving a ticket or being told what to do, I never openly expressed anger at the officer. I have no idea why the President is trying to have us "understand the rage".

...number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

The President is either, as he admitted ignorant of the facts, in this case, what the actual charges are against Skip Gates, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the public to make his pal look good and the cops look bad. Let's remember, one of the few things Obama claims on his micro resume is that he is an Uber Attorney. Skip Gates was not charged with burglary. Obama knows that. When the officer was finally able to get Gates to interupt his lunatic ranting long enough to hand over his ID, which was a task the officer was required to do before leaving the scene, Crowley told Gates he was leaving. The burglary investigation was complete. The charge of disorderly conduct was based on Gates behavior before during and after the identification. Obama knows this. He is exhibiting bias by attempting to mislead and on Thursday when he refered to Gates age and his cane, he again was trying to mislead the public, by implying that disorderly conduct has an age limit or is limited to those that are capable of violently overwhelming an officer.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

If this so called fact, is "separate and apart" from this event which the President has admitted he is ill informed, then why bring it up. Why imply that this so called fact is relevent in this case, if you have no proof that it is. What if Bush said something like this. When Bush called Jose Padilla a "Bad Guy", the left accused him of profiling and worried that Hispanics would be targeted as terrorists. Latino Muslims complained of being targeted even though the number of Latino Muslims in America is believed to be only a few hundred.

What Obama is doing here is what he so often does. As Thomas Sowell points out, like a magician, Obama has a tendency to tell you he is not saying X or doing X, and then with his other hand and using different words he proceeds to do or say what he just claimed he was not doing. It is the equivelent of some old fart starting a story with, "Now, I'm not a racist or anything, BUT.....".

Obama is claiming Racial profiling is seperate and apart from the facts, but he in fact is including it as one the three facts that he claims "its fair to say" when characterizing the event. If we go back to the original "prejudice" of a person applying what they believe is a pattern in general about groups and making a leap of logic without knowing the specifics or the facts. Furthermore, Obama is intentionally trying to obscure the facts of the case. Then he follows up with his public legislative and legal works to address this apparent scourge of racial profiling.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

What haunts us? Having people falsely charged because of the color of their skin or their group identity? He is the top law enforcement officer and he is calling this man stupid, for following every conceivable procedure that he has been trained to follow. Gates has told the media that he was arrested by a "white" officer who couldn't handle a black man standing up for himself. Obama, by defending Gates "anger" and then droning on about us being haunted, is using his prejudice about white people and white police officers as well and saying they can be trained and trained and trained, they can be partnered with a hispanic officer and a black officer, and yet, if they come across a black man who is flipping his lid and yelling and screaming to the onlookers and refusing to cooperate, that somehow, because he is white, he STILL can not escape his inherent racism. This message is surprisingly similar to the rantings of friends of the Obamas like the Farakhans and Jeremiah Wrights when they refer to the "white devils". This is "pre-judging" Sgt. Crowley and attempting to destroy him and give him the Joe the Plumber treatment, for daring to get in the way of the King.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and often time for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.

Interesting how he ends with "bias" as he started by admitting that he is "biased", albeit biased because Gates is his friend. I can't imagine what would happen if Bush commented about the arrest of a friend and called the officer stupid what would happen. Every Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern would claim that Bush is trying to retaliate against opponents to protect rich texas oilmen who want to destroy the universe. So He ends by claiming bias is a bad when others are guilty of it.

He goes on to say he has been a crusader against racial profiling and he is currently working to end the "haunting" so we can "improve policing techniques" with local law enforcement. So he is implying that had there been better training or policies in Cambridge. Gates would not have been arrested. Gates did nothing wrong? He was in his home watching America's Idol and the cops stormed in and dragged him away because he is a "black man in America"

I have to know, What policies could they adopt that might help? What have they not done? Where did the system break down? Officer Crowley has been awarded and congratulated by his African American superior who applauds his 10 years of training others in how not to racially profile. He was accompanied with a black cop and a hispanic cop, who apparently should also be experts in racial profiling. What else can they do? What other hoops should law enforcement jump through?

Is it possible that Gates was wrong? Is it possible for the first time in history a black man FALSELY ACCUSED a white person of racism. Is it possible when Gates threatened the officer and said, "You don't know who you are messing with", what he meant is, "I am a powerful race baiter that makes my living portraying white cops as devils and my best friend is the most powerful man in the world who also happens to be black, and if I pick up the phone, he will call you a stupid white cop and you will be destroyed"

Henry Louis Gates is the equivalent of Mel Gibson yelling at his arresters and saying "Do you know who I am, You dirty SOB!!". He is a self important celebrity who was tired and frustrated after a long trip and who has a racial chip on his shoulder.

It is interesting to view Obama's Sotomayor appointment under this context. In the Ricci case, white New Haven Firemen are assumed to be favored or possibly cheating if they score better than African Americans. Obama sees a ranting lunatic correctly arrested for disorderly conduct and he claims the cop is racist, cheating, poorly trained, and stupid, because he is white.

I think when you consider the nature of Obama's logic in his statement, what we witnessed was an American President stand up in a formal press conference and make open statements of Racial Prejudice, admit he is biased in a case where he attempts to demonize the officer which will definitely result in his being harrassed, and worse yet, he tries to use his demonstrated racial attack as an example why he is making America a better place.

I imagined we got past this behavior with the defeat of George Wallace. I never thought I would witness this type of misguided use of Presidential power in my lifetime.