Look into the teleprompter - is Obama clear about clarity and Israel

Misrepresented - that's what Obama says now about his comments last week about Israel going back to its 1967 borders. What was "misrepresented?" That is what he said. Maybe that's not what he meant but that isn't a case of misrepresentation; it's, in a best-case scenario, an example of failure to clearly express oneself.

For those who are a bit conspiracy minded, it's possible that Obama said one thing to one audience last Thursday and another thing, when he clarified his comments Sunday, to another audience, and intended it that way from the start.

When someone writes, it's generally essential to know who their audience is. In other words, if writing about tobacco use, two distinctly different documents will emerge when writing to the American Cancer Society and the International Tobacco Growers Association. That's obvious, right?

It seems to me that Obama spends an awful lot of time clarifying what he said. This is perplexing, especially since most of what he says is pre-written, reviewed and packaged for use on teleprompters. Maybe he needs to hire some speech writers with a greater level of professionalism, speech writers that are more frequently clear the first time around. Of course, that doesn't fit with the conspiracy theory above.

In keeping with the conspiracy theory, Obama and his writers are entirely clear on what they're saying, when they say it and probably prepare to clarify, for the purpose of appeasing a different audience, from the time they create a first fire-storm causing speech.

I hear that Israelis are somewhat split on the issue of Obama's recent speech. Much as in America, liberal Israelis, who might be prone to like Obama in the first place, are more forgiving and understanding. His Sunday explanation is good enough for them. More conservative Israelis, however, aren't as quick to buy his clarification to what he said about Israel moving back to 1967 borders.

Considering, it would be easy to assume the difference of perspective is merely a matter of politics. But, if we're going to consider that possibility, we should do so with open eyes. What evidence do we have?

This is not the first time that Obama has seemed to have, as Republican Gov. Mitt Romney put it, "thrown Israel under the bus."

There is no doubt that Obama has sought a cozier arrangement with Islam. He's shown reluctance to call an Islamic terrorist a terrorist. As some are quick to point out, a portion of his youth was spent growing in an Islamic culture with Islamic influences.

None of these things represent smoking-gun evidence. However, Obama, his advisers and his speech writers, should by now be well aware of the accusations that he is either a secret Muslim or, at the very least, far more sympathetic to that faith than any president before him. They should realize that clarity is essential if they want to avoid the appearance of tossing Israel aside for a new pro-Muslim foreign policy.

Of course, this fits another conspiracy theory. Just as Obama refused to put the birth certificate issue to bed until Donald Trump dragged it out of him, maybe Obama wants to keep his detractors busy barking up the Muslim tree. And all the while, he passes them off as fringe lunatics.

The problem with that is, if you do such a thing too often, eventually, you've called so many people fringe lunatics that people begin to question your own stability.

So, it really comes down to this - either Obama has a public relations problem based on his failure to hire adequate staff writers or he has an even bigger problem of trying to covertly shift U.S. support from Israel to the Muslim world. If he catches on to this public relations dilemma, look for him to publicly replace some writers at the White House (I'm guessing most of his writing is done elsewhere anyhow - another conspiracy theory).

Doing so, however, won't necessarily indicate that the problem was his writers. It could mean that he's merely found a solution to his public relations problem and thrown his writers under the bus with Israel.

Looking for material on Durbin, Obama and other key liberals in 2012 election

Hello,

I recently received an interesting piece about a Dick Durbin staffer who is an apologist for 9/11 and blames the U.S. for the attacks. I certainly plan to write about this connection as I see Durbin as one of the prime targets in the 2012 election (oops, I said ‘targets’).

What I’m looking for is ammunition (oops, there I go again) that I can use when I write about them as the election looms. Let me rephrase that, and not because it crosses the PC line into the nonsense realm of ‘violent rhetoric.’ Rather, I want to make clear I am not looking for Chuck-Schumeresque opportunities to ‘smear’ the opposition. My goal is to pay attention to their words and actions and, like an elephant, not to forget (no fat jokes, please).

Candidates rely on pollsters and spin doctors – the Left also relies on the Left-stream media – to gain an edge in elections. However, equally important is their belief, usually accurately held, that the general public will usually forget 90 percent or more of what goes on before the election cycle kicks into full swing. This is convenient as it allows them to say and do stupid stuff with the assumption that the public’s short-term memory will protect them in the end.

So, I’m looking to all of you for help. I’ve created folders for Obama and Durbin, and will add other folders as appropriate – such as one in support of Joe Walsh – where I will gather pertinent information. As the election draws close, I will refer to these folders for information so that, in my little way, I can help to alert the public to the true nature of those we consider electing.

Thank you for your help

The Gay Libyan Connection - cartoon from Gary McCoy

It kind of struck me this way, too - http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/2011/02/25/shoring-up-his-base/

Should Egypt follow Obama or Jefferson?

OK, Mubarek is gone. Now what?

Well, unfortunately, folks like Glenn Beck may be too close to right. While Obama tries to tell us it's all good, we may find out that we have another Iran on our hands and this one situated at the head of the strategically vital Suez Canal. But, let's suppose the folks on the Left are right; this is a wonderful thing. What then?

The Egyptians will form some kind of a government. But, what kind of government? Should they choose a government from the mold Obama is striking here in the U.S.? Should they give their new government the power to regulate health care and force Egyptians to purchase insurance? Should they give their new government the power to hit a kill switch and shutoff the internet? Assuming they have similar branches of office, will it be OK if they have a legislative branch to write laws and an executive branch that can avoid the balancing power of a legislative branch by using czars, agencies and regulations to de-facto legislate from the executive mansion?

It's almost funny that Obama didn't support Mubarek. They have so much in common. But, in the case of Egypt, Obama has put concerns about spreading 'democracy' ahead of our national interests. Hopefully, this will work out in favor of our national interests but that's clearly not the position Obama took in the matter leading up to the day that Mubarek called it quits. He put democratic principles first.

Funny, I seem to remember him taking a different posture when similar protesting occurred a little to the east in Tehran in the recent past. Democratic principles took a back seat to an opportunity to meet with the Iranians face to face for a little love fest. Of course, consistency has never been Obama’s strong suit. One day he’s telling new House Republicans they’ll have to get in back the next he’s telling them we’ll need to work together.

If everything works out rosy in Egypt that may reflect on Obama in a positive light. His approval numbers may go up. I hate to think that any situation will improve his image. I find his image is less than consistent with the core values he’s supported since coming to office. But, I do hope things work out well in Egypt. We can’t afford for things to do otherwise.

Still, given a choice, would the Egyptians really want to go back to a quasi-Mubarek form of government, based on the Obama model, or would they prefer a Jeffersonian version of government based on the principles of liberty, freedom and limited government?