Obama wishes to avoid the fate of his father whose career was stalled when he fell out with the Kenyan authorities and descended into a life of poverty and alcoholism, but would rather emulate the career of his father's nemesis and become the Jomo Kenyatta of America.

Long-lost article by Obama's dad surfaces

By: Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner

April 15, 2008 04:43 AM EST

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=51418214-3048-5C12-00D20AC776ED4E67East Africa Journal

“Problems Facing Our Socialism” by Barak H. Obama

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

... for doing my homework for me.

I appreciate the detailed reply of the kind that I would never get to read in any news coverage (supposing there were any) of this despicable microcosm in the continued descent into tyrannical imperialism (or imperialistic tyranny). Should we expect thunderous applause?

Not to be seen as fawning, I have a tiny quibble about "the fact that interrogation of POWs is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions", which, as ondelette has already pointed out, is not entirely correct.

"Name, rank, and serial number" is the only information a POW is required to give to his captor. He can give any additional information he chooses to. What is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions is any form of coercion to obtain information from POWs:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

I have posted about this before, but not for half a year or so:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/permalink/ec8c3656918f86a7910f2ab1074f22bb.html

If even one of the "detainees" at GTMO is legitimately a prisoner of war, then his treatment there amounts to a war crime (also known, for the purposes of USC as a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions").

Again, thanks for your detailed summary.

Unreal that isn't it? Why on earth would he use a signing statement to ignore the sensible provisions in the bill such as those?

Sensible? What is sensible about announcing your negotiating position before you start negotiations? Also, how is it constitutional for Congress to dictate a negotiating position to the president? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't know jack about our constitution, or our government (as evidenced by your insane birth certificate rants), but you love to run your mouth about it anyway.

I'll just start with your assertion that the provisions were "sensible". I'll use an analogy. If you walked into a car dealership, with a note from your bank, specifying that you must settle for a certain price, if it's offered, and that you must show the note to the car dealer before negotiations start, what price do you think you'd end up paying?

In case you didn't figure out the riddle: you'd pay exactly the price on the note, or more, but never ever ever less.

Laying out your bottom line negotiating position before negotiations even start is incredibly stupid. Also, it's not within Congress' power to even legislate that, nor should it be. Just as congress can't force the president to meet with Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro, or offer them cookies, they can't tell the executive branch how to conduct negotiations with the World Bank.

Well Glenn,

In regards to your search..."for an Obama supporter who (a) defends his decision to suppress those photos but also (b) criticized him when, two weeks earlier, he announced that he would release those photos.

Maybe you should look to see what happens to coutiers who criticize the oligarch. What's going on in Iran might give you a little idea. Our elected officials aren't out to commit political suicide and that's exactly what it would be. The speaker has made that clear.

I'm glad you're having such a hard time swallowing Obama's continuation of so many of Bush's "abhorred" policies. Using all these as campaign vehicles and then quickly doing an about face shows him to be strictly the political animal he is. Watch the "no taxes on the middle class" get qucikly flushed next. Almost as if it were never said.

You're looking for a democrat with integrity. No luck yet, it seems.

June 28, 2009

Media nervous on new Duke U. rape case (updated)

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker Blog

A new and even more scandalous rape allegation has surfaced at Duke University. Yet the usual media and campus PC crowd are keeping mighty quiet. Identity politics apparently trumps all sense of outrage.

Of course, after the disgraceful media and university reaction to the phony allegations against Duke Lacrosse team members, it is wise avoid jumping to conclusions, but the comparative silence on the current case is nonetheless remarkable, considering how many particulars of the case were left out of the main AP account.

Mike Adams, writing on Townhall, lays out the facts the MSM won't:

Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he's declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a "perv dad for fun." The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

It gets worse. The allegations are stunning and sickening. Adams spares us what he says is the worst.

However, identity politics are probably also involved in understanding the media response. Again, Adams:

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I am afraid that as far as the media and academic communities are involved, it is not the crime itself that matters, but rather whether the alleged perp is a member of an "oppressor" group. Although white, Lombard is gay, so in the interest of avoiding unpleasant stories involving homosexual adoption, the media is anxious to shut down public interest in the affair.

However, the outspokenness and willingness to judge in advance a case involving white jocks - easy targets - of Duke and media, inevitably place a spotlight on their handling of another Duke rape allegation.

Update: Thomas Lifson notes that Stanley B. Chambers of the Raleigh News and Observer (hat tip: C. Edmund Wright) brings is the following nugget:

Lombard, a licensed clinical social worker with a master's degree in social work, is a health-disparities researcher who studies HIV/AIDS in the rural South.

This means that Lombard toiled in fields of the victimology industry, mining data for correlations that would underwrite government favoritism of victim groups.

A victimologist victimized at least one child in the most heinous way. The ultimate victim(s). And the media see no hypocrisy, and want to make sure the public doesn't either. Nothing to see here, move along.

All this coming in the wake of another highly publicized incident at the same prominent university? I don't think they can suppress this one. The conservative media have the power to put this case on the national agenda. It is too dramatic.