Divide and Conquer – The Obama Plan

Editor’s Note – Before you read Charles Krauthammer’s great op/ed piece posted here, originally in the Washington Post, watch the 2007 Campaign Ad below it. Pay special attention to the “slice and dice” line and the effort to open up the budget process. What budget process? There has never been one under his watch, 1,095 days and counting!

Divider in chief

By Charles Krauthammer – Washington Post

So many promises - the results, divide and conquer has taken on a grand dimension!

“The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states.”

Barack Obama, rising star, 2004 Democratic convention (See video below)

Poor Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Once again he’s been pilloried for fumbling a historic Supreme Court case. First shredded for his “train wreck” defense of Obamacare’s individual mandate, he is now blamed for the defenestration in oral argument of Obama’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law.

The law allows police to check the immigration status of someone stopped for other reasons. Verrilli claimed that constitutes an intrusion on the federal monopoly on immigration enforcement. He was pummeled. Why shouldn’t a state help the federal government enforce the law? “You can see it’s not selling very well,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Verrilli never had a chance. This was never a serious legal challenge in the first place. It was confected (and timed) purely for political effect, to highlight immigration as a campaign issue with which to portray Republicans as anti-Hispanic.

Hispanics, however, are just the beginning. The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.

Why else would the Justice Department challenge the photo ID law in Texas? To charge Republicans with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar law from Indiana. And it wasn’t close: 6 to 3, the majority including the venerated liberal John Paul Stevens.

Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can’t get into the attorney general’s building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?

The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the “war on women.” It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as co-insured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.

Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen’s hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.

No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show “Buffett rule,” nicely pitting the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.

Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54 percent of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed.

How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan’s budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.)

Then warn that Republicans would double the interest rate on student loans. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as The Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006, when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50 percent rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy.

For Obama, what’s not to like? More beneficiaries, more votes.

What else to run on with 1.7 percent GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8 percent-plus unemployment (38 consecutive months, as of this writing). Slice and dice, group against group.

There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama’s pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is “not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore’s famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many.

Disowning the Truth – It matters little inside the 'beltway'

Editor’s Note – By now, even the most ardent nay-sayer of so-called ‘Birthers’ must admit, this Obama document fraud issue, and ignoring the eligibility question stinks to the high heavens. In the privacy of their own abodes they surely must admit it when they look in the mirror in the morning.

Obama is a fake, a fraud, and a usurper of the Oval Office. Most are afraid to say anything in public for fear that when the truth is finally out in the cleansing freshness of the sun light on a clear crisp day, people may remember what the pundits said long before.

Who committed the fraud...and was it condoned?

People will remember the disparaging remarks, the demogoguery, the patronizing tones, and the fact that they were too afraid to touch this third-rail. Why? Because they were and are, afraid of being lumped in with the very people they besmirched. Reputations have been sullied, and now, its a big CYA to protect their own.

Disowning Birth Certificates, Disowning Truth

By Diana West – Death of the Grown-up

Below is this week’s syndicated column: “Is Obama Disowning His Online Birth Certificate?” It takes in the shifting strategy of the Obama defense team in fending off challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on presidential primary ballots. Obama’s eligibility is a signal concern for the nation which should be the subject of informed, serious debate on the front pages, on news shows, and also, most important, in the Congress. Such debate is non-existent. Such concern is non-existent, too. It doesn’t seem to matter to the citizenry that a fraudster may be completing one term in the White House while seeking another.

I recently had the occasion to discuss the matter with a very famous American conversative.

Famouse Conservative said to me: Tell me what columns of yours are getting a big response lately.

I had earlier written this column about the Georgia ballot challenge hearing in which President Obama ignored a subpoena for the certified copy of his birth certificate (among other documents). This column elicited a great response from readers, many of whom asked me the same question: why this important story wasn’t being covered in the media.

They’re really interested in this whole eligibility story, I said.

Famous Conservative: I’ll bet they are.

Me: Aren’t you?

FC: No.

Me: No? Why aren’t you?

FC: If this were happening back at the time of the election, maybe.

I told FC  this is an election (ding-dong).

FC: Exactly. But this will alienate the people we need to defeat him at the polls.

I made some naive-sounding comment (which I thoroughly subscribe to) about the seeking the truth regardless of the outcome, adding that the truth would likely alienate plenty of people from Obama, too.

Impasse.

New tack for Famous Conservative: If this were true, why hasn’t Rush or Hannity taken it on?

Me:  They’re afraid.

FC: (Scoffs.)

Me: Look, Rush won’t talk about a lot of things: Islamization, for one. Sharia. Muslim Brotherood, those kinds of things. He has a comfort zone.

FC: (Disbelief.)

Impasse.

FC: Well, maybe if some respected conservative journalist were to examine the story —

Me: (What am I, chopped liver?) Who, for instance?

FC: John Fund, Daniel Henniger …

Hey boys, have at it. But there’s a problem. According to the FC (1) the truth will alienate voters so we mustn’t seek the truth; and (2) it can’t be true anyway because otherwise Rush, Sean, John and Dan would be all over the story. Of course, if FC’s conservative journalists subscribe to #1 or some variation thereon as partisans or Republicans, we’ll never get to #2. Meanwhile, across the journalistic aisle, the MSM has the another, equally heavy stake in preventing the truth from outing. They want Obama re-elected.

What’s wrong with this picture? Conservative logic, conservative morality.

Needless to say, I didn’t make any inroads with FC although FC’s spouse shares my concern in the subject, so that’s something.

——-

The column:

Almost exactly one year ago – with Donald Trump on top of presidential polls and author Jerome Corsi on top of Amazon’s best-seller list, both for asking where President Barack Obama’s “real” birth certificate was – Judith Corley, the president’s personal attorney, flew to Hawaii. She went there to pick up two certified copies of the president’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

At least, that’s what then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer told us last April 27 at a White House press briefing called to unveil the new, certified document. Multiple copies were passed out to the press, while NBC’s Savannah Guthrie became the one witness I know of to touch the certified document. (She reported she “felt the raised seal.”) A computer image of this Obama long-form birth certificate appeared on the White House website, where now you and I can download it for ourselves as proof of the president’s bona fides.

Or is it?

It is this same Internet image that the Cold Case Posse, a group of lawyers and former law enforcement professionals assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to vet Obama’s identity documents, has concluded is most likely a forgery. At its March 1 press conference, the posse further explained that it believed the online imageoriginated as a computer file. In other words, a paper document did not exist before the image appeared on the White House website.

If the posse’s mind-blowing findings are correct, what is it that Judith Corley couriered back to Washington? And what is it that Savannah Guthrie touched?

I find such questions most intriguing – even if the rest of the media do not – particularly after last week’s court hearing into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the New Jersey presidential primary. After literally dozens of such eligibility cases since 2008 (evidently, the media are waiting for a discernible story trend to emerge before they pounce), I can report, having watched a video of the New Jersey hearing online, that the president’s team is making progress. Only now it’s away from his long-form birth certificate.

The curious fact is, President Obama’s attorney, Alexandra Hill, couldn’t have been more adamant about not citing the online birth certificate as a means of proving the president’s identity in this recent challenge – and after everyone went to so much trouble to get it! Indeed, she called the Internet image “legally irrelevant,” arguing that New Jersey law doesn’t specifically call for a birth certificate to qualify a presidential candidate for the ballot.

Exactly how a presidential candidate demonstrates he is at least 35 years old and “natural born,” the constitutional requirement New Jersey upholds, Hill didn’t say, but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin found her arguments persuasive to the point of preventing an expert witness from offering testimony that the online image is a forgery.

Even though the Obama team entered no documentation of the president’s identity into the record – not even that “certified” birth document Obama’s personal lawyer traveled so far to retrieve – Judge Masin managed to find that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born.”

Neat, huh? But note the shift in legal tactics. If, in New Jersey, the online birth certificate was “legally irrelevant,” in January’s Georgia eligibility hearing, the president’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, considered it legally decisive. Jablonski cited “the documents evidencing the birth of President Obama” that are available online to try to quash a subpoena that “commanded” Obama to come to court and bring “any and all birth records” with him (among other documents).

A golden opportunity to show off that certified, hand-couriered birth doc from Hawaii, and be done with it, no? No. When Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Jablonski and Obama ignored it. They just didn’t show up. Not to worry: Flouted subpoena and all, and without any evidence from the Obama team, Judge Malihi found that the president was both born in Hawaii and “natural born,” too.

Amazing how that works, and no matter what the president’s lawyers do – so long as they don’t enter tangible evidence of the president’s identity into the court record.

As for that new birth certificate that came online last April? Since government and media have abdicated their responsibility to help determine whether it’s the real McCoy or a forgery, what else is there to do but wish it a happy first birthday?