Monday, September 21, 2009

Barack Obama: America's Vizier

Barack Obama does not want to be America's President. Oh, he enjoys the pomp and ceremony of the office, the prestige of being President, the power and the money the office brings. But unlike all other Presidents in America's history, Obama fundamentally does not want to be President. Obama's support for a State-Run Press, unilateral nuclear disarmament, surrender in Afghanistan, and war against the CIA make it clear. He would rather be America's first, only, and eternal Vizier.


Obama is of course, not an American. Obama does not like America, has no respect for its traditions or values, does not like the American Flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, or much else about America. Obama's two books, particularly his last, "the Audacity of Hope" (title taken from a sermon by his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright) show that he believes the "original sin" was the creation of America, "White Privilege" and that in his words (again taken from a Rev. Wright sermon) "White Man's greed created a world in need." The audio book recitation of this by Obama himself being a favorite on talk radio. Obama, like many Blacks, particularly those in the South Side of Chicago who made his neighbor, Louis Farrakhan, a multi-millionaire, and his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a multi-millionaire (with an exclusive multi-million dollar mansion in an exclusive all-White gated community fronting a golf course), believes that Whites and America are both irredeemably evil, need to be punished, and only by doing so and "redistributing the wealth" can social justice and peace on Earth be achieved.


Michelle Malkin has pictures and a video tour of Wright's four car garage mansion. Obama in 2007 noted he would no longer wear the American Flag lapel pin, because it was a substitute for "true patriotism" after 9/11. Obama famously while running for President refused to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

This is not surprising, it would be shocking if Obama had any regard for America, its majority population, or its traditions. Obama was born, likely in Hawaii, and raised the first 9 years of his life in Indonesia, shortly after the coup that removed Sukarno and installed dictator Sukarno. During this time, political repression was high in Indonesia, the only political expressions allowed, Muslim, and Obama was in a hot-house of debased, "Folk Marxism," Islamism, anti-American Third World ideologies, undergoing Muslim instruction along with other Muslim boys in a Catholic school. Obama in his autobiography "Dreams From My Father, a Story of RACE and Inheritance" (nothing is as important to Obama as race) recounts that the older Indonesian boys frequently threw him in canals, and called him various racist names on account of his mixed-race background. It seems that to avoid bullying, Obama became more anti-America than his tormentors, embracing at that time toxic brew of Islamism, debased Marxism, and Third World narcissism along with Big Man worship.

[Regarding Obama's birth certificate, only redacted information has been released by the Hawaii Secretary of State certifying Obama's status as a natural born US citizen. The full certificate, unlike all other candidates for President and Presidents has never been released, due to the President's legal actions. While it is possible that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but rather Kenya, or was claimed by his mother to be a Kenyan citizen, the most likely explanation is that his mother and grandmother, on one side, and his father on the other, were engaged in a bitter custody battle, and no father was listed on the birth certificate. Embarrassing to say the least for a man who has based his whole identity on being his father's son, a failed Kenyan Big Man. Obama Sr. having died from complications suffered from multiple drunk driving accidents. However with a man this secretive, who unlike every other President has massive amounts of his background unaccounted for and uncovered by the media, one never knows. Certainly something is embarrassing, otherwise the entire Birth Certificate would have been released, and there remains a possibility that Obama was in fact not born in Hawaii or was claimed by his Mother not to be a US citizen.]

Obama recounted to Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times in 2007 how:

He spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks.

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)


Census.gov estimates that there are 307 million people in America. Estimates here estimate 2.8 million Muslims in America, and America.gov estimates between 2 and 7 million Muslims in America. This translates into 0.6% to 2% of Americans being Muslims. Barack Hussein Obama, is very unlike the vast majority of Americans, who do not speak Indonesian, and were not raised Muslim, and have negative views of Islam and Muslims.

Obama then spent his adolescence in Hawaii, home of Kill Haole Day, separate from the May 1 Beat Up a White Kid Day. The state of Hawaii has unusual demographics, for the time in which Obama grew up, even more unusual. Whites were then as they are now, a minority. Casual marijuana use, and also cocaine, to which Obama admitted in his autobiography, was widespread in the islands at the time, in contrast to the mainland. Obama's regular drug use, particularly of cocaine puts him at odds with most Americans, if one assumes the 7.2% of 12th graders who have tried cocaine in their lifetimes is roughly representative of all Americans. Given that 92.8% of the High Schoolers surveyed had not tried cocaine.

Obama then spent his early manhood at first Occidental College, where he hung out by his own admission with radical marxists, radical feminists, queer liberationists, militant Black Nationalists, and Muslims. As I posted in October 2008, in Barack Obama's Hidden Columbia Years, it is likely that the reason Obama is so little remembered by his classmates at Columbia, in marked contrast to Occidental and Harvard, is that he was at a Mosque attended by his Pakistani Muslim room-mate most of the time he was not on-campus. As I note in the post, this would certainly explain his strange trip in the Summer of 1981 as noted in the NY Times to Pakistan, where he spent three weeks there. During which time, Osama bin Laden and other Jihadi groups were running active terrorist activities against the Soviets, and offering "tours" to wealthy or connected Muslims interested in observing the front or otherwise engaging in Jihad type activities.

So much about Obama is hidden that it is unknown just exactly how he connected to the room-mate in Columbia (a man he did not know, and to whom he had no personal connections, and who appears in his autobiography only briefly). It is not known just what Obama did while in Pakistan, certainly it is unusual for a College student interested in girls and fun to visit Jihad central (instead of nearby Bali, as he visited his mother and half-sister in Indonesia during the trip). It makes Obama very, very different from most Americans, who would not find Summer in Pakistan an appealing prospect in the best of times.

After his graduation from College, and his law school years, Obama moved to South Side Chicago where his role as an ACORN agitator (he worked for them and later hired them to work on his campaign), "community organizer," Farrakhan neighbor, member of Trinity United Church, and extremist views (he wrote two weeks after 9/11 an editorial basically laying out Rev. Wright's views that America "deserved" 9/11 in more polite terms) characterize him as not American. Certainly not culturally American.

This should shock no one. Obama had been raised outside America, in the critical first few years of his life. The Jesuits famously claimed "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man." Obama was given over to Suharto's Indonesia, until he was nine, and reflects the deep anti-Americanism, confirmed over and over by his life's choices and voluntary associations in the course of his adult life.

Which is why Obama does not want to be President. He wants to be America's first and only, and eternal, Vizier. Obama sees his role as fatally weakening America, so its enemies can attack. Allowing him to rule as Big Man, in the style his beloved father advocated. Not as a dictator fighting a ruthless war of national survival, but rather as a Vizier ruling on behalf of the Third World to punish America (for it's original sin of existing, especially America's White Majority).

Not content with the fawning coverage of the Press and Media, Obama wants a bailout bill for media to create a State Run Pravda-style Media. The press fawningly covers Obama as a Living God, can you imagine how worse it will get when all Media is owned by the Government and run by Obama:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.


Obama clearly wants to create a "Dear Leader" type of North Korean media (where it is a capital offense to sit on a newspaper containing a picture of the Jongs, Kim Jong-Il or Kim Il-Sung). He wishes to have non-stop Cult of Personality worship, the way African Big Men also have it, in the state-run press. Notice also, Obama wants to "regulate" blogs and control the internet. So that only "the proper people" can tell the populace what to do: worship Obama as a god. Not even the worst AMERICAN Presidents ever went this far. Obama is not an American.

Obama's decision to continue the jihad against the CIA against the advice of SEVEN CIA Chiefs, among whom three served under Clinton (Tenet also served under GWB).

Allowing future investigations and prosecutions “will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country,” the seven men write. “In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.”

Moreover, they argue, “public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude US intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.”

The seven former directors are Michael Hayden and Porter Goss, who served under President George W. Bush; George Tenet, who served under Bush and President Bill Clinton; John Deutch and R. James Woolsey, who served under Clinton; William Webster, who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan; and James R. Schlesinger, who served under President Richard Nixon…

The former directors who wrote the letter also argue that a “certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies,” which are “already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets.”


Obama is not stupid. He knows very well that allowing Holder to pursue the Jihad against the CIA will make all CIA agents, for at least fifty years down the line, unwilling to do anything that could be construed as mis-treatment. Making the CIA into essentially, a blog and newspaper clipping analysis agency with no ability to detect and stop terrorist threats against the US. Which in turn makes another terror plot, even bigger than 9/11, a dead-certainty.

Indeed, this Obama's desire. He WANTS America to be attacked, with potentially millions dead. So he might rule as an emergency dictator. Not, to fight back with absolute powers, but to use absolute powers (including a State Run Media) to force a surrender. To whatever terms America's enemies, from bin Laden to Iran to Pakistan to Russia to China to any other group, might want to dictate. With himself as Vizier of America.

This explains Obama's otherwise inexplicable desire for nuclear disarmanent and his belief that:

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."


Obama believes America's nukes "belong" to him personally. This again is the attitude not of an American, but an Indonesian filled with debased Marxism, racialism, and Islamism.

Obama is not stupid. He knows well (having visited there as a youth) that Pakistan will never give up their nukes, and is indeed arming themselves with more, as is India, China, and quite likely, Russia. Israel (having been abandoned by American security guarantees by Obama, and only 4% of Israelis thinking Obama is pro-Israel) will never give up its nukes. Iran will never give up its nuke program either, and likely already has a few nukes at hand. Obama instead wants to make it "safe" for Pakistan or Iran to nuke America. Hence the focus on eliminating as many nukes as possible, creating a policy of American retaliation for only massive nuclear attack by a clearly identified party (his "narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons" demand) and removing testing of any nuclear weapons (which makes American nukes unreliable). This comes after eliminating the airborne laser missile defense in April 2009, 24 hours after North Korea fired an ICBM at Hawaii, along with the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and additional ground radar stations and missiles in Alaska to defend against North Korean missiles aimed at Hawaii or the US Mainland. The cancellation of the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic on September 18, 2009 (the anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland in WWII) is also part of the plan to make America unable to respond to missiles from enemies. The proposed shield would not only have protected Europe from Iran's missiles, but the US East Coast.

Obama wants an America with few working nukes (and none at all would be even better). Disarmed to make America with few options, and if nukes still exist in America's arsenal, he wants retaliation for the loss of American cities something strictly forbidden by formal and public US policy. Famously, in the debates among the Democratic candidates he said he would not retaliate if America was nuked, but rather hug the first responders. Even Hillary Clinton managed to say she would retaliate. This is why Obama has met Venezuela's Hugo Chavez promises of Iranian nuclear missiles in that nation with shrugs (in contrast to JFK's response to Soviet missiles in Cuba). Or has reacted with approval of Venezuela's open alliance with Iran, supplying Venezuelan gasoline (in violation of US led sanctions against Iran over their nuclear program) in exchange for arms and Iranian missiles.

All that is left is making sure the US is defeated in Afghanistan. By denying McChrystal's demand for more troops. Obama campaigned on winning the war in Afghanistan, but it was all a lie. A man brought up in Indonesia, who associated with Marxists, radical feminists, queer theorists, angry Black Nationalists, and Muslims in College, and Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in adulthood (they launched his political career in their living room) does not want America to win any war. Certainly not the struggle which is against the interests of his Islamists hosts in Pakistan in the Summer of 1981. Obama is eager to abandon Afghanistan, so that bin Laden can take control of that nation again, and with a great victory and safe haven, launch more terrorist attacks.

Which will be Obama's great dream. His whole life, he has dreamt, not of leading a United America, but of punishing America, and its White majority, for sins in the past, imagined and real, and those in the present, imagined and real.

Obama, in raw terms, is doing everything he can to create his own Reichstag Fire, to create a dicatorship so that he can be America's first and eternal Vizier. It is why he is deliberately weakening America's defenses, cutting both nukes and missile defense at the same time. Pushing for unilateral American disarmament so that the US can have no response to the nuking of several cities, other than complete surrender.

Obama's plan is this: eliminate America's nukes, and missile defense. If the US still retains some nukes, create a formal policy whereby they are never to be used except in retaliation for a mass attack by Russia or China. Ensure the nukes are so aged and unreliable they cannot be used anyway. Create a state-run Media that embraces a cult of personality worship in the African Big Man and North Korean style. This goes hand in hand with his desire to create his own private, Big Man style Army:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded


Obama's close friend, collaborator in the Annenberg Challenge (who steered millions Obama's way in grants to his program), wanted concentration camps for those who did not embrace communism:

asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.


With a massive defeat of the US by bin Laden, in Afghanistan, Obama will be able to finally have that which he most desires: the nuking of New York City, around 3 to 6 million American dead, and perhaps another city nuked with even more dead. Maybe even 10 million dead. More hideously burned. So Obama can rule by emergency decree, rule out any retaliation (which will in any even be forbidden by policy and perhaps by nukes that don't work), and surrender. Surrender and humble America, they way he has wanted to since he was a boy, drinking in anti-Americanism and hatred of Whites since he was a boy.

Perhaps the surrender will be the form of "reparations" and formal "submission to Islam" or perhaps merely outlawing "insulting Islam" and legalizing polygamy, restricting Christian and Jewish worship. Perhaps the remaining bits of America's military will be ordered to attack Israel in order to wipe it out, to protect the remainder of America's cities. Perhaps concentration camps will be prepared for "Tea Baggers" and "Townhall protestors" and "racists" who don't like Obama. Bill Cosby, after all, believes it's racist to criticize Obama.

Obama is President, and is accorded enormous power. He has an absolute Democratic Majority, and if nothing else can ram his policies through, foreign and domestic, national security and otherwise, through Congress. By the reconciliation process if nothing else, where he needs only 50 votes (that he is sure to get). Many other policies he can take unilaterally as Commander-in-Chief. The media already worships him, and is openly counting the bailout they will soon get. The Media wishes to be formally, Pravda. Obama can do everything up to getting millions of Americans killed, the taboo of nukes broken, and major US cities containing priceless people, works of art, architecture, and history destroyed forever. Obama can do all this (and clearly, wants to).

But, not being an American, having no friends who are American (they are all Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, or Van Jones), he does not understand that his moment of control passes as soon as America gets nuked. Obama, will soon face after his fondest dream, America punished for its sins by being nuked, his worst nightmare. An angry, frightened, fearful America, casting his leadership off, by impeachment and conviction, or military coup (the US Military is the only institution that is still trusted by Americans as it is the only one that actually does its job) if Congress is vaporized in Washington. Indeed, Obama himself might be vaporized by the very Jihadis he seeks to encourage. They owe him nothing and have nothing but contempt for him, witness bin Laden's message to Obama that he cannot stop war.

Americans won't stand for a forced surrender to Jihad by a foreign President. One whose nature, being of Jakarta not America, does not allow him any real understanding of Americans. Obama dreams of inflicting a massive defeat and nuclear humiliation on America. Instead, most Americans, once they have thrown off Obama, are likely to conclude that the only way to be safe and secure is to kill most Muslims on the planet. And set about doing, just that. As the response to Pearl Harbor was a bloody series of naval battles, island campaigns, the firebombing of Japan, followed by nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

People often wonder about the difference between 9/11 and WWII. In WWII, people were afraid and quite reasonably afraid that the US could lose and face foreign occupation. On 9/11, no matter how hard the terrorists hit us, we were not afraid of a foreign occupation and defeat. Now, Obama intends to inflict defeat on America. On a scale that dwarfs 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Reminiscent of the leveling of Rotterdam and Coventry. All so that Obama can rule as the foreign tribune over an America he (and his wife) hate.

Obama does not wish to be President. Only Vizier. Thus his bowing to the Saudi King:



No other US President has EVER bowed to a foreign leader. No American ever would. Instinctively, Obama does not even think himself a President, rather a Vizier in Waiting.

He is likely, for all his trouble, to be removed from office. While his friends such as Ayers and Dohrn and Soros are rich, money is not everything. Most Americans are not the sons of Commonwealth Edison CEOs and Chairman such as Bill Ayers, revolutionary born to wealth. America is still at least 74% to 80% White and only 12-12.8% Black. Fewer still are the born to the manor revolutionaries, political hacks, corrupt bagmen, and radical grifters (Van Jones) who make up Obama's retinue of advisors, friends, and associates. All likely sense Obama's desire to be Vizier, and agree with the fundamental outlines. But none really understand the vastness, both physical and population-wise, of America.

Yes, Obama can get millions of Americans killed, its premier Eastern cities in radioactive rubble, a humiliating inability to strike back immediately. But all he will do is provoke a final, and very dangerous struggle between the elites and those who back him as a "Light Worker" and the people, who are beginning to actively hate and despise not just him but all around him, including the failed media (who did not report at all on ACORN even after Big Government reported for days with shocking media on the ACORN prostitution sting.

With millions of Americans dead, cities in ruin, Obama's ability to give a big speech to adoring people, who want a Big Man leader, after having failed spectacularly in protecting America, is limited. His core followers will be with him, but that is all, and would amount to no more than 20% of the population. The rest will want him gone and will work with whatever remaining forces are left to accomplish that, whether it be people in the military, or surviving Congressmen and Senators, or even Governors. Obama himself might be dead in any attack on Washington. But even if he survives few will be willing to sign up for even more defeat, humiliation, and foreign rule in one way or another.

America's elite (and that of the entire West, but that is another post) is hopelessly corrupt and decadent, removed from the people, without any understanding of them and given to open fear and contempt for the people. Obama, and his desire to be Vizier not President, merely exemplifies this desire of the elite to surrender to any, any enemy, so long as they may rule over their people without restraint or consideration for them. Too much wealth, control of culture, and lack of challenge to their near-hereditary positions has corrupted their minds to the point where they believe themselves the natural born aristocracy fated to rule over a people they believe, also, inherently "evil" and worthy of punishment.

However, while lacking in the enormous amounts of wealth that the elite have, the people have wealth of their own, to the point where obesity is a serious health issue in the West. Cars, computers, and other pointers of wealth abound. The White middle and working classes in America are still the largest groups. Obama hopes to destroy both at a stroke and set himself up as Vizier, offering more defeat to America. In this quest for defeat and becoming America's First Vizier, Obama may have more in common with Al Qaeda than he thinks: a fantasy ideology, one not based on any actual knowledge of real, ordinary Americans.

But then, Obama was never American.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! Your best, ever, post.

Mike Sylwester said...

Whiskey, you are an interesting thinker on many subjects, but on the subject of Barack Obama you are irrational.

Here I will address only the issue of his birth. The birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspapers a few days after his birth is strong evidence that he was born in Honolulu and that the mother claimed then that the African student Barack Obama was the father. (And the baby was named Barack Obama, Junior.)

Maybe the biological father was another man (e.g. Frank Marshall Davis). The family might have conducted a life-long effort to conceal the identity of the real, biological father.

However, your idea that no name was written on the birth certificate when he was born is not compelling. The Hawaiian newspapers certainly obtained the birth-certificate name from the Civil Registrar in the days following the birth, and that was the basis for the published announcement in the newspapers.

Jeff Burton said...

Your estimates of casualties from a terrorist nuke are off by an order of magnitude (or two). Please read this, which is a detailed analysis of the consequences of a container-borne nuke going off in Long Beach harbor. This is the easiest attack for non-state actors to pull off. Estimated deaths will reach five figures, might reach six, but definitely won't make to seven.

Whiskey said...

No name on the birth certificate for the Father. Of course, Obama is his fathers son, just look at him. He's very much the image of his father.

But the full Birth certificate could well have no name for the father. Which could be embarrassing to say the least, given that Obama made much of his parents marriage. I would not discount that possibility.

I am under the impression that the family of Stanley Ann Dunham paid for the birth announcement. That is after all the core business (or was) of newspapers.

I don't think there is a high probability that Obama was not born as a natural US Citizen, but with his secrecy and lack of vetting you never ever know.

Certainly something is embarrassing about his birth certificate, otherwise he would have released the whole thing.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Whiskey,

Obama and the elites around him have absolutely zero understanding of the American people and even less understanding of our own recent history.

The following is from a post a friend of mine made over on the Daniel Drezner blog a few years ago. It was originally a post on strategypage.com but has since scrolled off that site:

The logic of suicide terrorism

http://danieldrezner.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=736

"JUNE 18, 1945 - When A Democracy Chose Genocide

The United States government decided on June 18, 1945, to commit genocide on Japan with poison gas if its government did not surrender after the nuclear attacks approved in the same June 18 meeting. This was discovered by military historians Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen while researching a book on the end of the war in the Pacific. Their discovery came too late for inclusion in the book, so they published it instead in the Autumn 1997 issue of Military History Quarterly.

Polmar & Allen ran across references to this meeting in their research and put in a Freedom of Information Act request for related documents. Eventually they received, too late for use in their book, a copy of a document labeled "A Study of the Possible Use of Toxic Gas in Operation Olympic." The word "retaliatory" was PENCILED in between the words "possible" and "use".


>snip<

The plan called for US heavy bombers to drop 56,583 tons of poison gas on Japanese cities in the 15 days before the invasion of Kyushu, then another 23,935 tons every 30 days thereafter. Tactical air support would drop more on troop concentrations.

The targets of the strategic bombing campaign were Japanese civilians in cities. Chemical Corps casualty estimates for this attack plan were five million dead with another five million injured. This was our backup to nuking Japan into surrender. If the A-bombs didn't work, we were going to gas the Japanese people from the air like bugs, and keep doing so until Japanese resistance ended or all the Japanese were dead.

Genocide is defined by treaty as the murder of a large number of people of an identifiable group, generally a nationality or religion, which number comprises an appreciable percentage of the total group. Five million dead is 6.4% of then 78 million people in the Japanese Home Islands, so this proposed gas attack would certainly have qualified as genocide.

What brought the United States government to that decision was the prospective casualties of a prolonged ground conquest of Japan against suicidal resistance, after Japanese Kamikaze attacks and suicidal ground resistance elsewhere had thoroughly dehumanized them to us.

The American people certainly would have supported such tactics at the time, especially as Japanese Imperial General Headquarters issued orders a month later, provided to us courtesy of code-breaking (MAGIC), to murder all Allied prisoners of war, all interned Allied civilians, and all other Allied civilians Japanese forces could catch

>snip<

The horror would not have stopped there. An estimated ONE THIRD of the Japanese people (25-30 million) would have died of starvation, disease, poison gas and conventional weapons during a prolonged ground conquest of Japan. The Japanese Army planned on locking up the Emperor, seizing power and fighting to the bitter end once the US invasion started. Thank God for the atom bomb - killing 150,000 - 200,000 Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 75-80 million lives. One of whom would have been the writer's father, an infantry lieutenant who survived Okinawa.

So the United States has within living memory made a decision to commit genocide on a whole people as a matter of state policy. We didn't have to do it because the Japanese Emperor knew we'd do it.
>snip<

Our enemies considering further attacks on us should keep these history lessons in mind.

So should our erstwhile "friends".



Getting nuked at home will set off the American "Jacksonian Tradition" impulses in dealing with foreign threats.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The DC elites can get a lot of Americans killed, but America will remain great as long as the American people remain good. We as a people have not sunken that far, however bad the Chicago Hyde Park elites Obama brought into power are.

However, the results of Obama’s policies in ignoring the “Jacksonian tradition” could be American genocide, ethnic cleansing and the death of American domestic liberty.

The Jacksonian Tradition is a major element, or "meme", in American nationalism. The name for the "Jacksonian meme" was coined in Walter Russell Mead's book Special Providence, and was named after President Andrew Jackson.

The development of the Jacksonian meme is also well described in David Hackett Fisher's Albion's Seed.

Few Americans are purely of the Jacksonian meme. Most are blends of the memes identified in these and related books and vary according to the situation.

The Jacksonian meme has been historically dominant during wartime among individuals and the nation overall. Its major wartime expressions include utter ruthlessness towards enemies perceived as not abiding by accepted rules of conduct (by bloody-minded Jacksonian standards), insistence on conclusive victory and impatience.

You can find an early edition chapter of Mead's chapter on the American Jacksonian political tradition at Steve den Beste's web site below:

http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

Jacksonianism was definitely dominant in the war against Japan (see John Dower's War Without Mercy), though the decision for genocide incorporated additional factors, not least that suicidal Japanese attacks and resistance had dehumanized them to us.

Terrorist suicide attacks at home could get us into that dark place again.

A cargo container nuke of Pakistani origin detonated in an American city certainly would.

The possibility of genocidal events in the war on terror should not be dismissed given these similarities -- few people in 1939 perceived 1945 -- please see America's 1939 stand on both unrestricted submarine warfare and precision day light strategic bombing versus the last six months of WW2 with Japan.

Too quote George Will, "War is the ultimate moral solvent."

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The Democrats banished their Jacksonian national security faction long ago, when Presidential candidate John Glenn endorsed the "Nuclear Freeze" movement in 1984 and Sen. Sam Nunn came out against the 1991 Gulf war.
.
The Democrats that remain are unable to accept the existence of evil or the necessity of winning in war.
.
They feel that all military policy are merely muscular, uniformed variants of domestic policy - either pork-barrel spending or armed social work among ungrateful foreigners.
.
Every problem looks like a nail if your only tool is a hammer.
.
Anything outside that current Left-Democratic Party paradigm is illegal, immoral, racist, homophobic, fattening and needs to be dealt with via lawsuits and hoards of lawyers.
.
This does not play well with the American people.
.
When those reactions are combined with the ineffective face of homeland security measures put in place by the Bush Administration, they are a public relations/Federal credibility disaster in the event of a mass casualty terrorist attack.
.
Public opinion is here primarily based on daily in-their-faces confrontations with ludicrously ineffective, offensive, demeaning airport security. There are also other, more dangerous but less obvious, examples of federal indifference to homeland security.
.
THE dominant factor in the war against terror is that American people won’t tolerate being attacked at home by foreign terrorists.
.
Period.
.
DOT.
.
The American People's definition of victory is security from attack at home, which even the Democratic Party does not understand, let alone foreigners.
.
This war began when we were attacked at home and will end when further danger of that has passed.
.
We’re fighting for our security at home, not to create a better world elsewhere, but "a better world" (Hope & Change) is all the Democratic Party proposes.
.
The decisive theater in any American war is home front moral & political will.
.
Walter Russell Mead noted in his Special Providence that a failure of executive branch will in prosecuting a war effectively will cause a major drop in public support for the war.
.
The Obama Administration's Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement are getting us there on that front.
.
Pres. Obama seems set not only to get a lot of American killed.
.
He is guiding us towards American Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing and the Death of American Liberty -- via the garrison internal security police state a cargo container nuke will spawn -- at home.
.
If the American people suffer truly major losses from foreign terrorism, they may well require that non-citizen Arab Muslim immigrants (rightly or wrongly perceived as sheltering terrorists) be interned and possibly expelled en masse, using a combination of political pressure and vigilante attacks to force a weakened government to do their will. Such internment/expulsion would have immense foreign consequences.
.
And a nuclear attack on America will require a nuclear response from the American people. And the weaker the American President, the bigger that post-nuclear terrorist attack nuclear response spasm will be.

Talleyrand said...

Interesting and disturbing post. I am going to have to ruminate on this for a while

sestamibi said...

Superb post, but consider this:

The American people knew all of this going into the election and still picked him anyway. In most ghetto and barrio areas he got 95% or more, and with the substantial chunk of white assholes preening about their own enlightened nobility in "casting off the shackles of racism", that was enough to give him a healty margin of victory.

The fact is that a good 20-30% of those inhabiting the territory we now refer to as the "United States of America" absolutely HATE the concept of America as it has been recognized for over 200 years.

Like many others, I got a gun the weekend after the election. Let's hope none of us ever has to use it.

feeblemind said...

If Obama is Muslim, then why is he still allowing the military to kill Muslim terrorist leaders with predator missiles in Pakistan and A-stan? The attacks are so infrequent I am thinking he could change the ROE and have them stopped with very little political fallout. It is the only part of Obama's behavior that I can think of that does not fit your narrative.

CC said...

Obama is weak and his weakness does indeed invite attacks. But I see no evidence that this is what he wants. More likely it's just plain ole naive leftist Utopian idealism. The major coastal cities are the most likely targets for attack and this is where his SWPL base and media support reside. I doubt even the most die hard obamamaniacs would support him after their survival instincts take over. Fear has a ways of changing one's perspective and priorities immensely. Even the left wing press cried for vengeance following 9/11. Of course, that attitude didn't last for long so who knows.

Being a Canadian, I could be misreading the American situation but I hope not. The entire West counts on American strength for all our sakes. (Whether we admit it or not)

Mike Sylwester said...

Whiskey:
But the full Birth certificate could well have no name for the father.

The name of the baby is Barack Obama, Junior.

Anonymous said...

Props, at the very least, for saying what you really think. A bold posting.

I don't agree with a lot of what you said - I think you attribute too much to malice that can be adequately explained by naievete. I'll respond to some details later.

My main objection, which is a bit niggling and semantic, is your saying that Obama is "not American". I would say that he is "post-American" or "New American". In this age, there are many "Americans" who no longer see America as a sovereign state, as an ethnic state, as a legitimate state. My objection is only that saying Obama is "not American" because of these beliefs ignores the fact that a very large minority of the American population espouses these views, including many neoconservatives.

Grim said...

I don't buy it. Obama wants to be in charge for a good long time. Getting this country nuked would be a fast trap of Obama getting kicked out of the presidency and probably tried for treason.

I think you may be confusing naivety, weakness and stupidity with being an evil genius. American has had bad presidents before and survived, this will not be different.

Whiskey said...

Feeble -- Obama (who was raised Muslim, this is a fact, but is more for himself than anything) wants the minimum possible done. Stopping strikes will come later, he's signalling he will reject the manpower requests for McChrystal and launch Clinton-like ineffective missile strikes from Submarines that will be detected by Pakistan's ISI in ample time to give warning to targets.

As for Obama's election, massive vote fraud by ACORN, economic melt-down in pro-Obama Wall Street, a self-sabotaging campaign by McCain (who wanted to lose), and a Media openly worshipping Obama as a living God was enough, to pull fraudulent extra voters, single women, and Blacks/Hispanics/SWPL to give Obama the majority. How honest that was given massive vote fraud will never be known.

I am quite sure that Obama and brain-trust have never discussed this, but do believe that a massive attack bigger than 9/11 would enable them to use "the crisis" as Rahm Emmanuel said to bypass all the restrictions in the Constitution and rule like Castro, Chavez, Morales, Putin, and Ahmadinejad, the only leaders Obama likes. As the Vizier of any foreign power.

Surviving SWPL would surely embrace submission, the only folks they ever wanted to fight after 9/11 was Bush. Stockhausen called 9/11 the most beautiful work of art ever created. Mailer called the destruction of the towers more beautiful than the towers themselves. Susan Sontag called 9/11 justified over Clinton's bombing of Iraq (echoing Rev. Wright). "Maus" artist Art Spiegelman created a poster of "dread" ... about GWB "hitting the Muslim world" after 9/11, and just days after 9/11 SWPL Peace activists marched in Manhattan saying "Our Grief is not a cry for war."

A huge amount of US dead in one or two nuked cities would provoke the same instinct among America's elites to surrender. Not the least of which surrender conveniently allows the elites to suppress all the things they don't like about America and Americans: the Flag, NASCAR, "Whiteness" (per Harold Myerson and Rev. Wright), patriotism, Christianity, Judaism (especially the conservative kind) while promoting the special "magic Other" that Spike Lee parodied in his essay "The Magical Negro" (about all those movies with the "magic" Black guy who is concerned with the spiritual redemption of some White Yuppie, such as "Legend of Bagger Vance.")

I've no doubt that this segment of the population, about 20%, would push hard for surrender. I just don't think they'd be that strong to get it done, even with Obama's control of the media, his militia group, and so on.

I don't think Obama has a "master plan" or is a conspiracist -- just that he wants America as weak as possible on all fronts so that an attack can be used to make himself dictator like Chavez.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Whisky,

>A huge amount of US dead in one
>or two nuked cities would provoke
>the same instinct among America's
>elites to surrender.


America's elites do not have the power to get the American people to surrender and those that tried would get dead for trying.

The easier course would be to nuke foreigners to avoid the American post-strike mob.

See:

http://strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021128.asp


The World's Coming Encounter With Andrew Jackson
by Tom Holsinger
November 28, 2002


>snip<

Which brings us back to the American people. Failure to defeat terrorism means further attacks at home, so lack of resolve is not an issue. Ditto for ability. Americans in general, particularly their Jacksonian element, tend to believe in using all available force when involved in a serious war, and being attacked at home qualifies as one. Walter Russell Mead said in Special Providence: "The only reason Jacksonian opinion has ever accepted not to use nuclear weapons is the prospect of retaliation.”

>snip<

The greatest danger is that further major terrorist attacks in America might cause its people to erupt in Jacksonian fury, as opposed to repeated minor attacks which would result only in expulsion of all non-citizen Muslims. Genocide would require identifiable targets, though, so prior elimination of regimes giving terrorists geographic sanctuaries would do much to avoid the possibility.

>snip<

But Americans will be safe at home. What happens to the rest of the world remains to be seen.

OneSTDV said...

Fantastic post. I would have characterized this as sensational last eyar, but with all he's "accomplished" in his firts year, I'd say it's plausible he actually wants America to fail.

He probably doesn't actively hate it like Van Jones, he just thinks we're inferior to the noble savages of the Third World.

Lawful Neutral said...

You're mad if you think Obama would not respond with nuclear force to a nuclear attack on a US city. Anything less would be political (and possibly literal) suicide.

Even granting for the sake of argument that Obama and his advisers don't understand this now, the situation would become very clear, very quickly, after any such attack. Whatever his beliefs or sympathies, Obama would have to give the masses the blood we would demand. Anyone with the strength of character and principals to do otherwise (misguided though such a course might be) could never have become President.

Whiskey said...

Why would you think that Obama would not push surrender after the US is nuked Lawful?

After all, the man is not culturally American, his closest advisors are well, not very culturally American, coming from Chicago Machine politics and racial-based organizations.

Obama in the debates ruled out retaliation when asked. His response was instinctive and without any planning. ALL of the Media, except Fox News, and most College professors, Senators, Congressmen, Blue State Governors, Blue State Local officials, Hollywood, Unions, Gay, Feminist, Black, and Hispanic groups would be outright opposed to any such action.

If right after 9/11 Joe Biden called the bombing of Afghanistan a War Crime that Bush would answer for (and he did), Obama, a man raised outside the US who idolized his corrupt Big Man African radical father, is perfectly capable of misreading America more than Jimmy Carter, the prior standard for US Elite weakness.

Carter, you will recall, ruled out any real military action wrt the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Spite said...

It's nice to see that someone has tackled this topic.

Some things to consider.

1) Any nuclear attack on American cities will likely be confined to either New York City, D.C., or both. (In fact, the war on terror can easily be construed as a war to protect the Democrat Party, since these ground-zero nuclear targets are the capitals of progressive liberalism.) Right-wing America will be largely left intact, while the major left-wing intellectual energy and Obama margin-of-victory (10 million dead) will be largely eliminated.

2) What matters is not the repression or elimination of Muslims. What matters is the repression and elimination of liberals, the primary people responsible for enabling jihad in America. The deeply-ingrained liberal instinct will rise to defend the Muslim as the process of internment and deportation gets under way. At that point, the American military-security apparatus can be turned against the liberals. The Muslims are the flypaper, designed to trigger the destructive instincts of the liberal flies. Then...wham...our very own Pinochet Solution to the liberal problem.

Victory is so close...I can almost taste it.

Zeta said...

Brilliant first half, Whiskey, but you started to lose me a bit once you got into talk of a post-apocalyptic, nuclear wasteland USA. (OK, so maybe you didn't go that far, but the scenario and the motives behind it struck me as a little implausible.)

Anonymous said...

Good work.

"removed Sukarno and installed dictator Sukarno"

should be

"removed Sukarno and installed dictator Suharto"

Anonymous said...

It would be easy for Obama not to retaliate (with nuclear weapons) against a nuclear terrorist attack. He would make the argument that this wasn't a state action -- just a few rogue individuals.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>Why would you think that Obama
>would not push surrender after
>the US is nuked Lawful?

Whiskey,

Too whom would Obama surrender? What nation will we sign a treaty of surrender too?

If there is a identifiable _nation_ that nuked us, the American people would demand retaliation.

If we have a city or cities nuked by a cargo container nuclear device of uncertain Pakistani, Iranian or North Korea origin, The American people will demand all of the above get nuked.

If Obama does not do so. The American people will demand that he get impeached and replaced by an American leader who would.

The Republicans and the rest of the gutless wonders in Congress would fall all over themselves to get in front of that populist uprising parade.


>After all, the man is not
>culturally American, his closest
>advisors are well, not very
>culturally American, coming from
>Chicago Machine politics and
>racial-based organizations.

Obama and his minions are not the American people.

This is from Tom Holsinger's "The Giants of Flight 93" on Strategypage.com:

American actions in the war on terror can be better understood if the unique role of the American people in American nationalism is considered. They feel they alone constitute the nation. This is quite contrary to other countries' nationalism where the "people" are considered one of many domestic factions, and often an illegitimate one ("the rabble"). This distinction arose because the American people have always deemed America's sovereign power to reside in themselves, while most other nations began their national consciousness with a hereditary monarch expressing the sovereign power. Other peoples identify themselves with their nations. Americans instead identify the nation with themselves, feeling they collectively are the nation.

Many distinctive American traits grow from these feelings - exaggerated self-reliance and individualism, disdain for elites, self-confidence, etc. The American phenomenon of "populism" is a perfect example - a feeling that factions are illegitimate usurpers of power properly exercised solely by the people through governments which are supposed to be their servants. The American people are rightly confident they collectively can bend their governments, including the national government, to their will when necessary, but don't hesitate to act on their own, as individuals or in spontaneously formed groups, to address issues as those arise. The unique vitality, power and independence of American local and state governments compared to those of other countries arises from the fact that sovereignty and power reside in the American people collectively and flow from the bottom up.

These and other consequences of the American people's role in American nationalism are directly relevant, and critical, to the war on terror. Public willingness to initiate and continue conflicts are in most countries the only arenas within which their peoples can affect their governments' conduct of hostilities, but not in America. The American people's proprietary attitude towards their country and in particular, its national government, leads them to additionally demand and get a say in the objectives, scale, scope and ferocity of hostilities. This has been true throughout our history, as well depicted in the American Revolution chapter in Michael Pearlman's _Warmaking and American Democracy_.

These characteristics of American nationalism make it expedient to consider the American people as a separate entity from their national government in foreign policy and war. America's federal government does. Foreign governments might have more success in influencing American policy, and at least obtain more freedom of action, if they engage the American people directly and/or take minimal steps to avoid unduly antagonizing them.

Rick Darby said...

Whiskey,

I hope this is exaggerated, but sometimes it's necessary to paint the picture a little larger than life to get the message across.

Thanks for posting this, and may it be widely noted.

Lawful Neutral said...

Why would you think that Obama would not push surrender after the US is nuked Lawful?

He's a politician, a Chicago politician; I have a lot of confidence in his ability to figure out which side his bread is buttered on. His own sympathies, preferences, and morality are no match for votes and power.

Whiskey said...

Mil-Tech --

I think the most likely culprits for the nuking of US cities would be factions within the ISI allied with AQ and the Taliban, or factions within Iran, likely with Hezbollah as the proxy. Nevertheless, it would be Pakistani or Iranian nukes that would kill millions of Americans.

The military will follow the chain of command, and obey Obama. The only situation where they would not is if Obama was passive (quite likely) in the case of further nukings of US cities.

The people are quite powerless. They don't like ObamaCare, that will be "Rahmed through." Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are betting that enough ACORN type fraud and crying "racism" in any protest will be enough to protect incumbents from any populist uprising. If America were nuked tomorrow (God Forbid) the people would have no say.

Obama would quite happily sign a "peace treaty" with AQ or Hezbollah whatever group nuked us, promising measures to "respect Islam" and restrict criticism of it, exempt Muslims from all sorts of restrictions on polygamy, enforce a ban on pork and alcohol, and the like. Most of the elites in Congress would agree with these measures.

Neutral -- You must not be familiar with Chicago. It is BECAUSE Obama is a South Side Chicago pol that he would be in broad sympathy with nuking American cities. Trinity United was filled with people (all Black) who agreed enthusiastically on video on Youtube that the US deserved 9/11. Obama wrote an editorial shortly after 9/11 echoing this view. When Chavez rebuked America in front of Obama's face, Obama agreed with him. When Daniel Ortega rebuked America in front of Obama's face, Obama agreed with him. When Ahmadinejad sent an insulting reply back to Obama's letter offering negotiations without preconditions, Obama sent an even more fawning letter.

Instinctively, when other foreign leaders insult the nation that he LEADS, to his face, Obama agrees with them. His constituents, his community organizers and community, all agree that America is irredeemably racist, and should be humbled. Obama wrote as much in his book that most Americans (read: Whites) need to be humbled, learn what it is to be hungry, afraid, poor, and have their money given to other, non-Whites as a matter of social justice.

Obama is not stupid -- he knows waging Jihad on the CIA, dismantling the missile defense programs, getting rid of nukes, leaves America helpless in the face of nuclear aggression. This is his general hope -- that someone, anyone will nuke us so he can invoke Chavez like powers to apologise even more, and wage war on the "real enemy" which is the White Middle Class. He wrote after all that "White Man's Greed Creates a World in Need." [Audacity of Hope.]

Obama is only "hard" on Republicans, White Americans, and political rivals. When hardened killers of America lecture him on America's wickedness and need to be punished, he, the leader of America, agrees. Constantly. Often with hugs and bows.

Obama is merely a more polished Jessie Jackson, elected by a combination of fraud, Black and Hispanic voting, single women, and Yosi Sergants. This group would broadly agree that America deserved to be nuked, and we must apologise and prevent offense to Muslims in the future. The likelihood of these groups supporting anything approaching retaliation is zero. They were the ones after all demanding "grieving" instead of retaliation ... for 9/11.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>The people are quite powerless.

Nope.

The American government lacks the power to oppress the majority of the American people even if it wanted too.

There are more legally registered fully automatic firearms in the hands of the American public than are in the hands of the US Army.

A cargo container nuclear attack will be in a Blue state area and would shatter the world view of the leftie base Obama relies on as they would be the casualties of the attack.

This would leave those people highly suggestable to the populist Jacksonian demand to nuke the attackers.

The populist uprising to nuke the attackers in even blue congressional districts would leave Obama vunerable to gettng rolled by the threat of immediate impeachment and removal by congress for even suggesting surrender.

There are still several thousand nukes in the american arsenal now that were not there in 1942.

Game over.

Spite said...

"There are more legally registered fully automatic firearms in the hands of the American public than are in the hands of the US Army."

Not to mention the fact that the US Army itself is made up of mostly non-Blue Staters. Where is the Left going to get the manpower to oppress the rest of the country?

Btw, Mil-Tech, I thought automatic weapons were illegal for civilians to own.

Anonymous said...

"They were the ones after all demanding "grieving" instead of retaliation ... for 9/11."

Actually, their big concern was for the safety of Muslims in America. Unfortunately for them, the "backlash" never happened. I'm sure they regard that as a "victory".

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>Btw, Mil-Tech, I thought
>automatic weapons were illegal
>for civilians to own.

In California and a few other states.

Otherwise, you pay your annual class III licence to the BATF and you are legal to own/collect/sell fully automatic firearms.

Kevin said...

This was an incredible piece of writing but a couple of things kept popping into my head as I read it. Would our wealthy powerful elite really put their extreme wealth and power into the inexperienced hands of this Marxist / Jihadist / America-hater? I mean there is no doubt that they helped him get elected. Are they suicidal? I wouldn't think so.

But the part that jumped off the page was where you said he went to Afghanistan in 1981. 1981??? I remember that time and believe me leftists were not volunteering in droves to fight for Reagan against the Soviet Union. Bin Laden was not yet in Afghanistan but the CIA certainly were. It would have been somewhat difficult for your average Leftist radical who had just left Occidental College and was getting ready to enter Columbia to just show up in Pakistan at that time without official backing.

Obama must have been recruited by the CIA at Occidental College. Look at where he went to work in 1983 after graduating from Columbia, Business International Corporation, not exactly a hotbed of Leftish / Jihadist indoctrination. In fact it is known as a CIA front company.

Obama's rise to the top has been just a little too fast. He has been backed by inside elitists, including many Jewish elitists, from the get go. It is just not possible that they have all been that clueless about this guy. They are just not that stupid; regular Americans maybe; but the wealthy elite--never! Something else is going on. All this radical black stuff is just sheep-dipping to make him appeal to a certain class of people. There is a deeper game going on here.

Spite said...

Mil-tech,

"Otherwise, you pay your annual class III licence to the BATF and you are legal to own/collect/sell fully automatic firearms."

Does that Class III license allow you to own post-1986 machine guns?

I've been asking this question and getting mixed reviews.

DT said...

Re: "Trinity United was filled with people (all Black) who agreed enthusiastically on video on Youtube that the US deserved 9/11. Obama wrote an editorial shortly after 9/11 echoing this view."

Can you post a link to this editorial? I did not know about it and I very much want to get my hands on it!

Jack Reylan said...

When Obama falls in 2010, we should go through the grant-grubbing Ivy Leagues that produce commie-nutty organizers with a flame thrower! Ivy League universities are not good at getting students jobs, only grants to be commie nutty organizers. If you are liberal, anything you do is inherently ethical for the cause, but if you are a conservative, and believe in GOD, family or business, your very moral fiber, even down to trivial autonomic responses, is subject to persecution as either dangerously criminal or the result of clinical illness. Bush 43 had two Ivy degrees and they treated him as stupid because he was conservative even though he had better grades and entrance scores and took a lot tougher courses than Gore. The lowest level university bureaucrats actually suffer the worst affectations and are likey to be the most vicious persecutors of your children. No business ever trusts such left wing graduates who don't believe in capitalism and become crooks because they are taught the only way business makes money is crooked so they seek to avenge their unemployability through their own crookedness. The universities consider real jobs and competition beneath them, so they want their little sissies to live off grants, even in the hard sciences or business. How many of their engineering professors have Professional Engineering certification? Almost none! They love foreign students because they slave up and don't expect professors to actually work for the tuition, like American students do. No middle class parent should consider sending their kids there, because these schools will destroy your entire family. The only schools that understand middle-class values are for-profits. Middle class parents foolish enough to buy into the Ivy League dream die way too young.