Category Archives: Obama

The American Conservative’s Symposium on “The Conservative Vote”

I don’t mean to steal Sean’s thunder below, but I made this post for IPR and wanted to cross post it here. There are some additional links you should be aware of.

TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.

Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.

Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.

Here is a summary of the endorsements.

Johnson — 6 (Bandow, Brimelow, Galupo, Giraldi, Goldman, Kauffman, Larison if he could, Bovard if he doesn’t write in Ron Paul)

Romney — 4 (Coombs, Pinkerton, Tippins, Zmirak, Antle and Birzer leaning)

Obama — 4 (Bacevich, Hadar, McConnell, Millman, Giraldi in a pinch)

Goode — 1 (Scallon, Brimelow and Gottfried would if they could)

Rand Paul — 1 (McCarthy)

Hapsburg Monarch — 1 (Lind)

Not voting/ambivalent/unclear — 7 (Dreher, Dougherty, Gordon, Murphy, Raimondo [rooting for Obama], Richman, Russello, Beer, Sailer)

Trump’s Big Announcement Today

This should be fun.

Trump has a history of over hyping things. I hope he has learned his lesson. If this turns out to be a big nothing burger, then people are going to be ticked. Since he knows he has set expectations so high, I’m mildly hopeful that there will be some there there.

If it is divorce papers, some have jumped to the conclusion that divorce is imminent and find this not likely. I would agree. But my first thought was that these were old divorce papers. That the First Couple was near divorce in the past has been widely rumored.


Post Your Debate Comments Here

This debate is the best argument I’ve seen for voting third party. I’ll let our readers comment, but I have two observations. I could have a hundred, but have neither the time nor the inclination.

First, Romney bragged that as Governor of Massachusetts he engaged in brazen affirmative action for women. So affirmative action is conservative? Will there be any pushback from conservatives on this? If not, “conservatives” are worthless.

Second, America IS NOT a nation of immigrants! We are a nation of settlers. Any “conservative” who babbles such nonsense should be immediately excommunicated from the ranks. Not only is it trite and cliched, but it’s completely hostile to a conservative understanding.

If Obama Was a Muslim Wouldn’t He be a Social Conservative?

Everyone here should know that I think Obama may be hiding something about his background, but there is one thing I don’t get. I keep seeing people suggesting (such as some of my friends on Facebook) that Obama is secretly a Muslim. I know Obama was a Muslim when he was a child because of his step dad, but if he were still a Muslim then wouldn’t he be against abortion and gay marriage? Heck, I think we would be better off if he was a Muslim. Then he would oppose abortion and gay marriage and withdraw us from the Middle East. Obama is a liberal “Christian.” He attended the Trinity United Church of Christ. This is not a mystery. (I put Christian in quotes because I don’t think Obama actually subscribes to the traditional creeds of the Faith based on some things I’ve read.)

Romney Obama First Debate Comments Here

Post your debate comments here. We already had someone mistakenly post a comment on an old primary debate thread. I haven’t watched the debate yet. I DVR’ed it, but the Facebook comments I have seen say Romney is doing well and Obama is struggling. Of course my Facebook friends are probably biased, but a lot of them are actually Ron Paul fans and don’t like Romney.

Addendum: Daniel Larison, who is normally very hard on Romney, even thinks Romney did well.

Romney critic Scott Galupo thinks Romney did well.

Ilana Mercer

Chris Matthews‘ leg is not tingling.

Daniel McCarthy

Rod Dreher: “Romney Stomped Obama

Daily Mail

Pat Buchanan

Is Obama a Homosexual?

Is Obama a Homosexual?

John Craig, Just Not Said

When I first heard a few days ago that Obama might be gay, my initial reaction was, that’s ridiculous. He’s married, has two kids, and he’s never set off my gaydar. I had read a few years ago about Larry Sinclair, who claimed he had given Obama oral sex when Obama was a state senator. But at the time I just figured that any famous person is bound to attract a few loonies who will say anything to get publicity.

But after I read the article linked two posts ago (and directly below), I started reading more about Obama’s gayness, and after a while, it just made too much sense not to be true.

In his article in, Jerome Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. in political science, said that Obama (along with Rahm Emanuel) was a lifetime member of Man’s Country, a gay bathhouse in Chicago. Obama was evidently well known there and many of the older clientele remembered him:

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

[Continue reading....]


HT: American Renaissance

Pathetic Charlotte protests

Much of the fault for the failure of the protestors here at the Charlotte Democratic Convention lies with – the protestors themselves.

Why isn’t their message getting through? Well, as appealing as soggy, unwashed, tatooed Marxists yelling obscenities may be, their message is hopelessly muddled.

They say they want Obama tried for war crimes. But how can you say you insist that the rule of law be applied to all when you support illegal aliens who DEMAND (their word) halting all deporations?

The Occupy protestors scream at the Bank of America building for the number of home foreclosures, apparently unaware it was their hero Barney Frank (and other liberals) who imposed “affirmative action” lending, making it all too easy for unqualified people to get loans. People who can’t discipline themselves to save for a down payment won’t be able to make future payments. It’s that simple.

Saddest of all, the Occupiers denounce the loss of middle-class income, while supporting floodtide immigration, which has suppressed wages. Big business loves an overabundance of cheap labor. That’s why the Wall Street Journal supports Open Borders.

And while the Occupiers think it’s grand that Obama can impose the Dream Act by imperial decree, they dislike his use of drone strikes. But when one man has that much power concentrated in his hands, don’t be surprised WHEN (not if) he abuses that power. That’s just human nature.

The American Conservative Publisher Wick Allison to Vote for Obama … Again?

How do you make one of those smilies that rolls its eyes, because that’s what I’m doing as I write this, rolling my eyes?

Wick Allison, the publisher of The American Conservative and a noted Obama”con” in 2008, says he plans to vote for Obama again.

This is so absurd that I can’t help but think it has to be a type of pose. A way of showing that you’re so disgusted by the shallow conservatism of mainstream conservatives that you’ll vote for the Dem just to spite them. At the same time, not insignificantly I expect, you win the praise of Obama supporters and other “serious” people. There is simply no excuse for anyone who considers himself a conservative to vote for Obama over voting third party. Allison mentions Gary Johnson but doesn’t mention Virgil Goode.

And some people wonder why no one takes TAC seriously.

Note: The Masthead describes Allison as the President/CEO, not the publisher, but the article describes him as the publisher.

Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) Pitching a Hissy Fit Over Root Article

Poor Charles Johnson. He can never seem to get his panties out of a wad. Every non-conventional wisdom approved thought sends his little prissy self into hysterics. Now he’s pitching a hissy fit over the Root article we are discussing below.

In other news, the Sun rose in the East this morning.

Wayne Allyn Root Gives Romney the Same Advice I Gave Him a Month Ago

In his latest column, Wayne Allyn Root gives Romney the same advice I gave him last month. 

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Here is Root’s “gut.”

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

First of all, I’m not sure you would know how frequently Obama attended class based on his records. Also, I wouldn’t have been as definitive as Root with my speculation. It is wise to be vague when you don’t know something for sure lest you look silly if you are proven wrong. That said, the possibility that Obama attended college as a foreign student has been much speculated on and is not really an at all implausible senario. At the time, Obama would not have known he would one day run for President. It would simply be something he would later need to cover up.


Addendum: As you can see from the IPR post, Drudge linked to the Root article and the cosmotarian big babies over at Reason are predictably crying about conspiracy taint.

The “America System:” it is Un-American

Below is the expanded version of my blog post. It is now up at EtherZone:

President Obama’s recent “you didn’t build that” comment has ignited quite a debate.  Interestingly, this debate has brought to the forefront the terminology and the idea of the “American System.” James Pinkerton covers the history of the “American System” well in this article fromThe American Conservative, although, as you will see, I do not totally agree with his take.

Those of us who have been involved in the renewed debate over the merits of Abraham Lincoln are well aware of the term “American System” as one of the chief criticisms of Lincoln by his new antagonists is that he essentially remained a Henry Clay style Whig intent on advancing Clay’s “American System” including federally subsidized “internal improvements” (infrastructure), which is why he could not afford to let the South leave. So I was a bit surprised that this terminology seemed new to so many people, but I guess if you have not been following the Lincoln debate it could be.

While as a partisan Southerner I do not concede that the debate about Lincoln was ever over, there has clearly been a recent upsurge in Lincoln revisionism. I would date this “renewed” debate to the publication of Thomas DiLorenzo’s first Lincoln book. Lincoln as Clay style Whig was one of DiLorenzo’s main themes.

Of course for conservatives and constitutionalist, Clay’s “American System” is un-American. (It is probably more accurate albeit less alliterative to call it un-Constitutional rather than un-American because violating the Constitution has unfortunately been a feature of American reality for quite some time now.) According to conservative minded constitutionalists, the Constitution is a document of “enumerated powers” so if the power is not enumerated the Federal Government does not have it. By this reading of the Constitution there should be virtually no federal spending on infrastructure. Roads and bridges are a state and local concern.

I concede that there is always the question of what was intended and authorized by the term “post roads” in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7), but the defenders of the interstate highway system did not even try to justify it on the basis of “post roads,” but rather they attempted to justify it on national defense grounds. Even if you allow for a liberal interpretation of what it means to “establish” post roads, the Federal Government does not have carte blanche authority to build infrastructure for the facilitation of enterprise which is what Clay’s “American System” envisioned.

Of course Romney will not make this constitutionalist argument. Instead he will continue to reinforce the impression that he is a Chamber of Commerce Republican and have his surrogates make vague insinuations that Obama is a collectivist or a socialist or whatever and does not respect entrepreneurs. (As Pinkerton points out, Obama is in fact an advocate of a “mixed economy,” but Republicans and movement conservative wags cannot effectively make this point because for so many of them their defense of “free-enterprise” is actually shilling for state corporatism gussied up with free-market platitudes. How can the same people who labeled Ron Paul a wacko for criticizing the Federal Reserve question the wisdom of Henry “Second Bank of the United States” Clay’s “American System?”) And a valuable opportunity to explain what the American System (constitutionally limited government) really is and should be will be lost.

Published originally at

The “American System” is Un-American

Obama’s “You didn’t build that” comment has ignited quite a debate, and has brought to the forefront the term “American System.” James Pinkerton covers the debate well here, although I don’t agree totally with his take.

Those of us who have been involved in the renewed debate over the virtues of Lincoln are well aware of the term “American System” as one of the chief criticism of Lincoln by his new antagonists is that he essentially remained a Henry Clay style Whig intent on advancing Clay’s “American Sytem,” which is why he couldn’t let the South leave. (I would date this “renewed” debate to the publication of Thomas DiLorenzo’s first Lincoln book because this was one of DiLorenzo’s main themes.) So I was a bit surprised that this terminology seemed new to so many people, but I guess if you haven’t been following the Lincoln debate it could be.

Of course for conservatives and constitutionalist, the “American Sytem” is un-American. (It is probably more accurate albeit less alliterative to call it un-Constitutional rather than un-American because violating the Constitution has unfortunately been a feature of American reality from nearly the beginning.) According to the Constitution there should be virtually no federal infrastructure. Roads and bridges are a state and local concern.

(Of course there is always the issue of what was intended and authorized by the term “post roads” in the Constitution, but the defenders of the interstate highway system did not even try to justify it on the basis of “post roads,” but rather on national defense grounds.)

What Romney Should Say About His Tax Returns if he Had the Guts

“I’ll release my tax reruns when Obama releases his college applications, transcripts, passport records, LSAT score, etc. and authorizes the forensic inspection of his original birth certificate and Selective Service registration form.”

Of course Romney won’t say this because Romney has no guts.

Trump, a man who is not without flaws but lack of guts is ceretainly not one of them, agrees with me.

Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush

This can’t possibly be true! Obama is a liberal Democrat! But most of all, he HAS to be on the people’s side because he isn’t white. The most learned political theorists have proven whites are reactionary, while blacks are progressive.

I’m all befuddled. No one could have seen this coming…

… unless … they paid attention to the fact that Wall Street has showered Obama with contributions.

Sayyyy … that sounds familiar. An ambitious politician expands the central government and the office of president for the benefit of big business, while claiming he’s a man of “the people.” Hasn’t this act been done before?

Where is the outrage against Obama’s tactics in war on terror?

I suppose pigs are flying loop-the-loops on this St. Patrick’s Day. They have to be. For Leonard Pitts, a hard-left columnist who’s never seen a federal power grab he didn’t like, now agrees Obama’s claimed power to execute Americans without a trial is wrong and should be opposed:

[I]t is inconceivable that the White House would claim the right to kill without at least presenting its evidence before a federal judge in a secret hearing. To eschew even that safeguard — there is precedent, in urgent cases, for a ruling to be handed down in hours or even minutes — is to set Obama up as potential judge, jury and executioner of every accused terrorist.

So where is the outrage? Had Bush claimed the right to kill American citizens without judicial oversight, the resulting cries of protest would have been audible on the moon.

Of course, Pitts is right – there would have been massive protests had Bush claimed such power. But, just as only Nixon could go to China, only Obama could nullify the Bill of Rights.

That’s how the central government works. Republicans provide “conservative” cover for big-government programs conservatives would object to, and Democrats provide “liberal” cover for programs liberals would oppose if a Republican sponsored them.

Richard Nixon implemented Affirmative Action. Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens. And George W. Bush pushed through No Child Left Behind, which nationalized the state-controlled schools.

Both parties assure us they must control us for our own good. Obama’s just doing what Democrats do best, and that is to expand DC’s power over us in the name of “social justice” and “democracy.”

ObamaCare to cost almost double original estimate

Oopsies! Looks like we’ve been fooled again – this time, by the new boss:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.”

We’ve seen how Obama has been continuing the Bush regime’s policies of perpetual war and undermining the Bill of Rights. So it appears Obama is also continuing W’s policy of lying to the American people about the cost of war and socialized medicine.

Look for a Southern Poverty Law Center exposé about the Congressional Budget Office being staffed by kluxers. (They’re everywhere, you know.)

Does “Natural Born” Require Two Citizen Parents?

Does the phrase “natural born citizen” require a President to have two citizen parents? This came up in a thread below, and since I think it is an issue of utmost importance to anyone who says they care about original intent, I have decided to post my rather long thoughts on the matter below. (I post it as is so look back to understand the context and what and who I am addressing.) I don’t really answer the question here, because I haven’t seen it decisively answered, but I offer a way to approach the question and what I think the most cautious consensus opinion should be. I would prefer people take up the issue under this stand alone threads so as not to clutter up this very important question with more stuff about the Trump debate.

Kirt and C Bowen, I don’t think a definitive case can be made about what the Founders intended, but I think a compelling case can be made. If a definitive case could be made then someone would have already made it. I’ve only looked into it superficially and asked people I trust. There was actually surprisingly little said about what they meant and intended. That is why so many people end up referring to a foreigner, Vattel. What I believe is that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the person was supposed to have two citizen parents. As Kirt rightly points out, the issue is complicated by matters of history. They didn’t have all the apparatuses of state for recording citizenship back then that we have today nor hospital births nor easy mass travel etc. So people were generally assumed to be subjects of the place they resided unless they otherwise weren’t, meaning they still claimed allegiance to a foreign government/King, they were obvious temporary residents, etc. IMO, at a minimum, the person should be born of two parents neither of whom still legally technically owed allegiance to a foreign government. This IMO represents the most cautious default opinion. This should be the opinion that conservatives defend with a unified voice. I think the issue should be clarified with a Constitutional amendment, although I don’t think I would like the way that would likely go. I think requiring that the President be born of two citizen parents is a good and cautious policy. There is no right to be President and if the President were the minimalist position it ought to be, no reason to believe that we so desperately need to broaden the talent pool to include those otherwise born.

The problem is that very few conservatives initially even bothered to look at the issue from an original intent standpoint. Many just made arguments off the top of their head based on what felt right to them. Worse, many made definitive foot stomping arguments based on what felt right to them. This is true of both the birthers who foot stomped that being born on foreign soil, if true, was exclusionary, and anti-birthers who foot stomped that it wasn’t. I was guilty of this at first, because initially I argued that what was meant by natural born was “not naturalized” or “born a citizen,” essentially what Kirt says it means. In fact, I’m still of the opinion that a better case can be made for a child of two citizens born on foreign soil than can be made for someone born on US soil with one or two foreign parents. The birthers in general, there are exceptions I’m sure, generally didn’t latch on to the Obama is inedible regardless of where he was born argument until definitive proof he wasn’t born in HI seemed less and less likely to be forthcoming, which raised skepticism and decreased the credibility of the claim in the minds of many.

This is an issue of extreme current and future importance. If “natural born” means simply born a citizen, then Obama (assuming he was born in HI which I do), Jindal and Rubio are eligible. If natural born means something other than just born a citizen then Obama, Jindal and Rubio are not eligible. Since Rubio and Jindal are both talked up as potential VP nominees and future candidates and Obama is the current President who is seeking reelection, then I can’t understand how this could be viewed as an issue of little significance.

I don’t think there is a conspiracy of silence on the part of organized conservatism to not address the issue because they want to maintain the viability of Rubio (I believe this is what C Bowen is implying), although I think many do. That would imply more logic and forethought and organization than I have witnesses in this debate which I have been following closely from the start. As I said, I haven’t seen any kind of organization or a script or talking points. I’ve just seen a bunch of knuckleheads foot stomping and making definitive statements based on what felt right to them. I do think fear of birther taint has contributed significantly to this lack of a consensus. I also think that modern “conservatives” are just squeamish about making the argument because it seems anachronistic and harsh to them and might bring the dreaded r word charge. Birthers are partially at fault for their own taint associated with them because they weren’t cautious with their claims or their sources and brought discredit on themselves in many ways. But “reasonable” conservatives are guilty of letting their fear turn off their brains and silence them. Reasonable conservatives ought to be able to sift through the junk and figure out what is important. From the very beginning organized conservatism should have made the case in a unified voice that Obama is most likely ineligible because his alleged father was a transient foreign national. (The transient issue is potentially important because Obama’s alleged father wasn’t even here with the intent of becoming a citizen in the case that allegiance is the issue.) I’m as guilty here as anyone, because I didn’t make that case from the start, but at least I always had sense enough never to foot stomp and never to believe that his eligibility was determined by anything other than the original intent of the Constitution. By implication, organized conservatism should rule out Rubio and Jindal as potential VPs or Presidential candidates.

While I agree with Kirt that we are unlikely to overturn a popular election based on a preponderance of the evidence interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts the “current interpretation” so blatantly, to me this is also about what our unified voice should be. At a minimum, no one who calls himself a conservative or a Constitutionalist or anyone else for that matter should be able to simply assert the eligibility of Obama or Jindal or Rubio without being asked to back up that opinion with evidence regarding original intent.

What Became of the Ralph Nader Primary Challenge Effort?

Dave Weigel addresses the Ralph Nader effort here.

Six weeks ago, word got out about a progressive project that could have Ralph Nader playing a familiar role: Electoral scold. He was the best-known member of a coalition to recruit five progressive candidates to run, as Democrats, against Barack Obama. At 4:30 p.m. today, the coalition was going to face its first deadline: qualifying to enter the New Hampshire primary.

Nader’s group won’t make the deadline.

“[Secretary of State] Bill Gardner switched the days on us,” Nader says. “He threatened to change the primary date after Nevada moved up its caucuses, and in the process, he moved up the filing deadline. So he’s pulled the rug out from under us — you think it’s late November, and all of a sudden it’s October 28.”

Nader is annoyed, and understandably so. “You ought to have one federal standard for every state’s elections,” he says…

See more …

Interestingly, look how much hostility there is to Nader at

Above cross posted at IPR. My editorial opinion follows.

How can anyone be that hostile to Nader? I’m a Constitution Party supporting right-wing paleocon, and I can’t help but respect Nader as a principled voice of opposition. The Democratic Underground folks come off like a bunch of rabid partisan shills. So far I only see one comment even supportive of the idea of a primary challenge.

That said, when Nader said he was all but certain there would be a primary challenger, I assumed he knew something. I guess he didn’t. He shouldn’t have said that unless he already had someone lined up.

Obama, Affirmative Action, and Bad Grammar

People have long wondered how dependent Barack Obama has been on affirmative action.  Both in college and as president Obama’s writings and comments give the impression that he is in over his head.  There not only are the obvious gaffes (such as Obama stating the US has 57 states) but Obama seems to lack a basic understanding of English grammar.  Jack Cashill recently pointed out a letter Obama wrote to Harvard Law Review defending affirmative action:

The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged.  In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

“Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues,” wrote Obama, “I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.”

If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that “merits … have.”  Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone.  He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.

Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times.  In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: “Approximately half of this first batch is chosen … the other half are selected … ”

Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space.  Please note the unanchored phrase in italics at the end of this sentence:

“No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.”  Huh?

The next lengthy sentence highlights a few superficial style flaws and a much deeper flaw in Obama’s political philosophy.

“I would therefore agree with the suggestion that in the future, our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer who would even insinuate that someone with Mr. Chen’s extraordinary record of academic success might be somehow unqualified for work in a corporate law firm, or that such success might be somehow undeserved.”

Obama would finish his acclaimed memoir, Dreams from My Father, about four years later.  Prior to Dreams, and for the nine years following, everything Obama wrote was, like the above sentence, an uninspired assemblage of words with a nearly random application of commas and tenses.

Unaided, Obama tends to the awkward, passive, and verbose.  The phrase “our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer” would more profitably read, “we should focus on the employer.” “Concern” is simply the wrong word.

Scarier than Obama’s style, however, is his thinking.  A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.

And now the Washington Times reports on a new book, Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English, by William Proctor:

Here comes “Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English,” a new book that parses Mr. Obama’s command of the language, or lack thereof.

“The first wordsmith is, in fact, an occasional stem-winder who is grammatically challenged,” says author and Harvard-educated historian William Proctor, who pored over 3,000 pages of the president’s official speeches and remarks. He’s convinced that Americans — particularly students — can learn a little something from Mr. Obama.

“His speeches reveal that at this point, he is simply not in the same rhetorical-grammatical league as a Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Proctor says. “Even as we explore Mr. Obama’s errors, we should not lapse into smug, finger-pointing complacency. His mistakes should serve as a reminder to the rest of us that we, too, may need to clean up our technical language skills.”