English

Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”

Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.

Translated by Donald Hank

When George Bush said that Obama’s nomination “is a statement about how far America has come”, he gave one more proof that he would rather destroy himself, his party and his country than saying any unpleasant truth about political adversaries who slander him endlessly.

Responding brutal attacks with subservient kindness is a straight path to the garbage bin of History. The American president has already gone too far in this direction with his trait of depreciating himself and his real merits while exalting the non-existent merits of his adversary.

The statement is particularly masochist since in this same week the Democrat candidate, when asked if he would indicate George W. Bush as ambassador in Iraq, answered that he would choose someone more competent. Who could be more competent to represent a country in a foreign land than the one who freed it from tyranny? To reply insolence with warmness is a sign of weakness and, as Donald Rumsfeld said, weakness lures aggressors.

The president’s opinion is not only inconvenient. It is false. To assess a choice for a candidate by skin color is, literally, to judge facts for their epidermic appearance. As I explained here, what differentiates Barack Obama, what makes him unique in America and in the world, is not his color, but his level of gross mendacity, vulgarity and childishness, as never seen before in a candidate for the presidency of a great nation. Obama’s candidacy is, in this sense, an explicit sham, a cynical demonstration of strength of a globalist elite, aimed at proving that the American voter is finally prepared to accept any trash that is thrown on them, even to the point of self-destruction. This is by no means going far. It is the ultimate symptom of the alarming state of deterioration of American democracy.

Just this week, two more telling facts have emerged that suggest the democrat candidate fakes his biography with that naïve mischieviousness of little slanderers. First, he has not yet handled to the secretary of the Democrats his birth certificate. Why would an arrogant who already styles himself elected put in risk his own candidacy for a burocratic banal detail? It can only be because the document holds information that is inconvenient for him who, like a nipper caught in a naughty prank, only makes it more visible by the awkwardness with which he tries to hide it.

What information it could be, is something that can be found without difficulty from the second fact. Obama is being disavowed now not by his schoolmates like before, but by his own brother – who says that in childhood he was Muslim and not Christian as he uses to say.

All politicians lie, but with some style, avoiding silly lies easy to be caught. Obama has not this sophistication, either because he is not able to grasp it or because he has friends in places high enough to be the most careless of liars without having to worry about consequences.

At this point, it is an euphemism to warn that Obama, if elected, can bring serious harm to American democracy; that such a disqualified person being accepted as a candidate is in itself a monstrous and irreversible harm not only to the leading nation in the world, but to humanity itself. This candidacy is truly going far, but into the final ruin of the West, announcing the “one thousand years of darkness” Ronald Reagan used to alert us about.

Translated from the Portuguese by Fabio Lins Leite

Whatever one thinks about George W. Bush, there are six points about him no one has the right to deny:

1. He kept his country completely safe from terrorists atacks for eight years.

2. He put down a genocidal regime, guilty of the murder of 300 thousand Iraqis.

3. Contrary to what the big media spreads with hysterical mendacity, he did it through a war that caused the smallest number of civil victims in all History.

4. He practically dismantled terrorist resistance in Iraq, killing 20 thousand Al-Qaeda militants and forcing most of the remaining ones to seek refuge in Iran.

5. He promoted in Iraq the fastest and most spectactular post-belic reconstruction ever seen, making Iraqi economy more prosperous than it was before the war.

6. He implemented democracy in Iraq – and it works.

From these six facts, I take two conclusions:

a) He was the best chief of security the USA has ever had.

b) He was the best president Iraq has ever had.

It is an entirely different thing to judge him as president of the US. When he was elected in 2000, Republicans had all the conditions to win presidential elections for the next four decades, dismantle the conspiracy of the Democrats with the radical left, and heal the country according to the formulas consacrated by Ronald Reagan. After two presidential terms, not only he failed to do this, but has allowed his country to loose breath to the point of the permanence of Republicans in power being almost unfeasible .

To blame this shame on the failure of the war in Iraq does not explain anything, it is pure deceitful leftist propaganda.

George W. Bush has never failed in Iraq. His real failure was in the internal front. It started right after September, 11th. Taking the opportunity to denounce the Democrat collaboration with the left would make all trust in the left vanish and would have hygienized the American political atmosphere. Instead, he preferred to pretend his enemies were his friends, creating a fictional national unity against foreign attackers. The Democrats, bearing the patriot label Bush himself sticked on their foreheads, and armed with the prestige thus acquired, could stab in the back their own country, Army and president while people would not question for one second their deep-hearted good intentions.

Running away from the confrontation his enemies – who were the enemies of the US – sought so much, Bush gave them strength. All the bravery he showed in leading the war, turned into cowardice in the internal fight. The result: his success is condemned as failure and his real failure cannot be confessed in public without triggering a thousandfold worse internal division. And although Bush wants to avoid this division, his adversaries assume it more and more, taking from it, against the US, the same advantages Bush should have taken for the US.

George W. Bush took the wrong job. He is a great military commander, but he is not at all a politician.

Translated from the Portuguese by Fabio Lins Leite