|Biography Articles Advise & Dissent Books Book Him! Search Contact Home|
Barack Obama Archives
"My Break with the Extreme Right," generating lots of controversy
By Michael Fumento
My Salon.com article "My Break with the Extreme Right" is creating quite the furor.
"Breaking With Movement Conservatism Over Its Ugliness," The Atlantic, By Conor Friedersdorf, May 25
"Bartlett, Sullivan, Frum ... And Fumento," Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Beast, May 25
"Another One Leaves the Movement," David Frum, The Daily Beast, May 24
"Apostate Conservatives Washington Monthly blog, May 25
"The Right Wing Tilt Toward Mass Hysteria," Huffington Post blog, by Zaki Hasan, May 29
"Another Prominent Conservative Takes On The New Right," Doug Mataconis, Outside the Beltway Blog, May 24
"Fumento on 'Today's Right-Wing Darlings'" Jonathan Adler, Volokh Conspiracy (Major Right-wing Blog), May 25
"Former National Review Writer Renounces the Right: "The New Hysterical Right Cares Nothing for Truth or Dignity," by Charles Johnson (Highly Influential Former Right-Wing Blog)
"Moderate Republicans Eaten by the Far Right - Or rather, looking in the mirror?" by Siguhu, The Daily Kos (Extreme-Left Blog), May 24
"Writer Michael Fumento Quits Conservative Movement, Calls It 'Hate, Anger And Fear Machine'"" by Dan Avery, QUEERTY (Gay Web site), May 25
"Conservative Quits Right, Cites Allen West 'Extremism,' Malkin 'Hate,'" The New Civil Rights Movement Web site, by David Badash on May 25
"Writer Michael Fumento Quits Conservative Movement, Calls It "Hate, Anger And...", Agency of Books to Worldwide, May 26
On the other hand, a former editor of mine at the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, dismissed a highly-researched piece of 2,700 words with a solid argument and tons of links with a single tweet: "In what alternative universe is Michael Fumento a 'prominent conservative'?"
That's it; everything I wrote in Salon.com devastated in 144 characters or less. In Taranto's mind, anyway.
My credentials are clearly stated in the piece, and include about a score of articles for newspaper for which Taranto works including the original expose of Erin Brockovich and a piece that denied a newspaper a shot at the Pulitzer Prize for alarmist reporting that heretofore had everybody convinced. Oh, and my classic piece that snuffed out the alleged black church burning epidemic of 1996. Yeah, Wall Street Journal. Now try VERY HARD to recall one piece that Taranto has ever written that's had any impact on any issue in the U.S?
That said, it's true I haven't appeared in those vaunted pages in seven years. That's when the rabid right took over. If you couldn't work in some nasty gratuitous attack on the left, they didn't want you.
CONSTIPATED COLOMBIA PACT AND THE MISSING MASSACRE
By Michael Fumento
Pres. Obama has made expanding U.S. exports a centerpiece of his economic plan. In his January State of the Union Address, he noted that "95% of the world's customers and fastest-growing markets are beyond our borders" and that export-related jobs "pay 15% more than average." At a time when jobs are in short supply, he later said, "building exports is an imperative."
So naturally, he's done everything possible to ease passage of the Colombia Free Trade Pact, which the Bush Administration negotiated and the then-Democrat controlled Congress battled up. Right? Wrong.
As I write-in Investor's Business Daily, the pact is lopsided towards the U.S. in that Colombia's exports to us are already tariff-free, while our products sent there carry duties of up to 25% - an estimated $3.2 billion total since the agreement was reached.
Those tariffs would disappear and, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, expand opportunities for a broad array of U.S. sectors, increase our gross domestic product by about $2.5 billion, lower our massive trade deficit and create J-O-B-S.
That's also where export markets are opening up. Economic performance confidence levels are higher in Latin America than in any other part of the world. That's why other nations are busily entering trade agreements with Colombia, including the entire European Union.
Yet in December Obama refused to even send the Pact to Congress. I absolutely will not speculate as to why.
Not at all.
Not a hint.
Well, except that Big Labor doesn't like the Pact because it means competition for them. And Big Labor donates Big Money to political campaigns, with 90% going to the Dems.
But, of course, the Dems can't say that. So they say they're worried about protecting the rights - indeed the lives - of Colombian labor union members. Except that the percentage of such members reported killed last year was vastly below Colombia's overall homicide rate - not to mention a fraction of that of New Orleans.
But, under tremendous GOP pressure, it looks like Obama is finally sending the Pact to Congress - who, we should hope, has the wisdom to force the President to accept his own rhetoric.
April 9, 2011 01:37 PM · Permalink
Obama exploits oil spill to boost support for climate bill
By Michael Fumento
"President Obama tried Wednesday to channel public outrage about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill into support for a climate-change bill, seeking to redefine an issue that threatens to tarnish his presidency," according to the Washington Post.
Brain-eating amoebae, brothels struggle, cannibalism, circumcision in decline, Earth to explode, earth upside down, football team migration, Garden of Eden wilts, invasion of king crabs, Italy robbed of pasta, killer cornflakes, Loch Ness monster dead, mammoth dung melt, opera house to be destroyed, seals mating more, spiders invade Scotland, squid larger, squid tamed, UFO sightings, Vampire moths, violin decline, witchcraft executions.
Now it appears absolutely anything can be used as an excuse to pass climate change legislation. I think we should all help our president by coming up with even more reasons! I'll start it off and you can send your contributions, which I can then post and subsequently hand deliver to our Chief Executive. The best will probably be those that relate in some way specifically to Obama.
June 3, 2010 10:32 AM · Permalink
"The People Speak," my NRO piece on Obama's nonsense about the Obamacare vote
By Michael Fumento
Shortly after the House approved the massive, historic health-care legislation and sent it to President Obama for his signature, the president declared the vote "proved that this government - a government of the people and by the people - still works for the people."
In fact, according to Pollster.com, which tracks surveys, eight non-partisan polls surveyed Americans about attitudes towards the legislation just before the vote. None showed a majority of support. In fact, Obama's "the people" is closer to a third of the electorate.
But when you dig deeper, looking at specific responses such as those showing "strong" support or "strong" disapproval, it looks even worse.
Americans want health care reform, but they clearly didn't want this bill. Why didn't Congress go back to the drawing board to present more palatable legislation? Read about it in my NRO piece, "The People Speak."
March 27, 2010 12:58 PM · Permalink
No, Pres. Obama, the health care vote was not "of the people"
By Michael Fumento
I have repeatedly defended Obama against what I've considered unfair attacks from the right. I believe his actions for the most part have not been nearly as "liberal" as some have claimed. It's wrong to use his middle name of "Hussein" used against him, as if he could have chosen it in any case. And I don't care for the conspiracy theories such as his alleged foreign birth.
But one of my objections to all this is it weakens legitimate arguments against those actions and words of his that truly threaten our nation.
That includes his utterly outrageous claim following the House vote approving the health care bill.
The vote, he said last night, "proved that this government - a government of the people and by the people - still works for the people."
Just for using that cliche he merits 20,000 years in purgatory. I trust even my non-Catholic friends will stand by me on that.
But beyond that, we have those pesky surveys that repeatedly showed "the people" opposed the legislation. They include Gallup, Rasmussen, Fox, Pew, NBC/Wall Street Journal, and others. All were released anywhere from days to a week before the vote. All show only about a third of the electorate wanted the legislation to pass.
Then there are the numbers in the House vote itself.
It squeaked by with just seven more yeas than nays, or 50.8 percent of those voting. It got zero votes from opposition party and had 17 defectors from the majority party. That doesn't invalidate the vote, of course. It legally passed. But is that the kind of victory margin you'd really want for sweeping legislation that will affect all Americans presumably for the rest of our history?
Obviously it's not what Obama would have wanted. But what he wanted more was a political victory and a massive expansion of government, and now he's got them. Goody for him. But don't pretend this is what we wanted.
March 22, 2010 02:52 PM · Permalink
Worries about the direction of the Tea Party movement
By Michael Fumento
"The Tea Party is still taking shape," says the front page headline in today's Washington Post. The Post is a liberal paper, but that sounds like a fair headline. The story may or may not be fair, but there were some quotes in there that if representative are worrying.
Thus Jim Linn, an electrical engineer from San Diego, allegedly told the reporter that, in her paraphrasation, "the Constitution must be interpreted in ways that match his understanding of the Founders' intent. That would mean scrapping a lot of the amendments, he acknowledges, but not Nos. 2, 10, 16 and 17."
Of course, the Founders enacted all ten of the first Amendments as the Bill of Rights. That includes Nos. 1 and 3-9. But it's possible those were just his favorites. It's also entirely possible that the Post reported played the old game of interviewing tons of people and just quoting the most outlandish ones. Let's just hope this fellow isn't representative.
More worrying was this regarding former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.), who ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. "When Tancredo said, 'His name is Barack Hussein Obama,' the audience booed loudly."
Let's be clear on this. Obama did not choose his middle name. He did not choose the parents who gave him that name. O! would that we could have chosen our own parents. Among other things, mine would have been wealthy.
Here's an explanation of why that middle name is used against him.
Debbie Schlussel, self-identified "conservative political commentator, radio talk show host and columnist," blogged in 2006 that:
Obama's full name - as by now you have probably heard - is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali's son - Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.
And her point being?
It's true that Islam is not "the religion of peace" that Pres. G.W. Bush asserted. The Koran does in fact call for waging war upon and killing non-Muslims. But most Muslims don't accept that as part of their belief system. It's those who do, the Islamists, that we need worry about - not Muslims generally. I've had Islamist Muslims shoot at me with AKs, machine guns, sniper rifles, and mortars. Debbie Schlussel has not. So I know the difference.
Being Muslim doesn't inherently make you evil. But in any case, all Schlussel was able to say is that Muslims consider Obama a Muslim. So what?
I'm Jewish on my mother's side so Jews consider me a Jew. I've been in synagogues four times. I'm a practicing Christian. If Obama thinks he's a Christian and goes to a Christian church - which we knows he does, he has to be considered a Christian.
But no, the point is being a Muslim is inherently bad and that like it or not Obama is a Muslim. We know that's her point because she titled her blog: "Barack Obama: Once a Muslim, Always a Muslim."
Gad, lady! He was never a Muslim, any more than I was ever Jewish!
But apparently that's why saying all three of Obama's names at a Tea Party rally is a way to rile up the masses.
And that's worrisome.
February 6, 2010 11:51 AM · Permalink
Why did Obama declare a health emergency with no emergency
By Michael Fumento
As I note in my Investor's Business Daily article, swine flu cases in the last seven months, according to the CDC, equal about four days' worth of seasonal flu deaths during the season.
There's no medical emergency except that emergency facilities are swamped with the worried well and the mildly ill. Why? Because of the Obama administration's first swine flu emergency declaration and the report from the President's Council of Science and Technology Advisors predicting up to 90,000 deaths.
And guess what reaction this latest proclamation is provoking?
So why did they do it?
You might ask H.L. Mencken, who observed that government, ever seeks "to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
October 28, 2009 10:09 PM · Permalink