Obama's mouth will be the end of him.

"It’s the mouth that kills the fish."

President Obama’s accusation that the Cambridge police “had acted stupidly”, responding to a question about the incident involving Cambridge Police Officer Crowley’s arrest of black Professor Gates by stating “off-the-cuff”, was just the latest example of Obama’s most serious character flaw: his tendency to opine forcefully before knowing the facts.

His statement illustrates the Venezuelan phrase I often quote: “El pez muere por la boca”. Roughly translated, this means “It’s the mouth that kills the fish.” In other words, it is the fish’s instinct to open its mouth and take the bait without hesitation that results in its ultimate demise.

The details of the event can be found through various sources, starting with the police report. A short version goes like this: A white, female neighbor, Ms. Lucia Whalen, saw two black males wearing backpacks trying to shove their way through the front door of a house in an up-scale neighborhood. Concerned that her neighbor’s house was being burglarized, she called 911. Officer Crowley responded and found Mr. Gates in the house. Crowley spoke with him, told him he was responding to call that suggested the house was being robbed, and Gates asked him for identification.

Gates at first refused, and launched into his tirade “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” According to the officer, Gates was verbally aggressive and conflictive throughout the event. A report filed by a second officer (Off. Carlos Figueroa) reaffirms this assertion. Gates then tried to call the Police Chief from his home phone in order to escalate the issue. He continued yelling at the officer, calling him a racist and asking him for his name (which Crowley asserts he told Gates several times). Crowley warned Gates several times to calm down. Crowley alleges that he asked Gates to step outside, because the acoustics within the house, combined with Gates’ yelling, prevented him from communicating via radio with the station. Gates stepped outside and continued his yelling. Crowley warned Gates that he was beginning to disturb the peace, while he withdrew his handcuffs. But Gates did not take the hint: he continued yelling at the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.

It should be noted that Gates was the first “fish” to fall victim to his own loud mouth. Had he simply calmed down and explained the situation to the officer, he never would have been arrested. But this professor in the W. E. Debois Department of Black Studies clearly had a chip on his shoulder, a false sense of his own importance, and—knowing that he was a personal friend of President Obama—told the officer “you don’t know who you’re messin’ with”, and “you haven’t heard the last of this.”

But Obama apparently didn’t know the full story when he called Officer Crowley “stupid”, as he himself admits.

It is fascinating that Obama, who was a trained lawyer and has been praised for his legal knowledge, failed one of the most basic tenets of practicing law: know the facts of the case!

Officer Crowley is not the only person being vilified by black activists. Ms. Whalen, the woman who placed the 911 call, has been accused of being a racist, by various imbeciles opining on the case and ignoring basic facts. One blogger wrote: “I believe that the media would be remiss not to focus at least some of their attention on Lucia Whalen, the woman who initially called 911. Her racism was the catalyst that put all of these other events in motion.”

“Racism”? While it is clearly true that she was mistaken, and that Gates was a resident trying to force open his front door, and not a burglar, it is hardly racist for her to be concerned about her neighbors’ safety and call the authorities. What’s more, it is now known that the reason why Gates was trying to force the door was because, after returning from a trip, he found the front door damaged. Gates has apparently said that it looked as if the door had been damaged in a previous burglary attempt.

This often overlooked fact shines an important light on the events: the neighbor, it turns out, was right to be concerned. Gates had been victimized, but not by the police: his residence had apparently suffered an attempted break-in which, unfortunately, had not been observed and reported.

We have to ask ourselves; had the White House failed to properly brief Obama on this issue? We are being told that they had not.

Had Obama done due research before opining? He said that he was not there and did not know the details.

So why did Obama feel that he needed to blurt out an emotional response to an issue for which a simple “No Comment” would have been more appropriate? Could it be that he actually has been listening to the sermons of his infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and is a proponent of black victimization?

While that may be true, what cannot be denied is that Obama has demonstrated, over the past few weeks, a disturbing tendency to make firm public statements about issues that he admits he knows little about.

When asked about the impacts of the H.R. 3200 Health Bill that he has been championing, Obama admitted: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” He then went on to defend the bill and promote “his plan” (which is not really his plan, because he has farmed it out to a cabal of radical Democrats to write in his stead).

It is peculiar that Obama would propose a radical idea that would enact massive restructuring of a major component of the American economy, then decide to let others write the bill, then not familiarize himself with the bill, openly admit that he is not familiar with the bill, and then defend it!

A couple of weeks previously, when the Honduran Supreme Court ordered President Manuel Zelaya deposed due to his unconstitutional behavior, Obama leapt into the fray, declaring that the actions taken were an illegal and unconstitutional “coup”. I analyzed the events there in depth through two posts, and concluded that Obama’s assertion is false; the process appears to have been legal, constitutional, rational, democratic, and does not constitute a “coup”.

But again, Obama believes himself to be so wise that facts are irrelevant. Events are what he says they are, and “damn your lying eyes!”

A President who speaks too soon once has committed a forgivable error. When he repeats that mistake within a week or two, it is a very real cause for embarrassment and should cause him to rectify his behavior. But when it occurs a third time in as many weeks: you have identified a dangerous trend.

Just like the fish that automatically snaps at a baited hook, Obama has proven himself incapable of assessing the impact of his impromptu remarks. His narcissism drives him to seek attention, and he does so without the slightest reflection as to the outcome. The truth to the matter is, that while Joe Biden’s frequent gaffes are generally harmless and amusing, Obama’s screw ups will ultimately undermine his own credibility.

How liberals dismiss racial discrimination

What in the world is “Hispanic” or “Latino”, anyway?

My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.

When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.

A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).

The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).

The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”

My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.

What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.

But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.

What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.

When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”

The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.

He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”

“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.

Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?

And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.

So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!