Obama catastrophe

Charles Krauthammer


February 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Barack Obama's Louis XV Budget
Unlike the French monarch, Obama is in denial of the coming deluge.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif

Five days before his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama told the
Washington Post that entitlement reform could no longer be kicked down the
road. He then spent the next two years kicking - racking up $3 trillion in
new debt along the way - on the grounds that massive temporary deficit
spending was necessary to prevent another Great Depression.

To prove his bona fides, he later appointed a deficit-reduction commission.
It made its report last December, when the economy was well past recession,
solemnly declaring that "the era of debt denial is over."

-

That lasted all of two months. The president's first post-commission budget,
submitted Monday, marks a return to obliviousness. Even Erskine Bowles,
Obama's Democratic debt-commission co-chair, says it goes "nowhere near
where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare."

The budget touts a deficit reduction of $1.1 trillion over the next decade.

Where to begin? Even if you buy this number, Obama's budget adds $7.2
trillion in new debt over that same decade.

But there's a catch. The administration assumes economic-growth levels
higher than private economists and the Congressional Budget Office predict.
Without this rosy scenario - using CBO growth estimates - $1.7 trillion of
revenue disappears and U.S. debt increases $9 trillion over the next decade.
This is almost $1 trillion every year.

Assume you buy the rosy scenario. Of what does this $1.1 trillion in deficit
reduction consist? Painful cuts? Think again. It consists of $1.6 trillion
in tax hikes, plus an odd $328 billion of some mysterious bipartisan funding
for a transportation trust fund (gas taxes, one supposes) - for a grand
total of nearly $2 trillion in new taxes.

Classic Obama debt reduction: Add $2 trillion in new taxes, then add another
$1 trillion in new spending and, presto, you've got $1 trillion of debt
reduction. It's the same kind of mad deficit accounting in Obamacare: It
reduces debt by adding $540 billion in new spending, then adding $770
billion in new taxes. Presto: $230 billion of "debt reduction." Bialystock &
Bloom accounting.

And what of those "painful cuts" Obama is making to programs he really cares
about? The catch is that these "cuts" are from a hugely inflated new
baseline created by the orgy of spending in Obama's first two years. These
were supposedly catastrophe-averting, anti-Depression emergency measures.
But post-recession they remain in place. As a result, discretionary
non-defense budget levels today are 24 percent higher than before Obama - 84
percent higher if you add in the stimulus money.

Which is why the supposedly painful cuts yield spending still at
stratospheric levels. After all the cuts, Department of Education funding
for 2012 remains 35 percent higher than in the last pre-emergency pre-Obama
year, 2008. Environmental Protection Agency: 18 percent higher. Department
of Energy: 22 percent higher. Consider even the biggest "painful cut"
headline of all, the 50 percent cut in fuel subsidies for the poor.
Barbaric, is it not? Except for the fact that the subsidies had been doubled
from 2008 levels. The draconian cut is nothing but a return to normal
pre-recession levels.

Yet all this is penny-ante stuff. The real money is in entitlements. And the
real scandal of this budget is that Obama doesn't touch them. Not Social
Security. Not Medicaid. Not Medicare.

What about tax reform, the other major recommendation of the deficit
commission? Nothing.

How about just a subset of that - corporate tax reform, on which Republicans
have signaled they are eager to collaborate? The formula is simple:
Eliminate the loopholes to broaden the tax base, then lower the rates for
everyone, promoting both fairness and economic efficiency. What does the
Obama budget do? Removes tax breaks - and then keeps the rate at 35 percent,
among the highest in the industrialized world (more than twice Canada's, for
example).

Yet for all its gimmicks, this budget leaves the country at decade's end
saddled with publicly held debt triple what Obama inherited.

A more cynical budget is hard to imagine. This one ignores the looming debt
crisis, shifts all responsibility for serious budget-cutting to the
Republicans - for which Democrats are ready with a two-year, full-artillery
demagogic assault - and sets Obama up perfectly for re-election in 2012.

Obama fancies his happy talk, debt-denial optimism to be Reaganesque. It's
more Louis XV. Reagan begat a quarter-century of prosperity; Louis, the
deluge.

Moreover, unlike Obama, Louis had the decency to admit he was forfeiting the
future. He never pretended to be winning it.

- Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. C 2011 the
Washington Post Writers Group.




Has any politician - ever - so blatantly lied without being forced to withdraw or resign from office?
What will his supporters call it, a simple "slip of the tongue," or imply it is a doctored video.
I did not write the below commentaries.
Jim
Did Barack Obama's father really serve in WW II, really?
Of all the things I've seen or heard about Obama on the internet, NONE has hit me like this!! How can we not believe some of the charges about citizenship, religion, etc., after hearing what he says on this?
Obama said his father served in WW II? Barack's father served in WW II?
He said so in a speech. Here is an 18 second video:
CNN News clip: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who checked or double checked these statements and called the party on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him?
Like it or not, here are the facts:
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.



Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: 1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52. He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.
Watch the video. RIGHT OUT OF HIS MOUTH!!!
And the media doesn't say anything. If you doubt it, Google both of these guys.
It appears this guy doesn't know how to tell the truth -- or he doesn't care about telling the truth! -- or perhaps he doesn't know when he isn't telling the truth (which is also a very scary angle). Talk about STOLEN HONOR!!!
Had this been Bush, the Media would still be on this!
The CNN clip of Obama is surprising. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this lie wasn't uncovered, questioned or debated before the Nov. 2008 election. Oh well, He must have just "forgotten" the facts, again. Or perhaps he really doesn't even know the difference between truth and fabrication?
This should be sent to every Veterans group in the USA !!
STOLEN HONOR!!!



Ahmadinejad Rant Deals Major Blow to 'Obama Doctrine'
Friday, 24 Sep 2010 01:59 PM
Article Font Size

By: David A. Patten

The bizarre U.N. rant alleging a 9/11 conspiracy by Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delivered from the same podium where President Obama had just hours before extended yet another of olive branch of diplomacy toward the rogue Persian regime, marks the most devastating setback yet in the administration's campaign of global engagement, foreign-policy experts say.

A host of nations joined America in walking out on Ahmadinejad's tirade -- including the 27 European Union states, Australia, Costa Rica, and New Zealand.

But the overwhelming majority of the diplomats representing the worlds 192 nations not only kept their seats, but applauded vigorously when Ahmadinejad finally stopped talking.

"They are literally at their wits' end. They have no idea what to do," Dr. James Jay Carafano, the Heritage Foundation national security expert, tells Newsmax of the administration. "They don't want to take the Iranians on. They don't want to appear soft on Iran. They don't want to say that having an Iranian nuclear program is acceptable, but they're unwilling to do any of the things to demonstrate that the United States truly would hold it as unacceptable."

Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations including former Ambassador John R. Bolton, tells Newsmax that Thursday's incident is another setback for an Obama strategy he says has "failed miserably on a variety of fronts in the Middle East."

In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Grenell says he concurs with other pundits who say it now appears the Obama administration has given up stopping the determined Iranian march toward attaining nuclear weapons.

"I think the Obama administration has calculated that it's too tough to get the Iranians to give up their weapons, and so they are making plans to deal with an Iranian regime with nuclear capability," Grenell said. "I think that it's a very scary possibility, but it looks like the Obama administration has calculated that it's inevitable."

Story continues below video.

UN Expert Richard Grenell examines Obama and Ahmadinejad appearance at the UN He reviews how Obama takes credit for leading the world out of the global recession He also reviews how Obama hug it out foreign policy is working very well for the Russians
Ahmadinejad's U.N. remarks were widely interpreted as a repudiation of President Obama's diplomatic outreach. "In their actions to date," Obama told the U.N. delegations, "the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.

"We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations."

Ahmadinejad's response was to launch a broadside against American capitalism and to state "The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree… some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime."

Ahmadinejad also called for the establishment of a fact-finding group "to ensure that the different views about [9/11] are not banned from discussion in the future."

Saul Weisleder, the representative of the Costa Rican mission who walked on Ahmadinejad's speech, told CNSNews: "This only reaffirms [Ahmadinejad's] negative contribution to world peace and practical rejection of President Barack Obama's extension of a serious proposal for constructive engagement with Iran in order to build peace…."

The administration's critics saw Ahmadinejad's broadside as a clear repudiation of a U.S. diplomatic strategy increasingly known as "the Obama doctrine." It involves downplaying U.S. strength and exceptionalism, while promising not to act independently against despots without the approval of world governing bodies.

President Obama himself described his doctrine in Thursday's U.N. speech.
"This cannot solely be America's endeavor," he said. "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The notion of shared responsibility has generally been met with diplomatic indifference, experts say, or by outright hostility in the case of Iran's volatile, leisure-suit wearing theocrat.

As Hudson Institute senior fellow Anne Bayefsky remarked Friday on National Review Online: "Ahmadinejad has heard this plea from the Obama administration so many times before that he has clearly stopped counting. Ahmadinejad understands perfectly well that confronting Iran is out of sync with the 'new era of engagement' that is the trademark of Obama’s foreign policy.

“'Engagement' looks like this," she wrote. "The president of the United States keeps talking about 'extended hands' and 'open doors,' and the president of Iran keeps building nuclear weapons."

In his speech Obama appeared to soft pedal the Iran situation Thursday. Rather than highlight Iran's plans to develop nuclear weapons, Obama merely said that Iran had not yet demonstrated its peaceful intent, adding the regime must "confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program."

Comments Carafano: "Everything in the doctrine … is predicated on people who the U.S. is antagonistic with doing things that are nice, cooperating. The corrupt Afghans have to cooperate, the Pakistanis have to cooperate, the Iranians have to cooperate. And the enemy gets a vote. And what we're seeing is, people are demonstrating they don't want to cooperate."

According to Grenell, the administration's apparent inability to stop Iran's nuclear program stems in part from its reluctance to use American might.
"Military action is always the last resort," Grenell tells Newsmax.

"But it actually has to be on the table. I think the Bush administration actually was able to move the U.N. in a direction that sometimes it didn't want to go, simply because they were nervous about a military action. I think that threat is a very powerful threat, and what's happened with the Obama administration is they've removed it.

"They basically want to 'hug everything out.' And at the end of the day, you have to have a credible threat."

Grenell also said that the president blundered in reaching out to Palestinians without at least meeting with the Israeli delegation.

"The Obama administration did not meet with the Israelis on this trip," Grenell says. "I think it's a dangerous precedent when you go to the U.N. and you don't have a bilateral, sit-down, formal meeting with the Israelis. As the American president, it sends a terrible message to the U.N. when you snub the Israelis like this."

Ironically, the president's doctrine of engagement doesn't appear to be playing so well in the Middle East either.

Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world initially did improve the approval rating of the United States. But according to The Pew Global Attitudes survey, U.S. favorability in the Middle East has dropped significantly since then.

The U.S. approval rating has fallen from 27 percent to 17 percent in Egypt, from 25 to 21 percent in Jordan, and from 55 percent to 52 percent in Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech was met with over 800 protesters demonstrating against Iran's theocratic strongmen.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took up their cause, declaring to the crowd: "If the U.N. wants to reclaim its lofty goal of protecting human rights, then it must stand with you against the brutal regime in Iran."





Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought
September 22, 2010
Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.

Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/washingtonexaminer



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10RuqSp9V




Obama where are your records? Disclosure? Transparency?

Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. I'll just read it to you.

Could you please help me find these things, Sir?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance Fraud?)
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?

Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir? Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . ...

What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote.



More evidence he's a Muslim

Something to think about!!! Shep Smith, Fox News.



Leaving Michelle home!!!!! If you check Obama's last trip overseas. His wife left just after their visit to France as stated below. She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. The pieces of the puzzle just keep on coming together!



I was at a Blockbusters renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called "Obama". There were two ARAB men next to me. We talked about Obama. I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband... They told me she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq.



I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai ." They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his(non-Muslim) wife into countries that accept Sharia Law.

I just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at Blockbusters accept the idea that we're being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed. They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia .. It was a signal to the Muslim world.

When I received this it made sense to me, but there were also a couple blank spots. Thus, I sent it to a friend who is a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert, Dr. Jim Murk. Here is his explanation that states a little clearer what the Arabs at Blockbuster were saying.

"An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices shari'ah law, which includes Saudi Arabia . It is why Obama left Michelle in Europe , or at home, when he went to Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this included his bowing to the Saudi king.



Obama is regarded as a Muslim in these countries simply because he was born to a Muslim father. Note that he has downplayed his Christianity--even spoke of his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulos --by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C., but simply attending the chapel or services at Camp David .. He also played down the fact that the USA was a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has also publicly taken the part of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel. Finally he ignored the National Day of Prayer. He is bad news.


Thus once again ACTIONS speak louder than words. Do they appear maybe treasonous to you or is it just millions of Americans who think so?


Mitt Romney argues that the New START agreement with Russia is Obama's worst foreign policy mistake. But there are so many contenders.
http://tinyurl.com/37rd4br

Barack Obama has made a recess appointment of Donald Berwick to run the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Even some Democratic Senators are unhappy with this decision. Berwick, a huge fan of Britain's national health service, a believer in rationing, and a foe of any free enterprise aspects to the delivery of health care , would have been red meat at any confirmation hearing, and his testimony would have given opponents of the recently passed, but very unpopular health care reform act, a chance to talk about the bill, and what we now know of it.
http://tinyurl.com/24bmw9c
Berwick argues that the delivery of health care has to be redistributionist: http://tinyurl.com/2en6g9a




He does not want terrorism mentioned

Lion's Den: Jihadi undercuts president
By DANIEL PIPES
06/29/2010 22:28

The Times Square bomber flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy.
Talkbacks (12)


The jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism.

Shahzad’s statements stand out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining.

Consider a few examples:
• Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

• Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.

• Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court: “I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”

• Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car, and issued a series of jihadi rants against the US, later experienced a change of heart, announced he was “very sorry” for the crimes and asked for release so he could “reestablish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.

THESE EFFORTS fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle.

Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11’s would-be 20th hijacker, came close: His court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then pleading guilty to all charges.

Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt.

On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully and informatively described his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.

The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all 10 counts of his indictment: “Why do you want to plead guilty?” A reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in jail for long years. He replied forthrightly: I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times forward because – until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] US, and I plead guilty to that.”

Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: “I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “we Muslims are one community.”

Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because “one has to understand where I’m coming from, because... I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

WHEN CEDARBAUM pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May 1 were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: “Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”

His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government, but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocent.

However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to express his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”

Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non- Muslims and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies.

The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.




Obama's race-rant Rev. rages on

By MAUREEN CALLAHAN

Last Updated: 11:50 AM, June 27, 2010

Posted: 2:35 AM, June 27, 2010

CHICAGO -- He's been keeping such a low profile since nearly derailing Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008 -- is it possible that the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright has mellowed?

Hardly.

During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week at the University of Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

"White folk done took this country," Wright said. "You're in their home, and they're gonna let you know it."

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary on the university campus, where Wright's voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend's attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

The absence of young people was telling: The lectures seemed ossified, relics of a pre-civil-rights America -- a point that Obama himself made during his famous speech on race in March 2008, prompted by the incendiary comments ("God damn America!") made by his former pastor and mentor.

"Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect," Obama said.

Yet during this course -- which was described as asking, "What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?" -- Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

"You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk," he said. "And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble."

He cited the writings of Bill Jones -- author of the book "Is God a White Racist?" -- as proof that white people cannot be trusted. "Bill said, 'They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They'll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin', cause you not a brother to them.' "

Wright referred to Italians as "Mamma Luigi" and "pizzeria." He said the educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks "not by benign neglect but by malignant intent."

He said Ethiopian Jews are despised by white Jews: "And now the Knesset [Israeli parliament] is meeting with European Jews, voting on whether or not these African Jews can get into [Israel]."

By the way, contrary to what was said by him and his handlers in 2008, Barack Obama said in 2004 in a Sun-Times interview that he went quite often to hear Wright speak.





Excerpt:



These days, he says, he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week -- or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619%2Cobamafalsani040504.article



Also called Wright his mentor, his moral compass, his sounding board on matters of politics. The only “charity” he gave money to before becoming a US Senator. The inspiration for the term “Audacity of Hope”; has his young daughters listening to Wright since they were toddlers.



Wright’s anti-Israel, anti-American, and ant-white views were well broadcast in 2008. He later made outright anti-Semitic statements when he accused the “Jews” surrounding Obama from keeping him away from President Obama. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31246353



Where was the media then and where is the media now?



Hat Tip: News Alert



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/white_folk_done_took_this_country_hWlQbwxvMbnYdkYwVZwSWJ#ixzz0s3ZGbQk6



destroying the economy
Since the start of the recession, 8 million private sector jobs have been lost, but there has been job growth of 600,000 in the public sector. Since the stimulus bill was passed, private sector employment is down more than 2.6 million, but public sector employment is up 400,000.
The reality- this Administration can not create PRIVATE sector jobs, but like governments everywhere, it knows how to expand itself.
http://tinyurl.com/27ez45q







The most dangerous president in history
Posted: June 19, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010
Obama believes in the rule of law – his law. No other law is relevant. No other law matters. When Obama speaks, he expects the world to obey.
In his Tuesday night performance, he said, "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business. …" "Inform him"? Where does Barack Hussein Obama get the authority to issue orders to the CEO of a private corporation? There is no such authority in the Constitution. There is no law that empowers the president to "inform" the CEO of any corporation how he will spend the corporation's money. Obama couldn't care less about the Constitution or the law.
There was no constitutional authority for him to essentially take over General Motors and Chrysler, or the banks. Obama couldn't care less about the law. When he speaks, he expects the world to obey.
There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to require American citizens to purchase health insurance or any other product or service. It doesn't matter. Obama spoke; his congressional majority of comrades obeyed.
In 18 months, the man has demonstrated that he cares nothing about the system of government created by our founders and enshrined in the Constitution. He has demonstrated that he fully intends to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America – as he promised in his campaign. Now we are beginning to get a picture of the nation he intends to build. The picture is frightening.
Virtually everything Obama has done since taking office has expanded both the size and power of the federal government. The federal government our founders constructed is a government limited to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Those powers not enumerated are expressly reserved to the states and to the people.
Obama can't comprehend any limitations on his power. The moment Arizona enacted a law that empowered state law-enforcement officers to check for citizenship, Obama bad-mouthed the state legislature and governor – without even reading the law. There have been arrogant presidents before, but none that can compare to the sickening self-centered narcissism that exudes from this man.
Obama's declaration that America must end its addiction to oil misses the point entirely. America is not addicted to oil at all; America is addicted to the lifestyle made possible by the most efficient, abundant energy source yet discovered. Americans would be delighted to move to any energy source that will provide the same or better lifestyle at less cost.
In a capitalist society such as America, government's role in the market is limited to providing a level playing field for the entrepreneurs who risk their own assets to provide a product or service in hopes of making a profit. Only in totalitarian systems are markets managed by government.
The reason the nation has not switched to solar, wind or other alternative energy sources has nothing to do with our addiction to oil; it has everything to do with cost and convenience.
Obama has decided that cost is irrelevant. He wants to wean America from oil and bond the nation to exotic alternatives, regardless of the cost. When Obama speaks, he expects people to obey. He is ready to artificially and unnecessarily increase the cost of carbon fuels in the form of taxes and fees, in order to fund subsidies for wind and solar-energy sources. It doesn't matter to Obama that the environmental disaster that will be created by the solar farms and wind farms is much greater than the Gulf oil spill.
The Gulf oil spill will eventually be capped and cleaned; once a solar farm is built to supply energy to a community, it will never go away; it will only expand. The biodiversity that once flourished where the solar farm now is will never be restored. The land area will be devoid of biodiversity.
Obama and his congressional comrades absolutely refuse to consider allowing the development of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Of the entire 19-million-acre area, only 2,000 acres would be disturbed, an area of 3.125 square miles. But they have no problem condemning 25,700 square miles of America to be paved over with solar panels. This is the area required to replace electricity use with solar energy. This is an area roughly equal to the states of Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. To replace the carbon energy used by transportation with electricity, at least Florida, Georgia and South Carolina would need to be added to the land area forever lost to agriculture, housing or biodiversity.
Nevertheless, Obama has spoken. He expects people to obey.
What's most dangerous about this man is his restructuring the government to be operated by a collection of appointed czars, who are not accountable to Congress, who can exercise powers not granted to the government to achieve nearly dictatorial authority over the citizens of the United States.
This is a limited look at only a few areas of domestic policy; his vision for the rest of the world is even more frightening. That's for another day.



Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.





Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an
acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett



Obama's Muslim proclivities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY&feature=player_embedded#!

President Obama's commencement address at
West Point (which took place this morning). You can watch it at


ObaMA at West Point
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/obamas-west-point-speech-_n_585988.
html



He received the coolest reception that one can imagine from the officers
whom he now commands (very muted applause). Also, while he spoke of
terrorism or extremism, he would never link that to radical Islam. He
spends some time talking about Islam, but manages to circumvent the core of
the problem which is that Radical Islam IS the enemy of the U.S. and Western
Civilization. Friends, unless we can define our enemy, we are destined to
lose.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885_pf.html



The fruits of weakness

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 21, 2010; A19

It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."..

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies."



.
The Obama Administration's Middle East Disaster: A Brief Summary
By Barry Rubin*

May 18, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/05/obama-me-disaster


Every day I wake up hoping to have good news to report about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. There are some positive things-regarding U.S.-Israel bilateral relations-but other than that it is hard to find anything but failure and incompetence.

We are now one-third of the way through the Obama Administration and, regrettably, it has not learned very much at all about understanding the world situation and correcting its mistakes. The time for wishful thinking is over: if it hasn't made major corrections by now, the Obama Administration is very unlikely to get any better during the rest of its term.


Here are nine huge problems going on right now that are not being addressed by the U.S. government and are barely comprehended by the U.S. debate and large portions of the mass media. I defy anyone to show that any of these points is inaccurate. You can claim they are exaggerated, but not by much. You can claim that the U.S. government lacks options, but it is not even trying to find or develop them, nor is it telling the public the truth about these issues.

1. Iran again outmaneuvers the United States, undercutting sanctions. It's now the second half of May, do you know where your sanctions are? The problem isn't just that Tehran now has anew plan to ship out half its enriched uranium (only leaving it with the other 50 percent for building bombs!) but that this scheme was engineered by two countries the Obama Administration has extolled as friends: Turkey and Brazil. Despite constant assurances to the public (illusions it also believed and which misled its policy), the Obama Administration cannot depend onRussia or China to support sanctions.

What is going on is a diplomatic battle between Iran and the United States to see which can have more influence on the positions taken by other countries on the Iran nuclear issue. Here's what's really amazing: Outside of Western and Central Europe, Iran is winning this competition. Despite Obama's vaunted claims of popularity, his government didn't build real alliances in theThird World or persuade people of the extent of the Iranian threat so the United States doesn't get their support. In addition, they view Obama as weak and not a reliable friend, so why should they go out on a limb for him? There could be no better proof that respect and credibility is more important in international affairs than shallow popularity and flattery.

2. Russia has just signed a major arms' deal with Syria and is moving toward being diplomatic patron and arms' supplier of an Iran-Syria-Turkey-Hamas-Hizballah alliance. While the United States has tremendous potential leverage over Russia, it isn't being used and the administration continues to pretend Moscow will support serious sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Russia isrebuilding its hegemony over former Soviet territories and neighbors. And the Obama Administration is blind toward Turkey's defection to the other side and the growing Islamism within Turkey itself.

3. The Administration is simply not dealing with nor even informing the public of Iranian cooperation with al-Qaida as well as Tehran's covert war on the United States in Iraq andAfghanistan. It is still entangled with illusions of engaging Iran, which thus open the door to the kind of problems discussed in points 1 and 2 above.

4. The government has no real understanding of Iranian strategy or the kind of containment that would be needed once Tehran has nuclear weapons. It thinks-and this is no exaggeration-that the Middle East would not change very much with a nuclear-armed Iran and that U.S. credibility and deterrence would not be substantially damaged.

5. The Obama Administration continues to engage Syria despite that regime's continued war against America in Iraq, takeover efforts in Lebanon, support for revolutionary Islamist groups and sabotage against any progress in peacemaking. A new development is the announcement by the UN-sponsored international tribunal that it will issue indictments in September. If it is honest at all, Syrian leaders will be openly declared as responsible for terrorism and assassinations in Lebanon.

6. The Obama Administration continues to pour money and support into Pakistan even while aware that the Pakistani government is not helping very much against al-Qaida and the Afghan Taliban, not to mention its sponsoring a war of terrorism on its neighbor India. Incidentally, some similar things--on a much smaller scale--apply to Yemen which has been really unhelpful to U.S. counterterrorist efforts lately. Might some pressure and even quiet threats be useful?

7. The U.S. government and mass media cannot even speak honestly most of the time about the nature of the revolutionary Islamist threat.

8. The Obama Administration's policy of winning Arab state support for its policies by flattery and distancing itself from Israel has failed. Arab leaders alternate between bemoaning Washington's weakness and complaining that it isn't doing anything. Here's a remarkable speech by one of Saudi Arabia's most powerful leaders, Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington and London, saying that Obama is no different from past U.S. presidents, has done nothing for the Arabs, and they are demanding a lot more. Naturally, they are not offering to do anything to help or support the United States.

9. A policy of distancing itself from Israel--although this should not be exaggerated--has not yielded any material benefit for U.S. interests. By doing so, and making a freeze of construction on settlements its main theme, the Obama Administration wrecked the chance for any Israel-Palestinian contacts for about a year and have moved them back from direct to indirect talks. The policy is now making the Palestinian Authority think that it need merely sabotage talks and believe that this will yield more U.S. pressure on Israel and unilateral concessions for itself. Moreover, while the administration continues to isolate Hamas, its basic approach is to preserve the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. In short, the U.S. policy is making it harder, rather than easier, to make progress toward a just and stable two-state solution.

To all of this might be added that given the poor performance and inaccurate understanding of the region it holds, the administration is not likely to respond well to crises arising from Iraq, Afghanistan, Egyptian succession, or many other issues likely to arise.


")); // -->


*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)



Here are nine huge problems going on right now that are not being addressed by the U.S. government


Iran's Nuclear Coup
Ahmadinejad and Lula expose Obama's hapless diplomacy. .ArticleComments (114)more in Opinion ».EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
. What a fiasco. That's the first word that comes to mind watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raise his arms yesterday with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil to celebrate a new atomic pact that instantly made irrelevant 16 months of President Obama's "diplomacy." The deal is a political coup for Tehran and possibly delivers the coup de grace to the West's half-hearted efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama Administration and its hapless diplomatic strategy. Last October, nine months into its engagement with Tehran, the White House concocted a plan to transfer some of Iran's uranium stock abroad for enrichment. If the West couldn't stop Iran's program, the thinking was that maybe this scheme would delay it. The Iranians played coy, then refused to accept the offer.

But Mr. Obama doesn't take no for an answer from rogue regimes, and so he kept the offer on the table. As the U.S. finally seemed ready to go to the U.N. Security Council for more sanctions, the Iranians chose yesterday to accept the deal on their own limited terms while enlisting the Brazilians and Turks as enablers and political shields. "Diplomacy emerged victorious today," declared Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, turning Mr. Obama's own most important foreign-policy principle against him.

.The double embarrassment is that the U.S. had encouraged Lula's diplomacy as a step toward winning his support for U.N. sanctions. Brazil is currently one of the nonpermanent, rotating members of the Security Council, and the U.S. has wanted a unanimous U.N. vote. Instead, Lula used the opening to triangulate his own diplomatic solution. In her first game of high-stakes diplomatic poker, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leaving the table dressed only in a barrel.

So instead of the U.S. and Europe backing Iran into a corner this spring, Mr. Ahmadinejad has backed Mr. Obama into one. America's discomfort is obvious. In its statement yesterday, the White House strained to "acknowledge the efforts" by Turkey and Brazil while noting "Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments." The White House also sought to point out differences between yesterday's pact and the original October agreements on uranium transfers.

Good luck drawing those distinctions with the Chinese or Russians, who will now be less likely to agree even to weak sanctions. Having played so prominent a role in last October's talks with Iran, the U.S. can't easily disassociate itself from something broadly in line with that framework.

Under the terms unveiled yesterday, Iran said it would send 1,200 kilograms (2,646 lbs.) of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month, and no more than a year later get back 120 kilograms enriched from somewhere else abroad. This makes even less sense than the flawed October deal. In the intervening seven months, Iran has kicked its enrichment activities into higher gear. Its estimated total stock has gone to 2,300 kilograms from 1,500 kilograms last autumn, and its stated enrichment goal has gone to 20% from 3.5%.

If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous U.N. resolutions. Removing 1,200 kilograms will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.

Only last week, diplomats at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has increased the number of centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium. According to Western intelligence estimates, Iran continues to acquire key nuclear components, such as trigger mechanisms for bombs. Tehran says it wants to build additional uranium enrichment plants. The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved "toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles." Yesterday's deal will have no impact on these illicit activities.

The deal will, however, make it nearly impossible to disrupt Iran's nuclear program short of military action. The U.N. is certainly a dead end. After 16 months of his extended hand and after downplaying support for Iran's democratic opposition, Mr. Obama now faces an Iran much closer to a bomb and less diplomatically isolated than when President Bush left office.

Israel will have to seriously consider its military options. Such a confrontation is far more likely thanks to the diplomatic double-cross of Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil's Lula, and especially to a U.S. President whose diplomacy has succeeded mainly in persuading the world's rogues that he lacks the determination to stop their destructive ambitions




Syria, Iran, and Turkey Openly Defy Obama, as Russia Regains Mideast Influence
Posted By Barry Rubin On May 13, 2010 @ 1:08 pm In Column 1, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Politics, Russia, Syria, Turkey, World News | 52 Comments

The world is getting into the habit of making Obama look inept.
The U.S. sends a delegation to Damascus to wean Syria from Iran, and Syria promptly responds by inviting Iran’s president to the country and tightening the relationship. The U.S. praises Pakistan and sends billions in aid, and Pakistan responds by being less than cooperative in dealing with the Times Square bomber.
Now it’s Russia’s turn. Just hours after the Obama administration praised Russia for allegedly cooperating on sanctions against Iran — to justify pushing forward a bilateral nuclear weapons limitation agreement with Moscow — Russia eagerly responded by subverting U.S. Middle East policy.
Russian President Dimitry Medvedev visited Syria [1] and Turkey, taking a very large entourage with him to work on trade and military cooperation agreements. In effect, these meetings marked another step in the creation of an anti-American alliance in the region with Russian backing.
How do we know about this alliance? Because Turkey, Syria, and Iran are openly declaring its existence. How do we know Russia is backing it? Because Medvedev is openly claiming this.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a “friend,” and that Iran is using its nuclear program “for civilian purposes only.” He also said that Israel, not Iran, threatens regional stability.
Syrian government newspaper al-Baa’th declared, in so many words, that the Middle East is coming together in an alliance to reject Westernization, artificial borders, America, and Israel, while embracing various anti-Western conspiracies. What countries are in this new alliance?
Syria, Iran, and Turkey, with their great peoples and their lively peoples and their rejectionist [the Syrian term for radical, anti-Israel, and anti-American] policies are moving toward brotherhood.
The comments from Iran? President Ahmadinejad declared:
[The Americans] are forced to leave the region. … [The U.S.] government has no influence [to stop] … the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties. God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.
In its own way, Russia is joining the circle as well. Medvedev signed deals suggesting that Russia might help Turkey and Syria build nuclear reactors. Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Russian parliamentary foreign liaison committee, called Syria “a strategic partner” with Russia.
In Turkey, Medvedev and his hosts agreed to support Hamas merging with the Palestinian Authority, and insisted that the radical terrorist Islamist group be a full participant in any negotiations on Israel-Palestinian issues.
In the words of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, [2] while standing next to Medvedev:
Unfortunately Palestinians have been split into two. … In order to reunite them, you have to speak to both sides. Hamas won elections in Gaza and cannot be ignored.
Obviously, bringing Hamas into negotiations or melding it together with the existing Palestinian Authority would guarantee the failure of any talks, and possibly result in Hamas takeover of the West Bank, anti-American Palestinian leadership, and the renewal of war with Israel.
Why is Russia doing this? Clearly, there are commercial considerations involved. Russia is desperate for money and export markets, including the ability to sell its weapons which — being inferior to those of the United States — only have a market of countries ineligible to buy American.
Yet commerce is only part of the picture. The current Russian leadership sees the United States as a rival, is jealous of its power, and is angry about losing the Cold War. The shrinking of their country from a mighty superpower to an impoverished wreck makes them steam, and they blame their fall on U.S. machinations. Building up Russian nationalism and returning the United States to enemy status is a way to mobilize popular support for the government.
And finally, there is a genuine ambition to rebuild the old Russian/Soviet empire and spheres of influence.
In short, this is a problem for U.S. leaders that isn’t going to go away. On her first visit to Moscow, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously declared that the Obama administration was going to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations. Now, Russia has defined that reset as to be largely — of course, not fully — a return to the pre-1991 era.
A false issue is the idea that Russia is going to have a problem with the Islamism of its new partners because of its own internal Muslim problem. On the contrary — this alliance is a way to reduce the domestic threat.
By giving Turkey, Syria, and Iran an incentive to be friendly with Russia, Moscow is ensuring that they won’t intervene by backing revolutionary Islamist groups. Indeed, Iran has stayed away from such involvements — Tehran even supports Russia’s ally, Christian Armenia, against Muslim-majority Azerbaijan.
Of course, there is no way that the United States can truly compete with Russia (and Iran) over Syria’s loyalties. The Russians are prepared to fully back Syria’s policies of allying with Iran and returning Lebanon to the status of colony. Russia is happy to sell Syria arms (paid for by Iran).
Presumably, the Russians would encourage Syria not to launch even a Lebanon-based war against Israel, but that is one of the few positive notes.
The situation with Turkey is a bit more complex, since even the Islamist regime is wary of Russia. Yet here too, the Russians have sizable influence with a Turkish regime that has already moved much closer to Iran and Syria.
The big picture? The United States is being edged out of the position of primacy it has enjoyed in the Middle East for twenty years, which dates — and this is no coincidence — from the time of the USSR’s collapse.
With Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons, the strategic balance will shift even more. This outcome also makes Tehran even more attractive as a partner to Moscow.
The situation is very bad, heading towards worse, and made all the more worrisome by the failure of the current U.S. government even to realize what’s occurring.


To:
edlasky@att.net

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/us-envoy-praises-un-council-on-human-rights-as/86956/



U.S. Envoy Praises U.N. Council on Human Rights as Libya is Seated

By BENNY AVNI, Special to the Sun | May 13, 2010
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/us-envoy-praises-un-council-on-human-rights-as/86956/

UNITED NATIONS — There was little the American ambassador here, Susan Rice, could do today to stop the General Assembly from voting Libya and other known rights abusers for a seat on the Human Rights Council, but instead of expressing outrage, she chose to praise the United Nations’s least praiseworthy body.

Ms. Rice couldn’t even bring herself to condemn Libya’s specific human rights record or even tell reporters how America voted in the General Assembly, where 155 of the 192 members deemed the Colonel Gadhafi tyranny fit to sit in judgment of other countries’ human rights record.

The game, it turns out, was rigged, 14 countries having run for 14 available seats on the 47-member Geneva-based rights body. They were all pre-selected by regional groups, some of which include a plurality of countries that care little about human rights violations within their own borders. For countries that do, there was little recourse other than voting against the most flagrant violators and publicizing their opposition.

“As you know, having covered this institution for a while, the United States doesn’t reveal for whom we vote,” Ms. Rice told a reporter who asked about how she had voted on Libya and other rights violators like Mauritania, Angola, Qatar, Thailand, and Malaysia, who secured their new council seats. “I’m not going to sit here and name names,” Ms. Rice said.

Libya received the fewest number of votes in today’s secret ballot, and diplomats say most Western countries likely withheld support. Is Ms. Rice acting the tactful diplomat, assuming that criticizing Libya now would prevent unnecessary Geneva clashes later? Is she trying to maintain the careful balance that Washington has tried to strike of late in its relations with Tripoli?

Either way, Ms. Rice oddly declined to oppose publicly Libya’s council seat. An American diplomat told me that keeping a secret U.N. ballot secret was a long tradition that both Republican and Democrat administrations hold dear.

But in 2003, in a similar circumstance, America openly and publicly fought against Libya’s chairmanship of the Commission on Human Rights. It was that public American fight against Mr. Gadhafi that led enough U.N. members to recognize how ill-suited the Commission was for dealing with human rights. It also hastened the demise of that futile body.

Locked in several other struggles with the Bush Administration, Secretary General Annan, in office at the time, proposed forming a new rights body, and the Human Rights Council was born in 2006.

The American envoy at the time, Ambassador Bolton, warned that the new body was no real improvement and predicted that it will soon prove even worse than its predecessor. The Bush administration voted against the Council’s establishment, declined to run for a seat, and withheld funding from it.



inept at foreign policy and dangerous richard baehr
. If you want evidence of how the Obama foreign policy is "working", look to Russia, a country that he has showered with attention, and bribes. Russia is still not on board even for watered down U.N. sanctions on Iran. But it is doing everything it can to gum up the works in the Middle East in every other way. For the record, Turkey, a Muslim nation Obama has smothered with outreach, and Brazil, are also not on board for sanctions, and both are U.N. Security Council members at the moment.
Barry Rubin: http://tinyurl.com/2wrstlt




More catastrophe
Obama has now announced to the world the number of U.S warheads, virtually all of which are old, and untested, and will not be modernized or replaced (so long as he is President). He speaks rhapsodically of a nuclear free word, and due to his efforts (deliberate) or incompetence, he has managed to put Israel's nuclear weapons into the sights of the U.N.'s non-proliferation crowd (with the goal of a nuclear free Middle East), rather than targeting Iran's nuclear program. : http://tinyurl.com/27yepyu



By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza . The "presidential determination," which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006. Now we learn that he is allowing thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense. These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages. Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488 bill to welcome Hamasnicks to USA






Jewish World Review April 27, 2010 / 13 Iyar 5770
Barreling on, regardless
By Caroline B. Glick


Obama endangering world


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If safeguarding international security is the chief aim of US President Barack Obama's foreign policy, then at some point he can be expected to change course in the Middle East. For today, Obama faces the wreckage of every aspect of his Middle East policies. And largely as a consequence of his policies, the region moves ever closer to war.
In Iraq, Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat forces from the country by the summer has emboldened the various forces vying for control of the country to set it ablaze once more.
In Afghanistan, Obama's surge and leave policy has left would-be US allies hedging their bets, at best. And it has caused the US's NATO partners to question the purpose of their deployment in that country.
Then there is Iran. Last week's report by The New York Times that this January Defense Secretary Robert Gates penned a memo to National Security Advisor James Jones warning that the Obama administration has no effective policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program exposed the bitter truth that in the face of the most acute foreign policy problem they face, Obama and his crew are out to lunch.
Gates' attempt to mitigate the story's impact by claiming that actually, the White House is weighing all its option only made things worse. Even before the ink on his correction note was dry, his Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy was telling reporters in Singapore that the military option, "is not on the table in the near term."
Iran for its part continues to escalate its menacing behavior. Last week its naval forces reportedly interdicted a French ship and an Italian ship navigating through the Straits of Hormuz.
President Shimon Peres' announcement last week that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon was a sharp warning that Iran and its underlings are diligently preparing for war with Israel. It also demonstrated that the Obama administration's attempts to use diplomacy to coddle Syria away from Iran have failed completely.
Administration officials' statements in the wake of Peres's bombshell make clear that Syria's bellicose actions have not caused the US President to reconsider his failed policy. Obama's advisors responded to the news by irrelevantly boasting that their policy of "engagement" enabled them to bring the matter up with their Syrian interlocutors three times before Peres' announcement and once more after he made the statement.

And that's not nearly the end of it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced last week, soon the Obama administration will expand its dialogue with Syria by returning the US ambassador to Damascus for the first time since Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri five years ago. That is, Obama has chosen to respond to Syria's open brinkmanship by rewarding Assad with newfound legitimacy and panache.
And that's still not the worst of it. What is worst is that Obama's advisers openly admit that they have no idea why Syria remains a rogue state despite their happy talk. As one administration official told Foreign Policy, understanding why Syria - Iran's Arab client state - is acting like Iran's Arab client state is, "the million dollar question."
"We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem," the official told the magazine.
But while they wait for the Oracle at Damascus to decode itself, they are content to continue wooing Assad as he provokes war.
Then there are the Palestinians. After rejecting Obama's envoy George Mitchell's latest plea to conduct indirect negotiations with Israel, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas explained that Obama's own statements have convinced the Palestinians that there is nothing to negotiate about.
As he put it, "Since you, Mr. President, and you, the members of the American administration, believe in [the urgent need for a Palestinian state] it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution. Impose it. But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest… and then not do anything."
Finally there is Israel. In the same week that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen refused to rule out the possibility that the US will shoot down Israeli jets en route to attack Iran's nuclear installations, and Obama again blamed Israel for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jim Jones tried to reassure Jewish Democrats that despite the administration's hostile actions and statements, it is not hostile to Israel.
Jones's speech was part of a very public outreach plan the administration adopted last week in the face of a groundswell of American Jewish anger at Obama for his adversarial posture towards Israel. Given that American Jews have been the Democratic Party's most secure voting bloc since 1932, recent polls showing that the majority of American Jews oppose Obama's treatment of Israel are a political earthquake.
According to a Quinnipiac poll published last week, a whopping 67 percent of American Jews disapprove of Obama's handling of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. A poll of American Jews taken by John McLaughlin earlier this month showed that a plurality of American Jews would consider voting for a candidate other than Obama in the next presidential elections.
And on Israel, American Jewish disapproval of Obama is fully consonant with the views of the general public. As the Quinnipiac poll shows, only 35 percent of Americans approve of his treatment of Israel.
Jones's speech before the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy was a friendly affair. He waxed on dreamily about how wonderful the US's alliance with Israel is and how much Obama values Israel. And the crowd rewarded him with a standing ovation.
But the substance of his speech made absolutely clear that while Obama and his advisors are concerned that for the first time in 80 years a significant number of American Jews may abandon the Democratic Party, they are unwilling to pay even the slightest substantive price to keep the Jews loyal to their party.
After he finished his declarations of love and his joke about crafty Jewish businessmen in Afghanistan, Jones made clear that the Obama administration continues to view Israel's refusal to surrender more land to the Palestinians as the key reason its efforts to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, the Syrians to quit the Iranian axis, the Palestinians and the Lebanese to quit the terror racket and the Iraqis and the Afghans to behave like Americans have all failed.
As he put it, "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas."
Jones, Obama and the rest of their gang must have been asleep when the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and the rest of the Arabs told them that Iran is unrelated to the Palestinian issue and that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations. This after all has been the main message communicated to Obama and his advisers since January 2009 by every Sunni-majority state in the region as well as by many Iraqi Shiites.
They must have been at the golf course when their generals in Iraq and Afghanistan warned them about Iran providing weapons and training to irregular forces killing US servicemen.
The fact that even as he faced a Jewish audience, Jones couldn't resist the temptation to repeat the central fallacy at the root of the administration's failed policies in the Middle East makes clear that the Obama administration fundamentally does not care that the American people as a whole and the American Jewish community specifically oppose its policies. They will continue to push their policies in the face of that opposition no matter what. And if American Jews want to leave the party, well, they shouldn't slam the door on their way out.
The Obama administration's treatment of New York Senator Charles Schumer this week is case in point. Schumer has been one of Obama's most loyal supporters. If as expected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his reelection bid in November, Schumer is in line to replace him as the Democratic leader in the Senate.
Yet this week, responding to what has likely been an enormous outcry from his constituents, Schumer blasted Obama for his shabby and dangerous treatment of Israel. Rather than respond graciously to Schumer's criticism, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed it sneeringly saying, "I don't think that it's a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said in those remarks."
In his interview last week with Channel 2, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he has no doubt that if Obama wishes to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons he is capable of doing so. As he put it, "Barack Obama demonstrated his determination with regard to issues he felt were important, and his determination was quite impressive. I think President Obama can show that same determination with regard to Iran."
No doubt Netanyahu is correct. Moreover, the politics of such a move would make sense for him. Whereas Obama's decision to ram the nationalization of the US healthcare industry through Congress against the wishes of the American public caused his personal ratings and those of his party to plummet, were Obama to decide to take on Iran, he would win the overwhelming support of the American public. Indeed, a determined and successful bid by Obama to block Iran's nuclear aspirations could potentially block what is currently looking like a midterm election catastrophe for his party in November.
But as Gates's memo about Iran, Clinton's announcement that the administration will go ahead with its plan to dispatch an ambassador to Damascus, Mitchell's latest failure with the Palestinians, Jones's newest accusation against Israel, and the US's strategic incoherence in Iraq and Afghanistan all show, mere politics are irrelevant to Obama. It doesn't bother him that his most loyal supporters abandoning him. It doesn't matter that his policies have endangered the Middle East and the world as a whole.
Obama's refusal to acknowledge his own failures make clear that his goal is different than that of his predecessors. He is here to transform America's place in the world, not to safeguard the world. And he will move ahead with his transformative change even if it means abetting war. He will push on with his transformative change even if it means that Iran becomes a nuclear power. And he will push on with his transformative change even if it means that US forces are forced to leave Afghanistan and Iraq in defeat.



Another Taliban trained guy tries to blow up Times Square but Obama does not to use words about militant Islam

Not all terrorism: Obama tries to change subject
By MATT APUZZO – Apr 7, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.
The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.
The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.
That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terrorism and winning the war of ideas.


HERE is what barry Rubin thinks
Here's what I think, is an extraordinarily important point. The Obama Administration is neither radical satanic nor moderately pragmatic in doing foreign policy. It is rather fettered by a set of ideas, lack of skills, and close-mindedness to criticism that make for an inept approach which is not meeting the needs of U.S. interests. Through action, the Obama administration has not done one big bad thing internationally. The problem stems from its frustrating inactions, misleading words, and dangerous ideas.

What might be called the administration's glamor masks the fact that Obama is in the Gerald Ford-Jimmy Carter-George W. Bush class of president regarding competence. He is not in the Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, etc., category.

Adherents can boast that Obama kept us out of war and unpopularity, though perhaps he is laying the basis for such things in future, as tends to happen when international affairs are not well conducted.

So the great Jerusalem construction affair seems to be over. But where does that leave us? After a lot of shouting and wandering around, right back at the beginning.


*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

Weekly report on Obama's continuing endangering of world Jewry.

1. Report this week on Iran: a. it is Obama holding up tough sanctions vs Iran, (Washington Times April 28) “The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in "cooperating countries," a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said the exemption "is aimed at China and Russia specifically....The administration wants to give a pass to countries for merely supporting a watered-down, almost do-nothing UN resolution."

and b.Accepting a nuclear Iran (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303382504575163804139815206.html Peter Brooks “Unfortunately, in 15 months on the job, President Obama has shown an appalling lack of progress on the Iranian nuclear dossier. It's not clear that the administration “gets it.” In fact, it seems to be trying to ease us into some sort of tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran, mumbling beneath its breath about containment, deterrence and massive retaliation.” c. Plus numerous threats against Israel not to be able to take military action vs Iran if Obama fails to. Last week top US military commander refused to say US would not shoot down Israeli planes.

2. World Jewish Daily yesterday says Obama promised Abbas a Palestinian state within 2 years April 28, thereby removing any incentive for them to negotiate, stop teaching and practicing terror, stop honoring murderers, accept a Jewish state alongside etc. http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/. They now have zero incentive. alsoReport: Obama to Call World Summit If Mideast Peace Talks Fail - Barak Ravid
President Barack Obama has told several European leaders that if Israeli-Palestinian talks remain stalemated into September or October, he will convene an international summit on achieving Mideast peace, senior Israeli officials told Ha'aretz on Thursday. The conference would be run by the Quartet, and would address core issues such as borders, security arrangements, Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem. Obama is determined to exert his influence to establish a Palestinian state, the officials said. They said Obama could postpone the summit, or the unveiling of his own peace plan, until after the Congressional elections in November.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday in Amman, "We want our state to be declared under an international agreement. If this could not happen, the Arabs will go to the UN Security Council to get recognition of Palestinian statehood." (Ha'aretz)
See also Israel Fears UN May Recognize PA State - David Horovitz and Khaled Abu Toameh
Concern is growing that the PA is planning to marginalize the diplomatic process and instead unilaterally seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines. The idea of such a move, say some in the Netanyahu government, is to establish a state not at peace with Israel, but rather to continue the conflict. It is very widely doubted within the Israeli coalition's senior decision-making echelon that Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to negotiate viable terms for peace with Israel. (Jerusalem Post)
See also Report: Obama Promised Abbas a Palestinian State within Two Years
President Obama told Palestinian leader Abbas that he was committed to seeing the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state within two years, an Egyptian official told Al-Hayat on Thursday. The official also said Israel had rejected special U.S. envoy Mitchell's proposal to withdraw Israel Defense Forces troops from sections of the West Bank. According to the report, Israel told Mitchell that it could not guarantee such a move before beginning direct peace negotiations with the PA. The official said Israel offered other goodwill gestures instead, such as removing checkpoints and releasing Palestinian prisoners. (Ha'are

3. Ron Lauder of WJC says antisemitism in Europe has spiked because the "U.S. is perceived as pulling back in its relationship with Israel.""It [European antisemitism] is growing at an astronomical rate because there is a feeling that no one is watching them."



jokes
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree...

25 to life would be appropriate.” Jay Leno


“Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?

A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.”

Conan O'Brien


“Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.

The other is for housing prisoners.” David Letterman


“Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean

and it started to sink, who would be saved?

A: America !” Jimmy Fallon



“Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?

A: Bo has papers.” Jimmy Kimmel


“Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?

A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.” David Letterman



Tally
1. Blames Israel for all, but welcomes International Islam and reaches out is US
2. disarms USA
3. Wild spending bankrupting USA
4. Muslim father, educated is madras in Muslim Indonesia, middle name Hussein,
ends US Chrsitian day of prayer, allows Muslim day of prayer
5. Takes over cars, banks, health care
6. belonged to most anti-Amnerican church in Chicago, hung out with extreme leftists
7. Appoints many extreme rtadical leftists to top positions
8. Befriends world tyrants, angers US allies
9. Stifles criticism


Facistically starting to stifle criticism
April 19 Politico
Police chased reporters away from the White House and closed Lafayette Park today in response to a gay rights protest in which several service members in full uniform handcuffed themselves to the White House gate to protest "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."People who have covered the White House for years tell me that's an extremely unusual thing to do in an area that regularly features protests. andObama tries to stifle free speech
U.S. officials slam pro-Israel Jerusalem ad
By Barak Ravid
United States administration officials have voiced harsh criticism over advertisements in favor of Israel's position on Jerusalem that appeared in the U.S. press with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's encouragement. The authors of the most recent such advertisements were president of the World Jewish Congress Ronald Lauder and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel. "All these advertisements are not a wise move," one senior American official told Haaretz.





Obama undermining the US Security and Israel

1. "It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower,” Obama said Tuesday. “And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” http://tinyurl.com/y2tbslj
from richard baehr
It is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of these two lines as to the President's thinking. It is also impossible to read these, and not realize that this president is the greatest threat to the strategic alliance of the US and Israel since the founding of the modern state in 1948. The first sentence is in some ways the more incredible. No prior American President has been resentful or unhappy about leading the world's greatest superpower. This can only mean one of two things: 1. he he is suggesting that he believes America has used that power improperly for the most part in the past , and has not been a force for good in the world. and or 2. Obama thinks it unfair that we have power, and others don't. He is , in other words, a redistributionist in everything. . So it is better to weaken the U.S, and spread power around. A lot of what has occurred the last 15 months makes sense in light of this extraordinarily foolish statement. He must think the world would be a better place if say, Sudan had more power, and the U.S, less.

The second sentence is further evidence of how Obama is poisoning the well ,and suggesting to Americans that U.S combat deaths (and our deficit too) are due to Israel intransigence. What wars did Israel pull us into? Have American forces every been called in to fight with or for Israel? He must mean Iraq and Afghanistan. This suggests he has gone even further than Walt and Mearsheimer who blamed the Iraq war on Israel, but not Afghanistan. This new pattern of very cheap shots aimed at blaming Israel for combat deaths started with leaks about what General Petraeus supposedly said in a private briefing. Turns out the leak of what he said was not what he said. This was followed up by leaks that Dennis Ross was suffering from dual loyalty, by taking Israel's side in White House deliberations. Then came another leak to the New York Times that the Administration was rethinking whether it was in our strategic interest to be an ally of Israel.





Jews turning away from Obama

Jews Wake Up?
Jennifer Rubin - 04.15.2010 - 3:42 PM

The last poll of American Jewry, taken just as the Obama assault on Israel was materializing, suggested that Jews had not clued into — or didn’t care — about the Obami’s turn against the Jewish state. A new poll today suggests that something really is afoot. Six hundred Jews were polled on April 7-8 and the results suggest that grave doubts about Obama are setting in. 42 percent still would vote to re-elect Obama but 46 percent would consider someone else for president. The percentage of Jews who oppose Obama’s handling of U.S. relations with Israel is up to 39 percent. As the pollsters note, “This rating is not good for a group of voters who are 59% Democratic to only 16% Republican.” By a wide margin — 52 to 28 percent — Jews disapprove of the idea of imposing a peace deal on the parties regardless of whether Israel agrees. 64 percent think Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, while only 13 percent say that some of it should be handed over to the Palestinians. 62 percent say the Palestinians would continue terrorism even if given their own state. 73 percent say Israel should insist on its recognition as a Jewish state as a precondition to further negotiations.

Given the sentiments about the components of Obama’s approach to Israel, it is still remarkable that a full 50 percent approve of his handling of relations with Israel. This suggests, as did the AJC poll, that Jews still can’t quite break the habit of agreeing with whatever Obama is up to. But this is a sign, a significant one, I think, that the Jews’ views are not fixed and that the policies and tone of the administration do impact Jewish support. The movement in Jewish public opinion may in turn spur Jewish leaders to step forward, as Lauder did. After all, they wouldn’t want to be seen as lagging behind their members, or worse yet, as irrelevant.



WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's national standing has slipped to a new low after his victory on the historic health care overhaul, even in the face of growing signs of economic revival, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.

The survey shows the political terrain growing rockier for Obama and congressional Democrats heading into midterm elections, boosting Republican hopes for a return to power this fall.

Just 49 percent of people now approve of the job Obama's doing overall, and less than that — 44 percent — like the way he's handled health care and the economy. Last September, Obama hit a low of 50 percent in job approval before ticking a bit higher. His high-water mark as president was 67 percent in February of last year, just after he took office.

The news is worse for other Democrats. For the first time this year, about as many Americans approve of congressional Republicans as Democrats — 38 percent to 41 percent — and neither has an edge when it comes to the party voters want controlling Congress. Democrats also have lost their advantage on the economy; people now trust both parties equally on that, another first in 2010.

Roughly half want to fire their own congressman.


Poll: Obama's Jewish Approval Rating Down
By Ron Kampeas
Published April 13, 2010.
WASHINGTON — A new survey shows President Obama struggling with American Jews — but not on Israel-related matters.
The American Jewish Committee poll of U.S. Jews found that Obama’s approval rating is at 57 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That’s down from the stratospheric 79 percent approval rating among Jews that Obama enjoyed about a year ago, in May 2009. The AJC poll was conducted March 2-23 and surveyed 800 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from a consumer mail panel.

Obama’s advantage among Jews versus the rest of the population appears to be eroding. The latest Gallup polling shows Obama with a national approval rating of 48, nine points below Jewish polling. Last May, general polling earned him 63 percent approval, 16 points below Jewish polling.


JIHADIST?

1. Background we know of: Muslim father. Middle name Hussein. Educated in Indonesian Madras. In US joins anti-American Church -Rev Wright and sits there for 26 years. Has not joined a Church yet as president in Washington.
2. As president lets in a University of Oxford professor once barred from entering the U.S. by the Bush administration for funding Hamas is back in New York, the Associated Press reports, but denys Israeli scientists. A report in one of Israel's leading newspapers, Maariv, that the Obama administration is denying visas to Israeli nuclear scientists working at the nuclear research center in Dimona. In the past, scientists and researchers from Dimona have routinely come to the United States to study chemistry, physics, and nuclear engineering at American universities and to attend professional seminars..
3. As Dov quoted-Ed Koch wrote recently “I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.”
4. Yisrael Ne'eman wrote: This past Thursday, April 8, Israel's Channel 10 reported that US Administration sources confirmed that as far as Israel is concerned, American policy towards Iran will be linked to advancements made on the Palestinian-Israeli peace front. Such a laconic statement betrays a major shift in American foreign policy, driving home the new foreign policy message of the Obama Administration. Should such a linkage now exist where it never existed before, Israel may very well be facing an existential threat not only in the short term from Iran, but in the overall long run of American foreign policy thinking.

5. Obama Ends Day Christian prayer, Muslim day of prayer is added. In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer." In 1988 President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May of each year as the National Day of Prayer. This year President Obama, canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House "not wanting to offend anyone"www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html?eref=rss_politics
On September 25, 2009 from 4 am until 7 pm, a National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion was held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims that day in DC. (http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/ )
6. Allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, despite clear intention of bombing Israel, and despite all other Arab neighbors upset about it.
7. Maariv: Dimona Reactor employees reportedly have also complained that the Obama administration has stopped selling them reactor components that the U.S. routinely sold to them in the past.
8. US Democratic support for Israel has dropped dramatically under Obama, only 52% now favor Israel in polls.

What more evidence does anyone need of the extreme danger Obama poses to 6 million Jews?JIHADIST?





we've lost 4 million jobs since obama took over
and spent trillions, our grandchildren will have to pay back. Disaster and now he wants new stimulus.

Canadanian premier comes here to avoid Canadian medicine (before Obama care)
Danny Williams stated one reason he came to America for minimally invasive
heart surgery was not merely to circumvent the Canadian option of having
his sternum cracked open to access his heart, but to avoid being unfairly
perceived as, "jumping a line or a wait list." Newfoundland and Labrador's
premier, while recuperating comfortably in his Sarasota, Florida condominium
can rest in the knowledge that equality prevailed when he received the
specialized care denied the people he governs.

jokes on tv
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree and think 25 years
to life would be appropriate. - Leno

America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. - Leno

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -
O'Brien

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. - Leno

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The
other is for housing prisoners. - Letterman

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and
it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America! - Fallon

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. - Kimmel

Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the
road. - Letterman

Obama's disastorous first year In Focus from JPC
Obama's First Year • Spring 2010 • Volume IV: Number 1

Matthew Brooks - Letter From the Publisher: Obama's First Year

Richard Baehr - The Obama Effect in the Muslim World

Laura Grossman - Missed Opportunities to Pressure Iran

Sebastian Gorka - U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: The Lessons of History

Jonathan S. Tobin - Obama's Journey to Nowhere in the Middle East

Interview with Lee Smith - Middle East Scorecard

Matthew RJ Brodsky - Hope Over Experience With Syria

Hayri Abaza - Waiting for Reform: Arab Citizens and Obama

Alyssa A. Lappen - America's Domestic Security Nightmare

Barak M. Seener and Anya Hossain - American-European Relations

Patrick X. Coyle - The Left's War Against the Military on Campus

David Jenkins - Measuring Obama's Environmental Record

Mustafa Abul Mahasen - How to Lose Friends and Influence Nobody
Posted by truth seeker at 12:54 PM 0 comments
Obama angering all our key allies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031603322_pf.html



Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, March 17, 2010; A21

The contretemps between President Obama and Israel needs to be seen in a broader global context. The president who ran against "unilateralism" in the 2008 campaign has worse relations overall with American allies than George W. Bush did in his second term.

Israelis shouldn't feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the "special relationship" with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security. Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union's new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them -- despite his six trips to Europe -- and is more of an Asian president.

The Asians, however, are not so sure. Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can't be counted on for the long term. In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China. Although the Obama administration promised to demonstrate that the United States "is back" in Asia after the alleged neglect of the Bush years, it has not yet convinced allies that they are the focus of American attention.

U.S. officials have any number of explanations for these concerns: that they are based on misunderstandings, the product of minor errors in execution, simply Bush's fault. By now, however, a moderately self-reflective administration might be asking why so many allies, everywhere, are worried.

Yet it isn't that surprising. Who has attracted attention in the Obama administration? The answer, so far, seems to be not America's allies but its competitors, and in some cases its adversaries. If there were a way to measure administration exertion in foreign policy, the meter would show the greatest concentration of energy, beyond the war in Afghanistan, has been devoted to four endeavors: the failed first-year attempt to improve relations with Iran; the ongoing attempt to improve relations with Russia; the stalled effort to improve cooperation with China; and the effort -- fruitless so far -- to prove to the Arab states that the United States is willing to pressure Israel to further the peace process. Add to these the efforts to improve relations with Syria, engage Burma and everything with Af-Pak, and not much has been left for the concerns of our allies.

This is bad enough, but compounding the problem has been the administration's evident impatience with allies who don't do as they are told. Europeans get spanked for a pallid commitment to NATO defense spending even as they contribute 30,000 troops to a distant war that European publics mostly don't believe in. Japan gets spanked when its new government insists on rethinking some recent agreements. In both cases, the administration has a point, but it's always easier to hammer allies when they misbehave than to hammer tough competitors such as Russia or China.

The president has shown seemingly limitless patience with the Russians as they stall an arms-control deal that could have been done in December. He accepted a year of Iranian insults and refusal to negotiate before hesitantly moving toward sanctions. The administration continues to woo Syria and Burma without much sign of reciprocation in Damascus or Rangoon. Yet Obama angrily orders a near-rupture of relations with Israel for a minor infraction like the recent settlement dispute -- and after the Israeli prime minister publicly apologized.

This may be the one great innovation of Obama foreign policy. While displaying more continuity than discontinuity in his policies toward Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terrorism, and garnering as a result considerable bipartisan support for those policies, Obama appears to be departing from a 60-year-old American grand strategy when it comes to allies. The old strategy rested on a global network of formal military and political alliances, mostly though not exclusively with fellow democracies. The idea, Averell Harriman explained in 1947, was to create "a balance of power preponderantly in favor of the free countries." Under Bill Clinton, and the two Bushes, relations with Europe and Japan, and later India, were deepened and strengthened.

This administration pays lip-service to "multilateralism," but it is a multilateralism of accommodating autocratic rivals, not of solidifying relations with longtime democratic allies. Rather than strengthening the democratic foundation of the new "international architecture" -- the G-20 world -- the administration's posture is increasingly one of neutrality, at best, between allies and adversaries, and between democrats and autocrats. Israel is not the only unhappy ally, therefore; it's just the most vulnerable.
So Obama what muslim US Heritage?
Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ?
Bill of Rights?
Didn't think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East . No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .

That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America .
Posted by truth seeker at 4:53 AM 0 comments
Friday, April 9, 2010
Idiocies of an Obama imposed solution on Israel
The Idea of the Obama Administration Supporting an "Imposed Solution" on the Israel-Palestinian Issue Takes a Big Step Forward
By Barry Rubin*

April 9, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/idea-of-obama


Is the U.S. government going to present its own comprehensive peace plan on the Israel-Palestinian issue? There is growing evidence it is thinking of doing such a thing, though that is by no means certain. If the Obama Administration does move in this direction, however, I predict that it will be a major failure and humiliation for that government.

The latest development is an apparently well-informed New York Times article about a meeting chaired by National Security Advisor James Jones, known for being hostile to Israel, and including former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft-also known for being anti-Israel-and Samuel Berger. All three (it should be mentioned that none of this trio covered himself with glory when in office and are not exactly foreign policy geniuses) reportedly favor the idea. Former national security advisor Colin Powell disagreed, but he's a Republican (though a pro-Obama one) and probably less influential. Oh, and President Obama dropped in to hear the discussion.

One might ask a lot of people who voted for Obama if they are happy having Brzezinski and Scowcroft as top advisors on Middle East policy. Again, though, it should be clear no decision has been made and such an initiative might never happen, assuming clearer heads triumph.
But, the reporter writes:

"Still, for all of that, a consensus appears to be growing, both within the administration and among outside advisers to the White House, that Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving." This might happen also if indirect talks fail.

Let us pause a moment to consider that this whole approach is the opposite of being brilliant. First, the administration has just signaled to the Palestinians that they want to make the indirect talks fail, since then the U.S. government will make an "imposed" offer that will adopt almost all of their demands. After all, if it doesn't, they can sabotage the proposal, knowing that the Obama administration will never punish or criticize them. Since the government desperately wants to succeed, it is giving the Palestinian Authority all the leverage.

Of course, Israel is going to reject this idea, which then lets them sit back and enjoy more U.S.-Israel conflict. Thus, the whole strategy in advance is doomed to fail.

In addition, the strategy is deeply against diplomatic norms. U.S. policy has always been to insist that the two parties will decide on the issues. For many years, Israel has been making concessions based on an understanding that there would be no attempt at an imposed solution.

This, then, would be the third commitment from past years that the Obama administration would break.

The first was that any diplomatic solution could include Israel keeping some areas-settlement blocs-across the pre-1967 borders (though a State Department note back in October 2009 hinted that would be possible). The second was agreeing that Israel could build in east Jerusalem if it stopped building in the West Bank, a promise noisily and insultingly broken recently. Why, then, should Israel trust any promise in future made by this government?

The agreement outlined in the article is that there would be no return of Palestinian refugees to Israel and the 1967 borders with possibly some modifications. There would be U.S. or NATO security guarantees for Israel, and possibly troops along the Jordan River. And finally, that Arab states would recognize Israel.

Leaving aside the problems that such a proposal would bring for Israel, on its face the idea is absurd and doomed to defeat. To start with, there is no consideration of a little problem called the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas and would never accept this plan. Then there is the fact that Arab states would not recognize Israel for a variety of reasons, including the question of Syria's interests in the Golan Heights.

The sole expert quoted by the Times, by the way, is Robert Malley who, of course favors it though he stresses it won't be easy. Malley is very close to the PA and very far away from Israel. His influence with the administration seems to be growing and he has been seen closely advising Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and leading naïve person on these issues. I could write a great deal about Mr. Malley but suffice it to say that Israel's survival is not a major concern for him.

There are many factors here but let me cite just two. First, high-ranking administration officials are not exactly deeply understanding of the issues at stake. Any plan presented by them will be full of holes and dangerous errors. Second, the notion that they can solve this issue and the whole Middle East will fall into place is absurd. See here, for example.

Yet the outcome would be the exact opposite of what they expect on the regional level. Islamists and many others in the Arab world will present any plan as treason, proof that America is against them. Obama would become less popular, attacks on the United States (both verbal and terrorist) would increase, as the radicals would do everything possible to sabotage any deal. If PA leaders accepted it-which they won't-or even appeared sympathetic, opposition to them within Fatah would increase.

It would be nice if those favoring or reporting on current policy mentioned these problems and tried to refute them in some way. Instead, they are usually just ignored. How can you write about an imposed solution and not even mention that little detail regarding Hamas! At least the Washington Post version--which as usual is superior to the Times reporting from Washington--says something about Gaza. But neither points out how this is a reversal of all previous American promises.

In reality, the United States would gain nothing and lose a great deal through such a strategy. What happens after the Obama Administration makes such an approach and it fails miserably? Where will its credibility in the region and its prestige at home be then?

After the British technical victory at the battle of Bunker Hill during the American revolution, suffering very heavy losses, a British officer wrote home: One more victory like this and there will be no one left to report it.

With the Obama Administration, having mishandled both Israel-Palestinian issues and sanctions against Iran (one could mention a few other foreign policy issues in this context), it could be said: One more initiative like this and there will be no one left in office. Even the New York Times editorial board won't be able to protect them. Can you say: One-term president?

Finally, one reason why I'd prefer that the administration did something right on foreign policy is so I could stop writing articles like this and find some good things to say about them. After all, the fact that the United States is doing so poorly in the world is bad for all freedom-loving peoples as well as the American people themselves. I beg the administration to stop being "one-sidedly" wrong so I can stop being "one-sidedly" critical. But I'm not holding my breath.


*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Posted by truth seeker at 2:27 PM 0 comments
Obama let's egypt and turkey beat up on Israel
To: edlasky@att.nethttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/273716



Why Didn’t Obama Call Off the Ambush?
Noah Pollak - 04.09.2010 - 9:00 AM

There is an obvious reason why the Israeli prime minister canceled his attendance at President Obama’s nuclear security summit: he sought to avoid a combined Egyptian and Turkish attack on Israel’s nuclear program.

But there is an important follow-up question that is of far greater consequence: why do Egypt and Turkey, both American allies, feel at liberty to show up in Washington D.C. at a conference organized by the U.S. president and dump on one of America’s closest allies?

This latest incident is not really about Israel’s relations with Egypt and Turkey; both countries can be counted on to take cheap shots at Israel whenever they can, especially the increasingly Islamist Turkey. The critical issue is why they believed they had a green light to engage in such theatrics. Upon hearing of the ambush they were planning, Obama or Clinton could have sent a very clear message to the Turkish prime minister and the Egyptian dictator: “You either come to Washington and behave yourselves, or stay home. This is a respectable conference, not a platform for anti-Israel grandstanding.”

But clearly, Obama made no such call, and clearly he did not instruct the secretary of state to deliver a 43-minute tongue-lashing to the leaders of either country, as she has recently shown herself capable of doing. There are two possible explanations, and I’m not sure which is more disturbing. Obama either welcomed the prospect of another humiliation of Netanyahu, or he was afraid to stand up to two Muslim leaders. Perhaps both are true.

In his pettiness, Obama has once again lost perspective on what really matters. What could have been a useful opportunity to present a unified front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions has now descended into a spectacle of pointless drama not terribly dissimilar from a meeting of the Arab League. In his decision to indulge Middle East leaders in their obsessive desire to castigate Israel, Obama has once again shown his utter lack of interest in confronting the real threat to America’s national security.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/273511
Posted by truth seeker at 2:24 PM 0 comments
obama's leaving us defenseless and promotes terror
1. He allows in Hamas prof who is a terrorist
2. bars Israel nuclear scientist and embargoes Israel on equipment
Report that Obama administration
is denying visas to Israeli scientists
is deeply troubling
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2010) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) expressed serious concern today after a report in one of Israel's leading newspapers, Maariv, that the Obama administration is denying visas to Israeli nuclear scientists working at the nuclear research center in Dimona. In the past, scientists and researchers from Dimona have routinely come to the United States to study chemistry, physics, and nuclear engineering at American universities and to attend professional seminars.
According to the report, the Obama administration has stopped issuing visas to Dimona scientists solely because of their affiliation with the Israeli nuclear center.Reactor employees reportedly have also complained that the Obama administration has stopped selling them reactor components that the U.S. routinely sold to them in the past. Professor Zeev Alfasi, the head of Nuclear Engineering at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev, told Maariv that the U.S. has never sold nuclear material to Israel, but now the Israeli nuclear center must buy other items, such as radiation detectors, from France, because the U.S. is no longer selling anything to Dimona.


3. Yells at Israel for apartments but says nothing about Moslem murders and terror
4. Disarms nuks of USA with Soviets even as they reserver right to cancel
5. Says we will never use nuclear force first against non-nuk nation, despite having abandoned chemical and bio weapons, thus undercutting our deternace
6. Abandoned missile defense in Europe
7. Was never serious about stopping iran
WSJ April 9
Obama letting Iran get nuks
Unserious About Iran
Obama is acting as if he believes a nuclear Tehran is inevitable.

'Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite." Thus did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seek to reassure the crowd at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee two weeks ago about the Obama Administration's resolve on Iran. Three days later, this newspaper reported on its front page that "the U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran" in order to win Russian and Chinese support for one more U.N. sanctions resolution.

This fits the pattern we have seen across the 14 months of the Obama Presidency. Mrs. Clinton called a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable" no fewer than four times in a single paragraph in her AIPAC speech. But why should the Iranians believe her? President Obama set a number of deadlines last year for a negotiated settlement of Iran's nuclear file, all of which Tehran ignored, and then Mr. Obama ignored them too.

In his latest Persian New Year message to Iran, Mr. Obama made the deadline-waiver permanent, saying "our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a quick rejoinder. "They say they have extended a hand to Iran," the Iranian President said Saturday, "but the Iranian government and nation declined to welcome that."

The Iranians have good reason to think they have little to lose from continued defiance. Tehran's nuclear negotiator emerged from two days of talks in Beijing on Friday saying, "We agreed, sanctions as a tool have already lost their effectiveness." He has a point.

The Chinese have indicated that the most they are prepared to support are narrow sanctions on Iran's nuclear program of the type Tehran has already sneered at. As the Journal's Peter Fritsch and David Crawford reported this weekend, the Iranians continue to acquire key nuclear components from unsuspecting Western companies via intermediaries, including some Chinese firms.

Yet the Administration still rolls the sanctions rock up the U.N. hill, in a fantastic belief that Russian and Chinese support is vital even if the price is sanctions that are toothless. French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Mr. Obama a year ago to move ahead with sanctions even without the Russians and Chinese, but Mr. Obama insisted he needed both. A year later, everyone except apparently Mr. Obama can see who was right.

The Administration also argued upon taking office that by making good-faith offers to Iran last year, the U.S. would gain the diplomatic capital needed to steel the world for a tougher approach. Yet a year later the U.S. finds itself begging for U.N. Security Council votes even from such nonpermanent members as Brazil and Turkey, both of which have noticeably improved their ties with Iran in recent months.

The U.S. can at this point do more unilaterally by imposing and enforcing sanctions on companies that do business in Iran's energy industry. But so far the Administration has shown considerably less enthusiasm for these measures than has even a Democratic Congress.

As for the potential threat of military strikes to assist diplomacy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made his doubts about their efficacy very public. The President's two-week public attempt to humiliate Benjamin Netanyahu has also considerably lessened the perceived likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, thereby further diminishing whatever momentum remains for strong sanctions.

All of these actions suggest to us that Mr. Obama has concluded that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, even if he can't or won't admit it publicly. Last year Mrs. Clinton floated the idea of expanding the U.S. nuclear umbrella to the entire Middle East if Iran does get the bomb. She quickly backtracked, but many viewed that as an Obama-ian slip.

Most of the U.S. and European foreign policy establishment has already concluded that Iran will succeed, and the current issue of Foreign Affairs makes the public case for what to do "After Iran Gets the Bomb." Authors James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh argue that a nuclear Iran is containable, and that it is better than the alternative of a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

However, even they acknowledge that a nuclear Iran "would be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States," in which "friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington [and] foes would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively." And that's the optimistic scenario.

Meanwhile, the CIA has recently reported that Iran more than tripled its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in 2009; that it has "[moved] toward self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles"; and that it "continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons." A senior Western official recently told us he is confident the Iranians either have or are building secret nuclear facilities beyond the one near Qom that was disclosed last year.

President George W. Bush will share responsibility for a nuclear Iran given his own failure to act more firmly against the Islamic Republic or to allow Israel to do so, thereby failing to make good on his pledge not to allow the world's most dangerous regimes to get the world's most dangerous weapons. But it is now Mr. Obama's watch, and for a year he has behaved like a President who would rather live with a nuclear Iran than do what it takes

Now Obama lets in terrorists once barred
A University of Oxford professor once barred from entering the U.S. by the Bush administration for funding Hamas is back in New York, the Associated Press reports.

Tariq Ramadan, whose visa was revoked in 2004 as he prepared to take a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame, will speak in several major U.S. cities after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed orders allowing his re-entry.


Barry Rubin:
First, high-ranking administration officials are not exactly deeply understanding of the issues at stake. Any plan presented by them will be full of holes and dangerous errors. Second, the notion that they can solve this issue and the whole Middle East will fall into place is absurd.

Dennis Glick and Daniel Mariaschin:
The harsh language, unfair demands, and collateral damage the administration has engaged in over these last few weeks sends the wrong message to the wrong people: That the ties that bind the U.S.-Israel friendship are fraying. In the rush to achieve a solution within 24 months, as some administration leaders have proposed, we must avoid inviting further instability in the region. The administration's impatience, in the form of its harsh criticism and unilateral demands, is misdirected. An incomplete and ill-conceived peace plan will whet the appetites of those whose interests are inimical to peace.

Obama's State of the Union Speech full of errors
FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission
… By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

___

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

___

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

___

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage — the majority of Americans under age 65 — in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

___

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

___

OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

___

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

___

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

___

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Robert Burns and Pamela Hess contributed to this report.