John Bolton on Obama's Unprecedented Betrayal of Israel

This is more evidence that the Obama administration treats our allies like dirt while kissing up to our enemies.

Back in 2010 Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph compiled a list of Barack Obama's top ten insults against Israel.  Since then, this administration has continued with the insults and backstabbing against Israel. But  former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton calls this most recent betrayal by the Obama administration "unprecedented" and "merciless."



From Atlas Shrugs:

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton weighs in on Obama's relentless campaign to betray and undermine Israel. This leak is part of an ongoing campaign to thwart Israeli defense strategy against the Iranian genocidal threat.

"The pressure the administration has put on Israel has been just merciless behind the scenes."

"But nonetheless every evidence is that the pressure is failing, that the Israeli government will do what they think is necessary so the Obama administration has torqued it up a notch. Now they are going to reveal very sensitive, very important information that will allow Iran to defeat an Israel attack."

It should have been Bolton going up against the Mansourian candidate.

UPDATE: More: Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border FOX News

Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.

The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.

"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.

The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.

Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."

"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.

Texas Defunded "The Murder Mill" and Now Obama Admin Has Pulled Medicaid Funding

Why is it that many liberal initiatives are unable to keep afloat on their own, without any government funding?

LIBERALISM = FAILED POLICIES

The Obama administration has just yanked $40,000,000 in Medicaid funding for Texas.  This was NOT Governor Perry's doing.  Even though it was Obama's decision to pull medicaid funding Planned Parenthood blames Gov. Perry for the medicaid defunding.  The feminuts have become unhinged, are having a temper tantrum and directing some misguided ire toward Governor Perry.  Obama believes in the tyranny of the State - that individual state legislatures have no right to make decisions on how they're going to allocate their own monies.  Obama and his cronies are crying Waaa Waaa Waaa.... and acting like crybabies just because Texas defunded "the murder mill", a.k.a. Planned Parenthood. So, now the Obama admin is screwing the poor?  Progressives are so beholden to their "unholy sacrament" which murders innocent unborn children that they are willing to throw the poor under the bus.  This is more proof that progressives only use the poor to advance their own agenda.  They really don't give a diddly-squat about the poor.  

From LifeNews.com: 

Planned Parenthood makes no indication whatsoever that this decision was entirely of the Obama administration.

Texas decided to bar the Women’s Health Program funding from abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, in May of last year. Almost immediately, the Obama administration threatened to pull Medicaid from Texas if funding wasn’t reinstated for the abortion giant. Texas refused, and in turn, the Obama administration decided last week to yank the annual $40,000,000 Texas received for its Medicaid program, beginning in March. This also results in another $17,000,000 loss to Planned Parenthood of Texas.

The Obama Administration, the Health Care Law, and Double Counting, Again?

Back in November of 2010 Reason.com noted that Donald Berwick refused to comment when confronted during a Senate hearing about the administration's claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act extends the Medicare Trust Fund.  It seems that Donald Berwick is standing by the Obama administrations double counting of savings in the new health care law.

From Reason.com:

For those in need of a refresher, here’s Medicare’s actuary:

In practice the improved (Medicare hospital insurance) financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.

And here’s CBO:

To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings.

Now you see that both the CBO and Medicare actuary's analysis of savings from the health care law differ from that of the Obama administration.  So, basically, both the CBO and medicare actuary findings conclude that the Obama administration's wrong. Maybe, that's why Berwick refused to answer the question?

Recently, Rep. John Shimkus pointedly forced Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to admit to the fact that the Obama administration is double counting the savings from the health care law.  The Obama administration is using trickery to give the appearance that there can be savings in the budget while using that same savings to fund another program - "the $500 billion cut in Medicare that supposedly goes for both cost control and to fund other parts of the program."   



From HotAir.com:

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

In other words, money can only be used once. Since the Medicare savings is being spent elsewhere on expanded health care coverage, it is not really being employed to extend Medicare solvency. To claim an improvement in Medicare financing is to mislead about the effects of recent legislation.

A couple days ago I received an email from my Congressman, Rep. Tim Murphy, that reveals more double counting in the health care law -  an $86 billion Ponzi scheme in the health care law.

"Efforts to calculate the true cost of the healthcare law continued at the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, where a hearing explored the financial integrity of a new long-term insurance “benefit” called the Community Living Assistance Services & Supports (CLASS) program. Intended to provide spending cash to workers who become disabled, CLASS has been characterized by accountants, and even the Administration’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, as “totally unsustainable.”

"The CLASS program is a new government entitlement established by the healthcare law that would be funded with premiums deducted directly from workers’ paychecks. If a worker became disabled and had paid into the program, they would collect $50 a day from the government. But the Congressional Budget Office has suggested that the CLASS program will attract the sickest and most at-risk beneficiaries, therefore requiring massive taxpayer subsidies to keep CLASS afloat beyond ten years.

"During questioning by Rep. Murphy at Thursday’s hearing, a senior Administration official admitted that instead of using premiums paid into CLASS to pay benefits, the government was using the premiums to pay for the healthcare law.

“If any insurance company began collecting premiums and then tried to spend $86 billion before paying out a single penny in benefits, it would rightly be prosecuted,” said Murphy. “Last time I checked, such Ponzi schemes are illegal in this country, and this is just the newest in a long string of programs that will have to be de-funded or repealed outright.”  

Privacy Alert! - Obama Administration Planning To Implement Internet ID for Americans

PRIVACY ALERT!!!! PRIVACY ALERT!!!!!  

Geesh... The Obama administration has been progressively attacking our privacy rights for the last two years.  Now, they want to take away our internet privacy by creating internet ID for all Americans. "Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Chamber of Commerce authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today."  This invasion of our privacy must be stopped!! 


"The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)" 

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says "We are not talking about a national ID card," But then for what other reason - good reason - is this being implemented?  "We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."  I don't buy this. 

There is no good reason for internet ID to be created.  It is my suspicion that this has everything to do with monitoring our every move on the internet.  This is an invasion of privacy, is unconstitutional, and must be stopped from ever being implemented. 

H/T Privacy Inc 

Catholic Colleges Very Identity Threatened by Obama Administration

So much for religious freedom at Catholic colleges.  The Obama administration is now targeting them. This has me fuming mad!  The Obama administration has issued new federal regulations which threaten Catholic colleges right to religious freedom and also threatens their right to be able to teach according to the Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  This attack on our religious freedom must stop!!  In Chicago Obama was very chummy with Cardinal Bernardin who was the person who developed the seamless garment of life philosophy which "holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life (as defined by the Catholic Church)."  This philosophy has done a great injustice to the pro-life community and is false when equating abortion with that of a public execution since the Church has officially declared Dogma declaring abortion to be intrinsically evil but not in the case of capital punishment, which, according to longstanding Church tradition, the state may justly apply when bloodless means will not protect society as effectively.  So, this "seamless garment" philosophy was a perversion of Church Teachings IMO. Obama was good friends with Cardinal Berdardin and I am going to speculate that that is when he and other Marxists started infiltrating the Church and using their community organizing efforts to teach Church members their Marxist ways while perverting the true meaning of social justice and making into some political philosophy of zealotry.  I am positive that this type of thing didn't just happen in Chicago where I am sure Obama had a hand in it.  It was and is widespread, and others like Obama did their part.  That is at least in part how I believe that the whole perversion of social justice got out of hand within the Church and why church members today feel that it is okay to dissent from certain Church Teachings such as abortion and contraception.  The Catholic colleges need to fight this and take the Obama administration to court for violating their religious freedom.

Here is the article from The Cowl:

"New federal regulations issued by the Obama administration a few weeks ago threaten not only recruitment for Catholic colleges, but more importantly, their very identity. The new regulations increase oversight for colleges through either state chartering or licensing, which are necessary for colleges to obtain federal aid. While states have always had to approve colleges that receive aid, the new law mandates that states approve colleges by name. States will also have greater power to act on complaints pertaining to colleges.



So why is this a problem? New regulations represent a federal encroachment on the independence of private institutions and especially religious schools. Even the Department of Education itself admitted that "a state's role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes." Catholic colleges that incorporate religious teaching in their curriculum may risk losing federal funding if state governments don't approve of the content.


All sorts of controversial issues come to mind that could be forced into the curricula of Catholic colleges by state governments as a condition of federal aid. Schools like Providence College might have to teach that it's acceptable to get an abortion or that creationism is a myth propagated by religious wackos.


We're not safe from a repeat of what happened at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina. At this Catholic school, the administration issued a statement that employee health insurance would not fund contraceptives and abortions because it violated Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life. However, eight dissenting faculty members appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which responded by accusing the college of discriminating against women.

Unfortunately, federal regulation is already trying to undermine key precepts of the Catholic faith, which should be actively promoted by Catholic schools across the country. The scary thing is that even federal officials admit these new regulations do "not limit a State's oversight of institutions." In other words, states have total authority to rule against a school whose curriculum it deems "discriminatory" for promoting life.

Catholic schools that aren't approved by state governments will lose funding, which will hurt enrollment. Although enrollment obviously matters, what's at stake is greater. These new federal regulations threaten the responsibility of Catholic schools to spread their missions unimpeded by politically correct legislation, aimed at enforcing secularism—or even atheism."

IRS Discriminating Against pro-Israel Groups?

A Pennsylvania group has made the claim that the Internal Revenue Service is targeting Pro-Israel groups. Well…. Could discrimination against Israel be possible? Well, let’s take a look at the Obama administration’s track record of their treatment (mistreatment?) of Israel and Israel’s Prime Minister. . Let’s take a look at some of this administration’s anti-Israel policies.

Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph points out Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel:
1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House
In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel
In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians
In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations
In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East
As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:
“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, 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.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria
While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu
As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:
“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.”
Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”
It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:
“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”
As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:
“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel
Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

It would seem that the Obama administration has indeed shown some anti-Israel tendencies. The Obama administration has consistently displayed antipathy toward Israel and other allies of the United States while being quite cordial and accommodating to those countries we both named and treated as our enemies prior to Barack Hussein Obama taking Office. So, with knowing this information do you think its possible that the Obama administration would use the IRS to marginalize, pretty much blackball, and maybe even blackmail those companies who support Israel?  Is the Obama IRS demanding that these organizations renounce their support of Israel in exchange for gaining or keeping their tax-exempt status?


As part of the IRS’s consideration of the organization’s tax exempt status IRS agent Tracy Dornette asked these two questions of Z Street: "Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?" and "Describe your organization's religious belief sytem toward the land of Israel."  Z Street claims that the IRS is "carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel" and that "a special unit" is determining whether its activities "contradict the Administration's public policies.'"

Ben Smith of The Politico points out that the “IRS can deny tax exempt status to groups that work against "established public policy," a precedent established in its denial of a tax exemption to Bob Jones University over racial discrimination, and Z Street is suggesting that the IRS has begun applying some such policy to pro-Israel groups.”

 Does the Obama administration’s "established public policy," consist of hostility to Israel, along with impeding both Israel’s right to exist and Israel's right to defend itself against its enemies?  It sure seems so. It is extremely scary when our President reverses sensible foreign policy initiatives with regards to both our closest allies and some of our most contentious and/or volatile enemies, destabilizes and causes tensions with our allies, while at the same time naively reaching out and negotiating with our enemies.

Anita MonCrief Will File FEC Charges Against Obama Administration

H/T Stop Marxism

Obama's Patchwork Federalism

The Obama administration's claim that its legal challenge to Arizona's law is due to their strict adherence to the constitution is like an atheist claiming that he is for God. Totally ludicrous! The Obama administration thinks that the Arizona law encroaches on the Federal government's jurisdiction when it is meant to work in conjunction with the Federal immigration laws. These two laws are two peas in the same pod. What Holder & Co. hate is that the Arizona immigration law reveals that the Obama administration is willfully hostile to enforcing the existing immigration laws. Do you see the Obama administration going after sanctuary cities because of their lack of enforcing the federal law? Oh no... That would go against the Obama administration's agenda of pandering to the undocumented democrats immigrants. The truth is that the Obama administration's support is sinking faster than the Titanic. Their pathway of destruction of the constitution instead of enforcing it is causing this administration's rapid decline. Obama and Holder are quite content with abdicating the Federal government's authority to the various state laws when it comes to medical marijuana laws. The fact is that the Federal government's power has grown into a huge green giant which is stomping and crushing States' rights, abusing its power and impeding on the states' responsibility and authority to protect its citizens and enforce laws. Obama has departed from Bush policy by handing out waivers to 13 states so that they could insititute radical "climate change" policies that are more stringent than the Federal government requires.
 

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder said in the press release announcing the lawsuit. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.

The Obama administration is worried that allowing local police to arrest illegal aliens will somehow overburden federal law enforcement officers, but it isn't concerned that allowing people to grow and smoke marijuana will overburden federal drug enforcement officers? It is worried about a patchwork of immigration enforcement laws (as opposed to immigration laws), but not a patchwork of environmental regulations that directly affect interstate commerce?

Obama isn't the slightest bit concerned about a 'patchwork' of state laws that contradict and supersede federal authority. He is reaching for a legal argument to justify his desire to undo the Arizona law, which he simply dislikes."

Obama, Holder & Co. have blatantly refused to enforce the immigration laws that are presently on the books. I say to these bunch of scrap paper selective costitutional "followers" that they should move over and get the hell out of the way to allow Gov. Brewer and other state's governors to do their job properly without you interfering and inpeding their ability to do so. If you ain't going to help, get the hell outta the way. Leave them the hell alone, like you chose to do with the medical marijuana laws. This administration consistently chooses to go against the American people. Instead of serving the American people Obama admin is diametrically opposed to American citizens, like a regime or a dictatorship that doesn't give a rat's ass about their citizens but is willing to do anything to advance their own agenda. This is a constutional republic and we, the American people, will not stand by idly and silently any longer while this administration "transforms" and malforms this country into something that our Founders did not intend.

Are Democratic Policies Causing America's Decline?

Victor Davis Hanson weighs the current bad policies of the Obama administration, the bad policies that are yet to come from the Obama administration with how America has been  a force for good in the world, continues to be a force for good in the world, and is indeed an exceptional nation.

From TheRightScoop.com: Mort Zuckerman who is a Democrat and always votes Democrat agreed with Niall Ferguson that our current policies along with the financial meltdown is taking America in decline at a very rapid pace. The video compilation is here.

Are we in a decline? A rapid decline? I think that we are in a decline at the present time. I think that if we reverse course and do a 180 from the Obama administration's policies then we can stop the decline and start on a pathway to economic prosperity.

Its Elementary My Dear Watson

When there is screwing around involved, you can count on one person being tangled up in the matter. Somehow, its not surprising that the master of screwing was involved in Sestak-gate and that Clinton gave the Obama administration a lesson in screwing. It sure seems like screwing the American people has become a virtue for this administration.



Well, what’s he supposed to say? “I did [pound fist on podum] not [pound] make [pound] Sestak any [pound] job offers… Miss Lewinski. Oh wait. Sorry, old habits.”

Dick Cheney, National Security Wizard, Wins The War of Words With Biden

     

Biden is full of hot air. Joe Biden's mouth has been spewing the rhetoric of opportunism, truth bending, and flat out lies. This administration loves to use revisionist history in taking credit in both economic and foreign affairs. As you will see below, the video shows both Joe Biden and Barack Obama stating that they were adamantly against the surge. The other video shows Dick Cheney defendiing Bush policies on ABC's This Week. I am so sick of this me, me, me mentality where Biden, Obama, and the rest of their administration takes credit for policies that they clearly had nothing to do with, and in fact repudiated. Obama and Biden should both be praising and ashowing that they're proud of our brave soldiers overseas but instead they are looking to fulfill their self indulgences, personal gratification campaign, and furthering their political agendas. How utterly despicable! Biden should be displaying gratitude for the sacrifice that our troops made during the successful surge in Iraq. Yes, that is what turned around the war in Iraq. But, no, they can't give Bush one iota of credit of success for anything. MSM political pundits and the White House officials have misapplied Iraq success to the Obama administration when both the soldiers and Bush deserve the crdit for the successful surge in Iraq.

The Obama administration continues to play the Bush blame game. The Obama administration has issues with it needing a false sense of self gratifiation. They also continue to display a childish naivety in refusing to accept responsibility for both actions and inactions with relation to problems that have been both created and exacerbated by this administration. Cheney did an excellent job at pointing out the differences in the cases of the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. The shoe bomber incident took place only a couple months after 9/11, when military tribunals were not already in place and Eric Holder's law firm continually represented the terrorists and challenged the legitimacy of military tribunals all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, nine years later the military tribunals are in place so it is only proper to try our enemy in front of a military commission. Dick Cheney explains how this administration has chosen in a nonsensical manner to limit the tools that they can use to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. Cheney tells us what he believes is necessary to keep this country safe instead of this adminstration's weak policies of accommodating and appeasing our enemies. In my opinion, Dick Cheney wins the war of words, and the national security debate hands down.

An Ever Increasing Threat of a Nuclear Iran & The Continued Failed Policy of Appeasement

    Many people are misguided in thinking that Muslims want nothing to do with the West, and in particular with the United States. On one hand Muslim Jihadists want to destroy the West, and on the other hand the peaceful Muslims want the West to rescue them from Tyranny. The protesters in Iran wanted Obama to stand up and support their cause and instead he reacted to their plight standoffishly.
    Obama in his utopian peacenik philosophy envisions the United States to be nuclear free. This is a highly unrealistic and childish dream when Iran’s leader - Ahmadinejad- has openly expressed that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, that he is going to ignore and violate U.N. sanctions, and will further his cause to enrich uranium and possess nuclear weapons. The threat of Iran has loomed over us for many years but unfortunately no President from Jimmy Carter through the Obama administration has taken the initiative to deal with the threat head on. Carter’s appeasement approach in pleading for restraint to the Shah to preempt the use of “excessive force” led to the rise of The Islamic Republic of Iran.

Joseph Puder of Pajamas Media stated:

“Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, advised the president not to deal harshly with Ayatollah Khomeini and his cohorts lest a split occur within the Islamic opposition to the Russian presence in Afghanistan. At the time, both Democrats and Republicans considered the Islamists as a weapon against Soviet Communism and its local clients.
Few among today’s Capitol Hill legislators, and even fewer in the Obama administration, recognize the fact that U.S. credibility and deterrence are being compromised by the current U.S. policy towards Iran. The Arab Gulf states and Lebanon are hedging their bets on Iran emerging as the winner, and Saudi Arabia is also slowly moving towards Tehran, frustrated by America’s demonstrated weakness toward the Iranian mullahs.”

Iran has rejected key parts of a deal that the U.N. offered to them. This deal would have required Iran to ship 70% of its stock low-enriched uranium abroad in return for fuel for a medical research reactor. This regime has defied the Non-Proliferation Treaty without suffering any consequences. Iran has defied the United States deadline
Both Russia and China are heavily invested into Iranian oil and gas industries and would never approve of tougher sanctions against the Iranian regime. What the heck good is the U.N. if countries who are supposed to be keeping the world safe can be bought off or heavily influenced to vote against the tougher sanctions of Iran? In my opinion, the United States needs to kick the U.N. out of New York City and tell them to find a new home since they clearly have shown that they have an anti-American agenda that is equally clearly a threat to the safety of the United States.

Unfortunately, both the Clinton and Bush administrations continued policies of appeasement, to try and bribe Iran from continuing their uranium enrichment program. The Clinton administration sought a mega-deal with Iran by lifting sanctions, apologizing to Iranian mullahs, and the Bush administration sought to reach a deal with Iran in 2008 where the West would lift sanctions in exchange for Iran halting their uranium enrichment program. This bargaining and bribery with Iran must stop! The U.S. and other nations must take a hard-line stance and authoritatively tell Ahmadinejad that he is going to discontinue his uranium enrichment program or there will be serious consequences. This treating Iran with kid gloves must stop!!

During the Bush administration, an abrupt reality set in when Ahmadinejad spoke of the 12th Imam- The Shiite messiah- and the ensuing domination of the world in front of the General Assembly. Ahmadinejad made no remarks agreeing to stop uranium enrichment.

Obama continued these policies of appeasement, and in a big way. Obama not only apologized to Iran but to the whole Muslim world and continued the apology tour later on in Europe. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued Obama’s policy of appeasement when on July 22, 2009 she stated that “we will still hold the door open for talks with Iran.” Since 1979 American presidents have persisted on attempting to appease hostile mullahs in order to reach an agreement.

“Iran knows all too well that once it is in possession of a nuclear weapon, it would deter any future U.S. military action and leave the mullahs free to stir up even greater troubles for Washington in Iraq and Afghanistan, for Israel in Gaza and from Lebanon, and for the Arab Gulf states.”

“It is not that the U.S. lacks options. The military option is certainly available. The U.S. has the forces to eliminate both the nuclear weapons and the current repressive regime. Washington could also arm and train the Iranian minorities against the regime. It has chosen neither. The Obama administration failed to support the Iranian opposition following the rigged August elections. It shudders at the thought of forcing a regime change in Iran because of political correctness, a signature value of this administration.
Iranian minorities who comprise more than half of the population are in a state of rebellion against the regime, ready to spill their blood to end the rule of the repressive regime and Ahmadinejad, a despised and unlawful president. The people are taking up arms against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, killing and getting killed in the process. The Arabs of Ahwaz attempted and nearly succeeded in assassinating Ahmadinejad a few years ago.
And yet the Obama administration, like previous administrations, continues with policies of dishonor, sacrificing American deterrence and credibility. To the Iranians and Middle Eastern Arabs, America appears weak and unwilling to fight the Iranian mullahs. The situation is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.”

Here is an interesting video showing foreign relations experts from Israel, Russia, and the United States discussing Russia’s dilemma with Iran. Russia decided to delay delivery of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Is the United States and Russia playing good cop and bad cop? I hope that Russia decides to stop this sale of defense missiles to Iran. I am a little puzzled by Russia’s so-called dilemma and what exactly that is. Russia just needs to take a hard line stance against Iran. 





Now The IAEA says Iran enriches nuclear fuel.

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog said it has information suggesting Iran may be working to build a nuclear warhead, an assessment that could escalate the U.S. and other Western governments' confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, a Vienna-based U.N. body, said in a confidential report Thursday that Iran has impeded agency efforts to establish the true purpose of Tehran's nuclear program.

Now, countries all over the world must be on high alert and be willing to take the appropriate actions to halt Iran from enriching uranium to make a nuclear weapon. CONTINUED

H/T goes to Pajamas Media

H/T goes to Wall Street Journal

Krauthammer: Obama is "On Wrong Side of Logic and Reason" On Miranda Rights For Terrorists-- They are NOT Merely Civilians Living in U.S.

Krauthammer applies common sense, logic, and the knowledge to know the best way to keep this country safe.  He comes up with the right answer on whether or not terrorists are obligated or required to be given miranda rights.  This administration has clearly been appeasing the far leftsists living in Hollywood. And, instead of taking their oaths of office seriously, caring about the safety of all Americans, this administration has decided to grant extra rights to terrorists, and made it ppolicy to negotiate with terrorists instead of using the common sense required to keep this country safe from terrorists. This administration has displayed callousness and illogical policies when it comes to keeping this country safe.

 

H/T goes to Hot Air Pundit

Sarah Palin Unleashed -- National Tea Party Convention Speech

Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at The National Tea Party Convention. This is a fabulous speech. She slams Obama and the Obama administration for their nonsensical policies.  This is the Palin NO SPIN ZONE.  She espouses American values and promotes America's greatness and the American way of life in her speech.  Enjoy!

Karl Rove Blasts Obama Admin For Trying 9/11 Mastermind in Civilian Court

Says Bush Adm. trying Richard Reid in criminal court was a disaster...





Rove: "Fundamentally it is wrong, these are enemy combatants, why are we treating them like they're common criminals, it just makes my teeth stand on edge, when I read in the paper or hear commentators, or journalists, say the 'alleged' mastermind of the 9/11 attack, would we say Adolf Hitler is the alleged architect of the invasion of France, no we wouldn't, we'd treat him like an enemy combantant"

H/T to HotAirPundit

Obama is Weak on Terror

In the article, Krauthammer is spot on. From the very beginning, the Obama administration has been both callous and naive in their approach to the War on Terror. The Obama administration's use of euphemisms with regards to the War on Terror shows a complete disconnect from the reality of the dangers that terrorism poses to America and Americans. Starting from Obama's decision to close Gitmo, his decision to try KSM in a civilian courtroom in New York City, and the administrations's decision to treat terrorists and enemy combatants as mere common criminals shows that this administration doesn't understand what it takes to fight a war or what it means for America to be at War. This administration's actions have made it crystal clear that they have not a clue as to how to deal with the enemy in wartime and that they have gone back to a pre-9/11 mentality. This administration is giving the terrorists all the advantages, the upper hand, while putting constraints on our CIA, U.S. soldiers, have weakened our security increasing the the threat to American lives just to be "nice" and be "fair" to terrorists who will avail themselves of the use of any tactic to kill innocent lives all in the name of Allah. The Obama administration is living in the normative, a non-existent world, instead of what it is in the present - REALITY - which is the grave threat that terrorists pose to America.


Here is Krauthammer's article:

Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked."
The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9-11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantánamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over — that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare.
And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" — code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology.
Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaida training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the act of mass murder, he's instantly protected.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Dec. 29, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab as "extremist."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is a jihadist. And unlike guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and openly pledge war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses to name the enemy, turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

H/T to Orlando Sentinel

Eric Holder and His Leftist Comrades Are Responsible For Delaying Trials

                                                       H/T goes to Moonbattery



In Andrew McCarthy's article, he explains how Eric Holder himself along with his friends are the reason that there were so few military trials. Many of the same lawyers that obstructed the Bush administration efforts in bringing terrorists to military trial are now working for the Obama Justice Department. Yeah. You heard that right. The very lawyers that at every chance they got blockaded the Bush administration's efforts to bring these terrorists to justice are the same ones today advising BO to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a NYC courtroom because of delays which they themselves caused.


So, these leftist lawyers aided the terrorists at every chance they could get just to fill their leftist disdain for the Bush administration who vowed to bring justice to our enemies' and they campaigned against justice being served upon terrorists who were co-conspirators in committing the heinous acts of terrorism against our country, including the tragedy of 9/11. If it wasn't for these leftist lawyers, then justice would have been swiftly served upon these Islamic Jihadists. This type of justice would have honored all of the 9/11 victims. But, this court masqerade in NYC will only disgrace those lives lost on 9/11. The families of 9/11 victims have had to endure the delay of justice for their loved ones, not due to the Bush administration, but rather because of Holder and his gang of leftist lawyer cronies who craved for this NYC courtroom moment to show off just how much disdain they have for an America which would fight against terrorists in an all out frontal assault instead of merely waiting for another attack to happen on American soil while playing like nice little boys and girls with the terrorists. War does not work like that. In war you must give it your all to protect the country and citizens you serve instead of doing a half-ass job like our current president is doing now.

Holder's law firm Covington & Burling donated over 3000 hours of free legal assistance to our enemy detainees. Holder and the rest of our enemies' lawyers strongarmed the court's liberal bloc to invalidate military commissions charging that the commissions were not prescribed by Congress, but that they were actually prescribed by the President. This was unfounded and false. The left only knows how to distort reality for personal gain. Congress had in all actuality approved military tribunals in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. Should Eric Holder and his leftist comrades be charged with aiding our enemy? It sure seems that way to me since they blocked every effort to bring justice to terrorists. And now, their form of justice might include the aquittal of terrorists -- terrorists who committed heinous acts -- only to fulfill their malicious desire to make a mockery of the Bush administration when they were merely doing their job to protect American citizens from enduring the wrath of another 9/11 type of attack.


It is obvious that Holder and his gang of lawyers must have had an agenda straight from the beginning. If these leftist lawyers really had even a miniscule amount of love for America, and wanted to protect Americans, they would have allowed the military commissions to proceed under the Bush administration. Before 2006, Congress implicitly approved military commissions. In 2006 Congress explicitly approved the Military Commissions Act. After this Act was passed both the Al-Qaeda bar and the terrorists volunteer lawyers went to work simultaneously attacking the new commission system. Unfortuantely, it wasn't until well into 2008 that a lower court ruled that leftists abominable Bourmediene court decision did not invalidate the military commissions. Holder and his leftist comrades should not have been permitted to work in any aspect of the government and much less the Justice Dept. These anti-American leftists lawyers should have been brought up on charges for impeding justice and thus aiding the enemy. This administration is both a disgrace to America and its citizens. This administration sickens me. . .

A Bunch of Commies in the Obama Administration

 The laundry list of Obama's Czars and White House adminstration officials who are communist, and admirers of murderous thug communists continues to grow each day. I wonder how many more communists in the Obama administration will be revealed in the days ahead.

Here is an article by Laura Hollis called, They're ALL Communists at TownHall.com. Enjoy

Back when people were tippy-toeing around the “s” word (“socialist”), and before he was elected, I called out Obama’s basic political inclinations for what they are - communist.


Though plenty pooh-poohed this, and called it extreme or unsubstantiated, there was ample proof in Obama’s own writings, his interviews, and the political leanings of his mentors (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis), his pastor (Jeremiah Wright) and his friends. It’s absurd to hear people say now that Obama is governing differently than he campaigned. If you think that, you weren’t listening.

But those who still harbor any doubts need only look at his team of “advisors.”


White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is the most recent Obamirror. In the address so many have been airing recently, she offered Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong as an inspiration to students who might need to “figure out how to do things that have never been done before.” Well, golly - a man who “figured out” how to murder 70 million Chinese certainly gets points for novelty.

Before Dunn, it was ousted “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-admitted communist.

“Science czar” John Holdren has written of the possible need (and constitutionality) of mandatory sterilization and forced abortions to forestall whatever crisis du jour he and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich were predicting back in the 1970s (The coming ice age! Catastrophic food shortages! Death to billions!)

“Regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of government regulations banning hunting and eating meat, humans representing animals in court to protect their “rights,” government intervention to ensure that the “constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals,” (whatever those are) and “libertarian paternalism,” whereby government controls the choices you make. (Late comedian George Carlin would have had a field day with that oxymoronic suggestion.)

And none of this even mentions the laundry list of tax cheats.

These appointments are routinely characterized as amateurish leadership; examples of poor vetting. This would be laughable were it not so obviously false. How many of Obama’s advisors have to be exposed as communists and Marxists before some of the duller-witted among us admit not only that there is a pattern here, but that it is deliberate, and reflects the leanings of the White House?

Connect the dots, people. It’s not that Jones, Dunn, Sunstein et al were not properly vetted; it’s that they were. It’s not that Obama wasn’t familiar enough with their viewpoints; it’s that he was. These people were not chosen despite their views; they were chosen precisely because their views coincide with Obama’s own. If it walks like a communist, talks like a communist, and espouses state control in the name of “the people” like a communist, it’s a communist.

In February of this year, Newsweek giddily proclaimed, “We are all socialists now!” But Obama is no mere socialist. A socialist just wants your money; a communist wants complete control of your life. Some questioned the tone of my October 2008 column when I wrote it; how temperate it looks now in light of the first nine months of the Obama administration.

Obama has nationalized banks and car companies, fired the chief executive of a major corporation, appointed unaccountable ministers to set salaries for executives in private industry, castigated and threatened secured bondholders and run roughshod over their contract rights in favor of political patronage, spent nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus” legislation that was loaded with payback and pork, proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation that will confiscate American wealth and transfer it to third world nations, many of whom are run by leftist dictators. And his pièce de résistance would be a government takeover of the entire health care industry in the United States, the crowbar by which government will be forced into every aspect of our lives from birth to death.
All of this has been accomplished by deceit, trumped up indignation, and demonization of private enterprise and business leaders – classic Marxist propaganda. But it is still not enough. Too many Americans still oppose Obama’s attempts to take over the American health care industry (54% according to the latest Rasmussen poll). Over 40% now “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s performance as President. Hundreds of thousands have turned out at “tea parties,” townhalls, and a march on Washington. Resistance is growing

CONTINUED

Are the Families of Victims of 9/11 Getting Shafted by Obama Administration?

I gained my information from an article posted by Worldnet Daily on June 1, 2009:

"The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its Princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks which killed 3,000 Americans according to a report in Joseph Farah's Bulletin."

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act(FSIA) generally protects a sovereign state but there are exceptions that can be invoked. The Obama administration under FSIA have requested for the Saudis to be immune from prosecution even though there is ample evidence of complicity that both the Saudi Government and named Princes had knowledge that the charities they were funding funneled money in support for Al-Qaida's attack on 9/11.

In 2006, families of the 9/11 victims' filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia and four Saudi Princes that allege that they donated to charitable organizations with the knowledge that the charities diverted funds to Al-Qaida. The Saudi Government cited FSIA in their defense, and the court sided with the Saudis and the 2006 case was dismissed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 upheld this decision, citing FSIA and that the exceptions to immunity did not apply to Saudi Arabia since the U.S. had not designated a state sponsor of Terrorism.

Now the Obama administration has filed a court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to deny a petition for a higher court ruling by families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its Princes.

"The families of victims of 9/11 have expressed outrage at the Obama administration."

Do you think that Saudi Arabia and its four Princes should be able to use FSIA in order to gain immunity for their accused actions? Do you think that the Obama administration should be interfering in the Saudi court case? Or should the Obama administration have let the court case play itself out without trying to influence the court in any way? Do you think that exceptions to FSIA should only apply to nations that are denoted by U.S. government as state sponsors of terror? Does the Obama administration have an obligation to the families of victims of 9/11 to allow them to pursue justice against the Saudi government and its Princes for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks? Do you think that the families of victims of 9/11 have every right to be outraged at the Obama administration? Do the families of 9/11 victims have a right to pursue justice?

OPINION: One problem I have with these court rulings is that the court ruled that a country can only be held accountable for a terrorist attack against the United States if the country has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism. I also believe that the families of victims of 9/11 are due their justice and just compensation for grievances caused by the 9/11 attacks. I believe that FSIA should not apply to the Saudis and its four Princes since the prosecution had ample evidence of complicity that both Saudi government and its four Princes had knowledge that the money they were donating to charities was being funneled to Al-Qaida for the terrorist attacks. I don't think the Obama administration should be interfering with the court process in order to benefit the Saudis.