Tuesday, June 30, 2009


Obama's pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at expense of allies has failed

Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
By Caroline Glick Jun. 29, 2009

For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

Friday, June 26, 2009


Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as
Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.

by Pam Geller

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people
react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.
The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing
our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history,
and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are
not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close
election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so
controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We
have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to
write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free
fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and
know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war
with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have
the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has
never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big a s Wasilla ,
Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in
their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip
by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him
speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course.
The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he
answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will
divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign
the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed
coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German
knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with
groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory
and promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he
was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even
newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would
bully them into submission.

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic
crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the
controls of government power, department by department, person by person,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name,
where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his
side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating
the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country,
across Europe , and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and . . .. change. And the people surely got
what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read
your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down,
called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed
out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and
called a crazy troublemaker.. He was right, though .

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, a nd
universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.


Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not
too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.


Every body that is on this mailing list is either a
senior citizen, is getting close or knows sombody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version
(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive
rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this20part of
the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by
Bloomberg with the following statement.

Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will
not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just
remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that
is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder
of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the internet to get this
message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election
coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and
reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have
begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!

If you disagree, don't do anything.

Monday, June 22, 2009


O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that’s goin’ round?

The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!

No more Saint Patrick’s Day we’ll keep, his color can’t be seen

For there’s a cruel law ag’in the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

”I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand

And he said, “How’s poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?”

“She’s the most distressful country that ever yet was seen

For they’re hanging men and women there for the Wearin’ o’ the Green.”

“So if the color we must wear be England’s cruel red

Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed

And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod

But never fear, ‘twill take root there, though underfoot ‘tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin’ as they grow

And when the leaves in summer-time their color dare not show

Then I will change the color too I wear in my caubeen

But till that day, please God, I’ll stick to the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

Sunday, June 14, 2009


Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out.

It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.

"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.

"Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."