The world is facing an unprecedented number of apocalyptic threats on several fronts, the most notable being Iran. Many nations are saber rattling and forming pernicious alliances with bellicose nations, often as a consequence of the perceived precipitous demise of the United States’ international prestige and influence resultant from Obama’s reckless and ideologically naïve behavior and comments, absence of any shred of leadership or credibility, ineptness, detachment and lack of resoluteness and common sense.
This is a critical juncture in time that calls for an experienced, sensible, effective and resolute leader of this country. Yes, it would be great to have a Reagan, a Lincoln or even a Churchill. Unfortunately, this country has as its President a man who compares unfavorably even to Jimmy Carter (which previously would have been thought to have been an impossibility) and one who exudes a sentiment of hatred/dislike for America.
He is an unpatriotic Neville Chamberlain with far less to offer. And we know what happened subsequently in WW II.
As a consequence, the United States, Israel and much of the rest of the world will be facing serious existential threats, terrorist attacks and/or wars and catastrophic loss of life.
From Here To Extermination
Investors Business Daily 06/11/2010
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures after a news conference in Shanghai, China, at which he dismissed a new U.N. resolution against his... View Enlarged Image
Iran: The new sanctions, already watery before being watered down some more, have been enacted. What do we do now?
Apparently just wait for them not to work.
If insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then the United Nations Security Council, led by the U.S., is conducting a policy against Iran that is dangerously deranged.
Of course, the member states know this fourth round of economic sanctions won't stop Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, any more than the first three have. Indeed, ending Tehran's nuclear program is not why President Obama made a point of getting this ineffectual nonsolution in place. But figuring out the rationality behind why he did isn't easy.
Was it so the president could campaign that "by working with other nations multilaterally, we enacted measures against Iran that are tougher than anything the Bush administration put in place"? (A harder wrist slap is still a wrist slap.)
Was it in the belief that it would force the Iranians into talks — and once the president gets talking to them he'll be able to work his magic, the way he did on American voters?
Or was it just to "do something" in the slim hope it would get Americans to devote less attention to the chilling prospect of nuclear-armed jihadists?
Now that these latest feeble sanctions have passed, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foggy Bottom's smarter-than-thou diplomats are busy patting themselves on the back, what is left of our Iran policy? What do we do now, as Tehran thumbs its nose at us and continues inexorably toward nuclear status?
We apparently wait. Some anti-nuclear terrorism policy that is.
There are goose-bumpy reports in the press of U.S.-backed covert operations to throw technical monkey wrenches into the development of an Iranian bomb. Considering the CIA's track record, we'd be safer expecting Superman or Spider-Man to appear in the nick of time to save the day.
After all, the spy agency was dumbstruck in May 1998, when India conducted a nuclear test explosion.
"The warning bell never rang," according to Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Tim Weiner in his history of the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes." "The test revealed a failure of espionage, a failure to read photographs, a failure to comprehend reports, a failure to think, and a failure to see." India's adversary, Pakistan, almost instantly followed up with its own nuclear test.
So don't count on James Bond either.
Both the Obama and Bush administrations have squandered their opportunities to solve this singularly dangerous dilemma.
There were years during which we knew Tehran was headed toward nukes, and all the time we could have been explicitly supporting Iranian freedom fighters — millions of Muslims who want an end to rule by the ayatollahs.
We could have been sending student organizers, religious leaders and labor organizations resources — everything from computer communications equipment to cash — so they could rally the populace, disseminate news about government oppression and stage massive strikes. And publicly give them our moral support.
Last year, for example, President Obama had the perfect chance to support the people of Iran, as multitudes risked their lives in mass protests against the questionable re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But being just a few months into his presidency, Obama refused; it would have undermined his offer of direct talks with Ahmadinejad.
But those talks never happened.
With the proper groundwork laid over years, those demonstrations of 12 months ago could have been the catalyst to end the Islamist revolution launched by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. And under a new popular government, we might not even have to worry about Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, or at least worry less.
As the Weekly Standard reports, the Obama administration this week will apparently endorse a United Nations probe of Israel's conduct in the Gaza flotilla incident.
Since Israel may end up being the ones to prevent a nuclear Iran, this may be an even better definition of insanity: rewarding your worst enemy as he plans to kill you, while abusing your best friend who's in a position to save you.
Unfortunately, Obama's international perception and assessment as a weak, feckless buffoon translates into real and dangerous consequences for the United States, the balance of power including good versus evil, and potentially the lives of tens or even hundreds of millions of people.
Iran is an implacable enemy that will relentlessly pursue the development of nuclear weapons and will not respond to any actions short of military intervention.
Israel takes Iran’s threats to annihilate and incinerate it absolutely seriously and in all likelihood will preemptively attack it if it appears that no other options are available.
Meanwhile, Obama threatens and treats our staunch ally Israel and its Prime Minister despicably over plans to build apartment buildings in Jerusalem yet voices appeasing words for our enemy and terrorist sponsoring nation Iran which is overtly developing nuclear weapons for intended use.
Neither country nor leaders of the rest of the world take Obama seriously except as seriously incompetent, misguided, inexperienced, weak and confused.
And that is a serious problem the whole world has to deal with!
So Now We Know: No Plan B For Iran
Investors Business Daily 04/19/2010
Iran: A leaked memo from the defense secretary reveals the administration has no alternatives to stop Iran's nuclear push if "soft power" fails. This should be a wake-up call, but we continue snoozing toward Armageddon.
President Obama campaigned on the notion that not talking to tyrants was not an option or a workable policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with anybody anywhere to bring peace and relieve tensions. Unlike President Theodore Roosevelt, however, he has been talking softly but forgetting about the big stick.
A memo written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and unearthed by the New York Times confirms our suspicions that, while the administration occasionally raised its voice on Iran, there in fact existed no contingency plans to use the proverbial big stick if what is called "soft power" didn't dissuade Tehran from building a nuke.
Gates' analysis of our Iranian posture was written in January to President Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones.
According to the Times report, the memo "appears to reflect concern in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well-prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed."
The memo is said to have sparked the development of such contingency plans that are still in the early stages. Meanwhile, Iran continues to enrich uranium toward the 20% purity level and is adding advanced centrifuges while working on warhead designs and the missiles to deliver them.
For our part, we have abandoned contingency plans to deploy ground-based missile interceptors in Poland and tracking radars in the Czech Republic in favor of less-satisfactory substitutes. We are more concerned, it seems, about 1,600 apartments to be built in three years' time in a Jewish suburb in East Jerusalem.
We talk to thugs while we humiliate an ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House.
Obama has said to the thugs of the world, particularly to Iran, that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Judging by his relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons in response to our futile entreaties, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is responding with a hand gesture of another kind.
"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," Obama said last week.
Whether we like it or not?!
This does not appear to be a president capable of giving the order to strike even if we had plans to strike. We're too busy disarming and apologizing for our power and our past willingness to use it in the defense of ourselves and our allies.
Israel makes no such apologies. In 1981, it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. And in 2007, it bombed into obliteration a North Korean-supplied secret nuclear reactor in Syria. It has well-prepared plans to strike Iran.
The clock, and the Iranian nuke, is ticking. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, writing in this month's Foreign Affairs, declare: "If Iran's nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before U.S. President Barack Obama's current term in office expires."
It is getting perilously close to the time when either we or Israel will, as fighter pilots like to say, have to kick the tires and light the fires. We'd better plan for it.
In a very clear, logical, and convincing speech, Liz Cheney criticized Obama for his recklessly apologizing for America and weakening our positions of leadership and power in the world which engenders belligerence and attacks from our enemies who see us as inept, confused, weak and lacking resolve. She also berated him for his indefensible positions vis-à-vis Iran.
Here, with America’s security in the balance, Republicans, Democrats and Independents should speak as one to the administration: President Obama, stop apologizing for this great nation and start defending her."
Both Harry Reid and Ahmadinejad of Iran may very well pursue the nuclear option. They also despise the citizens of their respective countries and will impose whatever legislation and controls that they deem fitting regardless of their citizens' sentiments.
The United States’ world leadership and defense of democracy, principles, and righteousness has plummeted faster than housing prices the last few years or Obama’s approval ratings the last 6 months. Unfortunately, our Government’s irrational and outrageous abdication of its responsibilities may place hundreds of millions of people worldwide at grave risk and eventuate in a nuclear Armageddon with Iran at the epicenter.
This is a formidable problem that should have been aggressively addressed by military force under the Bush Administration but wasn’t. Inexcusable negligence. The Obama Administration has only made matters worse… and essentially hopeless if Iran is to be stopped from developing and deploying nuclear weapons of which their intent is infinitely clear. Talking has been going on for at least 8 years without any iota of major progress. Even your average non-union member Village Idiot would confidently exclaim: Discussion time is over. BOMB IRAN!
Will Israel save the world? We better hope so and provide her our unwavering and total support, politically and economically.
Secretary Of Defenselessness
Investors Business Daily
Iran: Incredibly, the Bush national security team's sole holdover has announced Peace in Our Time as the only hope against a nuclear Tehran. There is no defense for Secretary Robert Gates.
Appearing in Paris with the French defense minister on Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made an announcement to the world that will astonish our friends and embolden our enemies.
"We must still try and find a peaceful way to resolve this issue," Gates said of the never-ending defiance of the free world by Iran's Islamofascist regime as it moves ever closer to becoming a nuclear weapons power.
"The only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is that pressure track," Gates added. "But it will require all of the international community to work together."
Anyone care to hold your breath on that last hope?
After meeting for an hour with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday, Gates and he "agreed that the time has come for the adoption of strong sanctions, in the hope that dialogue will be resumed," a Sarkozy aide said.
The time has come? That must be what passes for black humor in Paris these days. The time for getting tough with the Iranians came years ago.
And anyway, what value does a joint statement from the U.S. and France against Iran have? U.S. diplomats on Monday were putting on a good face about France's decision to send 80 — count 'em — more personnel to help the U.S. with what President Obama has called the central front in the war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Add to that France's plans to send amphibious assault ships to Russia against our wishes, with the rationale that Russia, has "changed deeply" since losing the Cold War, and so it's time to nurture a new relationship.
They might ask the family of the murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned by a radioactive isotope in 2006, how nurturing Russian ruler Vladimir Putin is. Or ask the former Soviet bloc nations seeking missile defense from Russia.
At any rate, something seems to have happened that spoiled all the love and respect our cool, new commander in chief was supposed to be getting from the land of Robespierre, so unlike the treatment afforded that Europhobic Texan predecessor of his.
Think what Tehran thinks when it hears the defense secretary of this and the previous presidency say that the only path left to the world's lone superpower — and, by extension, to the community of civilized nations — is more sanctions.
"The key," Gates said in Paris, "is persuading the Iranian leaders that their long-term best interests are best served by not having nuclear weapons, as opposed to having them. And so I think that an approach along these lines, as long as the international community is seen pressing vigorously to resolve this problem, my hope is we will then be able to keep this in economic and diplomatic channels."
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates those who rule Iran. The mullahs, the ayatollahs and their henchman who returned to the Iranian presidency in a rigged election last summer see "their long-term best interests" in supernatural terms.
The return of the 12th Imam, the destruction of the Jewish state in an apocalyptic holy war, an eternity spent in that giant brothel in the sky — those things dominate their thoughts, not the effects of economic sanctions or isolation from the international community.
It must be with that reality in mind that we consider what the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think when the U.S. says, through Gates, that force is not an option.
We have a Western alliance, unallied even on fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan, which spends years watching a jihadist regime work toward atomic weapons before it even seriously considers anything approaching real economic warfare against it, and which tells its enemies that force is out as a solution.
When a secretary of defense considers defense a nonoption, it's time to think about (as the president would say) pressing the reset button.
Iran has been openly and resolutely defiant to the rest of the world with its acceleration of the enrichment of uranium that is clearly intended for military purposes and it possesses the will and theology to use it. On the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Iran has markedly ratcheted up the decibel level of its bellicose and threatening rhetoric aimed at the outside world while concurrently threatening its own citizens who oppose the regime. We have witnessed countless times the wanton brutality that it inflicts on its own people.
This is a country that may stop its violence and threats of regional and world destruction only with a regime change or a successful military attack on it. So far, the best and last hope of that strike appears to be from Israel. Short of that, Iran will complete its intended development of nuclear weapons followed then by their deployment.
A destabilization of the government facilitated by massive uprisings by the citizens along with some fire power is a very long shot possibility to ultimately thwart their usage of nuclear weapons by "peaceful" means. Unfortunately, the opposition presently has little weaponry to fight the government with. Making matters worse, the Obama Administration has been egregiously and negligently silent in support of the Iran’s citizenry even amidst the uprisings. He has shown no solidarity with the protesters which is the absolute least he could do. When he has to be berated by the vacuous, bumbling Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to make some sort of statement, you know there are severe problems. Meanwhile in welcomed and positive contrast, the leaders of other Western countries have been notably and persistently vociferous in their support of the oppressed Iranian protesters.
Obama has been the antithesis of what an American President should be - a feckless, incompetent, clueless individual who is devoid of any significant leadership skills except when it comes to finding ways to exalting his own self-importance, thus feeding his insatiable narcissism. The American people know this. The world knows this. And Iran clearly knows this.
Unfortunately, this abysmal void of leadership and insight may lead to a nuclear Armageddon.
Obama is a real and constant threat to our country... but intimidates no one else. Does that make him an enemy of the United States? Or incompetent, weak and reckless - as well?
The following is among the most thorough but concise, cogent and eloquent articles detailing Obama’s hatred of America. It leaves no doubt as to his attitude and ideology – as if we really needed any convincing.
Of course, this all begs the question: What are we to do with a President who hates America and is dismantling it to fit the socialist/communist country that he envisions?
Impeachment?
The Man Who Despises America
By Mark Hyman
The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.
Barack Obama despises America.
When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.
The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.
The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.
Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.
Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.
Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.
Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.
Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.
Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.
He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.
Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.
In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.
Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join. Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?
Immediately following the OAS embarrassments, Obama ignored a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet. Obama would repeat this snub six months later before agreeing at the last moment to meet Netanyahu after the Israeli leader was en route the U.S.
In his speech before the Muslim world, Obama made the patently absurd claim of equivalency between the status of displaced Palestinians and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. His claim that 7 million Muslims live in the U.S. is a figure inflated by as much as 700%.
In an earlier speech, Obama claimed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which is at odds with the fact that 79% of Americans self-identify as Christians and the nation's founders were devout Christians.
In less than six months in office, Obama apologized for Guantanamo Bay; for alleged mistakes committed by the CIA; for U.S. policy in the Americas; for America's history of slavery; for "sacrificing [American] values;" for "hasty decisions" in the war on terror; for "America's standing in the world;" for American errors in foreign policy; and for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.
He pronounced Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology acceptable and he warned Netanyahu against targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama's approach to Iran is eerily similar to that of Jimmy Carter, whose actions contributed to the fall of that nation into the control of Islamic radicals.
This summer, the door to greater individual freedoms in Iran was firmly closed shut when Obama announced the U.S would not meddle in Iran's election and he offered no encouragement to democracy activists who protested the obviously stolen elections. His silence was deafening when regime security agents savagely attacked and killed countless Iranians who took to the streets.
In contrast to his deference to anti-American leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega, Obama strong-armed Netanyahu on key Israeli matters. In addition to snubbing the Israeli Prime Minister's requests to meet, Obama demanded an end to Israeli settlements and insisted on the creation of a two-state Palestine solution.
Obama abandoned NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling the central Europe missile defense plan just as rogue nations North Korea and Iran make advances in nuclear and ballistic missile production. The cancellation was demanded by Moscow authorities who have adopted a more confrontational posture toward the west.
Solidarity with freedom-loving East Germans has been a staple of the American presidency for nearly 50 years. John Kennedy pronounced himself a Berliner. Ronald Reagan demanded Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev "Tear down this wall!" Yet, this bricks and mortar icon of first, Soviet totalitarianism, and then, second, the end of Soviet domination did not make the cut as Obama chose not to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. In the summer of 2008, Obama altogether skipped mentioning the role of the U.S. -- or even the West, for that matter -- in bringing down the wall, instead crediting "a world that stands as one."
Obama's disagreement with American values and institutions is evident in domestic issues. He has stocked his administration with wild-eyed radicals who believe foreign law trumps the U.S. Constitution (Harold Koh); include an avowed Marxist and "truther" who believes George Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attack and is also an ardent supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal (Van Jones); and include a devoted admirer of Mao Tse-tung who slaughtered as many as 75 million people (Anita Dunn). (In contrast, George W. Bush's Attorney-General nominee John Ashcroft was savaged by the news media for being an Evangelical Christian.)
Three weeks after America's first black president was sworn in, the nation's first black Attorney-General who was hand-picked by Obama, called America "a nation of cowards" for some perceived race relations shortfall. The understood meaning of Eric Holder's comments is that white people are still racists. However, the reality is the people most preoccupied with fomenting the racial divide are those who populate the ranks of the Obama Administration.
Obama's Homeland Secretary designated military veterans as terrorists-in-waiting to be equally as dangerous as other domestic terrorists including pro-lifers and citizens opposed to the flood of illegal aliens.
One of Obama's very few suggestions to cut into his $1.4 trillion budget deficit was to have servicemen and women pay for their own war injuries. He's all for providing free health care to illegal aliens but believes wounded warriors should foot their own hospital bills. In fact, the Defense Department is about the only sector of government in which Obama has proposed slashing spending.
Hours after a belligerent "African-American Studies" Harvard professor engaged in behavior unbefitting anyone let alone a professional man, Obama accused the exceedingly tolerant Cambridge police officers as having "acted stupidly" and then digressed into how people of color have been unfairly treated by white America.
Bush was prolific in quietly and privately visiting the military wounded and family of the fallen. In contrast, Obama attempted to make political capital of his one visit to Dover Air Force Base. Obama's motives were so transparent that families of 17 of the 18 fallen denied permission for Obama to engage in a photo-op alongside the returning caskets.
In May, Obama immediately issued a statement that he was "shocked and outraged by the murder" of a Kansas doctor specializing in partial-birth abortions. He called it a "heinous act of violence." Attorney-General Holder mobilized U.S. Marshals nationwide to provide protection to abortion clinics.
But Obama remained silent the very next day when two U.S. soldiers were gunned down by a Muslim extremist outside a Little Rock recruiting station. After repeated prodding for a presidential comment, the White House faxed an after-hours statement to select media outlets two days later offering a tepid remark that Obama was "saddened" without even mentioning the soldiers were murdered.
Five months later, another Muslim fanatic gunned down nearly four dozen Americans, killing 13, at the Ft. Hood army base. It was an act that demanded the most serious demeanor of the military's Commander-in-Chief. Yet, Obama referenced the massacre in the most insincere fashion just seconds after a jocular shout-out to an audience member during a public speaking engagement. It was the equivalent of attending a funeral in swimwear while en route to the beach.
The odd inadvertent comment or occasional verbal faux pas can be explained away as just that. However, Obama has a lifetime of comments and actions including 10 months as president that belie his real attitude toward the U.S. The difference between Obama and his immediate predecessors such as Ronald Reagan, the George Bushes and Bill Clinton who actually revere and honor the greatness of America and its citizens and institutions cannot be overstated.
Obama suffered significant personal humiliation by Chicago’s stunning exit in the very first elimination round of consideration by the Olympic Selection Committee for the 2016 Olympics. He thought his "superstar" status and "legendary in his own mind" power of persuasion would help his city win the ultimate prize. If you read the text of the speech, it was actually all about narcissistic Barack Obama. In less than two pages, he used the word "I" thirty times and brought up his running for President, his election as President, as well as his father, wife and children. Wasn't this suppose to be about why Chicago deserved the 2016 Olympics?
Obama has been deservedly attacked on his involvement and visit to Copenhagen, the first time a sitting President has made an appearance before the selection committee.As noted by GOP consultant Brad Blakeman, a former Bush Administration official:
"It demeans the office. For the president to be reduced to the effect of the Billy Mays pitchman for the United States to get the Olympics for his home city of Chicago is just not something that Presidents do… His priorities are screwed up and the American people are seeing that this President just doesn't get the effects and importance of governing.”
Blakeman also noted that Obama spent more time wooing International Olympic Committee officials than he did in his meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, before returning to Washington.
This is another example of the Obama’s pathological narcissism and arrogance, believing that his supernal charm and rhetoric are the only requisites needed to sway the masses or convince others to see it his way. It is also an inexcusable waste of at least $1.2 million taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent. And what about better spending your time on slightly more weighty matters like Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy...?
Obama’s actions and responses as well of lack thereof in support of democratic movements such as in Iran and Honduras are nothing short of abhorrent and irresponsible and by proxy, don’t reflect well on the United States which up to now has always been the bastion and protector of freedom. This should come as no surprise to those closely following his presidential campaign where pictures of the terrorist Che Guervarra were displayed in his offices which often did not have an American flag. There were also the public debates over his lack of wearing an American flag lapel pin which most other legislators customarily wore and his not acting appropriately for the Pledge of Allegiance.
The situation in Iran was quite clear – he said too little and too late in support of the oppressed citizens of Iran who were protesting against the government and a possible stolen election. In Honduras, a small country situated in Central America, the situation was quite different but the appropriate response that Obama should have taken was unequivocally clear. He should have immediately championed the brave position taken by the Honduran Supreme Court, the military and citizens of the country who wanted to preserve their democracy and prevent Zelaya, the president, from illegally changing the Constitution in order to become a dictator. Instead, Obama voiced vehement support for the deposed dictator to be, the same position taken by the notorious dictators Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. Even the most uninformed, intellectually challenged individual will know that no matter what is involved, you don’t want to find yourself on the same side of an argument or position as these three tyrants. This position by Obama speaks volumes of who he really is personally, ideologically and politically.
The following editorial elucidates the Honduran situation in greater detail and how Obama’s disgraceful decision will reflect badly on the United States and our “moral authority” not just in Latin America but throughout the world.
America has always been a stalwart supporter of freedom and democracy. Citizens of repressive regimes worldwide wanting to obtain their rights and freedoms have always looked at the United States as the paragon of these ideals and as a vocal champion of their causes. Which brings up Iran and Obama. We have waited 30 years for this moment – an uprising of the people of Iran against the repressive theocracy under which they have had to endure. The protests have far exceeded anything expected, either by us or even the Mullahs. This is the government that is the world’s most active sponsor of terrorism including Hezbollah and Hamas and has funded proxies to fight us in Iraq.
So what has the Great One, Obama, said about Iran and the protestors? You mean you didn’t hear? Well, he actually said essentially nothing. Since day one of the protests, the Republican members of Congress have been voicing their support for the people of Iran. On Friday, June 20th, Congress affirmed its solidarity by an overwhelming majority. Rumors are that Vice-President Biden and Hillary Clinton have made strong recommendations to Obama that he release a more forceful statement in support of the protestors. On this matter, it seems that Obama, once again, just voted “present”. Not surprisingly, he has shown no leadership – a leadership vacuum. Hence: Obama Sucks!
The following editorial written by Chuck Devore, an American of Iranian descent, assesses the present situation including the notable absence of Obama leadership and suggests what America can do.
In his speech at Cairo University, Obama could have united the Muslim world against Iran’s nuclear ambition which they fear. Instead, he essentially provided Iran with the moral authority to continue their quest to develop of nuclear weapons.
Obama’s naivety, real world inexperience, groveling to the Arab countries and perceived (and REAL) image of weakness has allowed Iran to continue uncontested in its goal of developing a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the consequences of Iran possessing such a weapon can (will) be disastrous.
His thought processes overall here defy logic as discussed in the following editorial. Another note: ideology trumps rationality.
If you didn’t know better, you would think that Obama is a plant or pro tempore President supplied by another country. He has relentlessly been bashing our country, its policies and its citizens (us), wherever he travels abroad. To paraphrase his famous statement recently, “Americans can be arrogant, dismissive and derisive.” Instead of touting the United States as the World’s protector and champion of liberty and freedom, saving millions of lives and costing hundreds of thousands of our own to do so, he bemuses that we should not be imposing our values and ideals like these ones on others. Our President should be a resolute defender and cheerleader of our great country. Instead, he relentlessly denigrates it in a condescending way. Obama, you are the one who is arrogant, dismissive and derisive!
His comments and attitudes also have predictably emboldened our enemies to proceed unfettered and without fear with their malevolent plans. They see us as weak, bitterly divided, directionless and just plain vulnerable. Ripe for the picking. Kim Jong-il of North Korea doesn’t appear to be intimidated by us. Let’s see: North Korea conducts a large underground nuclear detonation followed a day later by the belligerent firing of multiple missiles. Now he has plans for an imminent launch of an ICBM capable of delivering a nuclear warhead which can travel 4000 miles, enough to reach Alaska. What has been our response? Oh, we will be monitoring the situation. And we need to get back to the negotiating table. Right! Kim Jong-il must surely be quaking in his boots.
It is the same story in Iran where the ramifications and collateral effects would be far more severe. Full steam ahead with their nuclear weapons program! What makes this situation even more egregious is that they know that the only country which has the chutzpah, capability and moral rectitude to stop them, Israel, has been directly warned and threatened by Obama in no uncertain terms not to conduct a preemptive attack.
Circumstances are evolving into a scenario that is a perfect storm for a nuclear holocaust.
For more on this, view the following video of Sean Hannity interviewing Mitt Romney.
The U.S. may be embracing a radical foreign-policy position fraught with danger for the whole world: the nonsensical notion that de-nuclearizing Israel will stop Iran. Read full article
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments