Can you imagine if this were done by a George Bush perpetual campaign? This just gets creepier and creepier!
Welcome to Kids for Obama
In the words of Senator Barack Obama,
the "Obama for America Campaign is a different type of campaign". For
the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a
place to go and actually
vote—through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics
and to express your support for Senator Obama.
Below you will find a list of activities
children 12 and under can do to get involved. To start, print out our
Logo Coloring Sheet, color it in and display at your house or in your
school.
Create a Kids for Obama Group on My.Barackobama.com. For
example, Chicago Kids for Obama or DC Kids for Obama and throw a party!
Write a letter or editorial to your local news paper, expressing
"Why Barack Obama should become the next US President".
Find a Pen Pal - it could be in your school, city, state, or
another state. Write and discuss different ways you can get involved.
Draw a picture of Senator Barack Obama or "an expression of
Democracy". For example, the Senator sitting in the White House or
working on Capitol. Hill. You can send your drawing to the Obama for
America Campaign Headquarters in Chicago and it will be posted for the
Senator to see.
Implement T-Shirt Thursday. Get friends to wear an official
Obama for America T-Shirt to school.
Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and
encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama.
Post an official Obama for America Campaign sticker/logo on your
school bag.
Wear an Obama for America Campaign button and/or clothing.
Host a Senator Barack Obama House Party or sleep-over. (WTF?)
President
Obama's pick to serve as the assistant secretary of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration is an "aggressively anti-business"
proponent of junk science who should not be confirmed by the Senate,
his critics say.
Dr.
David Michaels, a research professor and interim chairman in the
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at George
Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services,
was nominated on July 28 to become OSHA's next assistant secretary. If
confirmed, he would serve under Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
Obama cited Michaels' "tremendous dedication" and expertise
while making the announcement.
According to his biography
from George Washington University, Michaels received the American
Association for the Advancement of Science's Scientific Freedom and
Responsibility Award for his work on behalf of nuclear weapons workers
and calls for scientific integrity.
Michaels
was also the chief architect of an initiative to compensate Department
of Energy nuclear weapons workers who developed cancer or lung disease
as a result of their exposure to radiation, beryllium and other
life-threatening hazards. Since 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program has doled out more than $4.5 billion in
benefits to those workers and their relatives.
But
Michaels' critics say the epidemiologist, who has conducted numerous
studies on the health effects of occupational exposure to toxic
chemicals, will bring a junk science-based, anti-business agenda to the
post. Second Amendment advocates are also up in arms, saying they
expect Michaels to seek stricter gun control in the workplace as an
issue of public health.
"It's
one of the scariest appointments the new administration has made," said
James Copland, director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal
Policy, which argues that the country's litigation system adversely
affects innovation and safety.
"One
would expect this administration would pick some folks relatively left
of center, relatively pro-labor, that's to be understood," Copland
said. "But Michaels has associated himself throughout his career with
junk science claims that are pushed by the plaintiff's bar."
Michaels' detractors point to a 1993 Supreme Court
case, Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., in which the court
ruled that trial judges could hold hearings without juries in an effort
to determine whether expert testimony is relevant. The intended goal of
the ruling was to protect a trial from being corrupted by hired experts
who could sway a jury without proven scientific evidence, with the
trial judge acting as a gatekeeper of sorts.
In a June
2003 paper published by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), which Michaels now directs, the
Daubert ruling was characterized as a "well-intentioned attempt to ensure reliable and relevant evidentiary science." But
it went on to describe the consequences of the ruling as "troubling."
The
paper said that over 10 years, "some judges, in our opinion, have
routinely misinterpreted and broadened the reach of Daubert" and
concluded that "polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products are
successfully using Daubert to keep juries from hearing scientific
evidence or any other evidence against them."
The result, according to the
SKAPP paper, has been a significant rise in the percentage of expert
testimony excluded from the courtroom, an increase in successful
motions for summary judgments, 90 percent of which "came down" against
plaintiffs, and a chilling effect upon plaintiffs since they often
don't have the same resources as large corporations and cannot afford
to "defend against aggressive attacks" on their experts.
Michaels' critics say they fear
he will use his new position at OSHA to seek to overturn Daubert.
"Michaels
is closely associated with trial lawyers, so they're going to try to
overturn this," said Steven Milloy, founder of junkscience.com. "That's
his mission. Our concern is that he's going to take this mission and
somehow implement it at OSHA."
"Trial
lawyers would love him," Milloy said. "He has a junk science agenda.
The standards of science [at OSHA] under Michaels will be extremely
low. If nothing else, he will promulgate junk science-based workplace
regulation."
David Michaels: Obama’s Toxic Choice for OSHA Administrator
Submitted by Bryan Myrick on September 8, 2009 by Bryan Myrick
Even as ripples subside after the spectacular weekend swan dive of Van
Jones—the Obama administration’s radical (and radically under-vetted)
former “green czar”—hearings for another controversial White House pick
are on the visible horizon. When the Senate reconvenes, the nomination
of Dr. David Michaels for assistant secretary of labor for the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) will be on the
agenda of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Unlike Jones–whose appointment could be made by presidential
fiat—Michaels will have to be confirmed by the Senate. Because of
Michaels’ record of anti-business activism and his outspoken views
about the need for stringent restrictions on the possession of
firearms, the Washington Times minced no words in its Sunday editorial: “The Senate should reject Mr. Michael’s nomination.”
Obama Mentions Himself Nearly 1,200 Times in 41 Speeches (Or Did You Not Notice?)
Dan Gainor has a spicy little piece that pretty much sums up Narcissist-in-Chief Obama, the quintessential product of the I-My-Me culture:
In mythology, Narcissus was the guy who fell in love with his own reflection.
In 2009, he’s the president of the United States.
Instead of adoring his own image, Obama loves to hear
himself talk – about himself. In just 41 speeches so far this year, not
including this week's big speech at the United Nations, Obama has
talked about himself nearly 1,200 times – 1,198 to be exact. (That
breaks down to 1,121 “I”s and just 77 “me”s.) And that just includes 34
weekly addresses and his seven major speeches. Count the hundreds of
other public speeches and he’d be off the charts.
Mr. Gainor should be praised for this numeric feat of true heroism.
It must have been stomach-turning. Not even the unprecedented
wall-to-wall Sunday talk-show circus escaped his scrutiny. Despite that
glaring hole right around the Fox affiliates, The Narcissinator still
set records:
The interviews went off as expected. Obama kept his “I” on
the nation’s problems. He mustered 387 personal mentions in just 82
minutes of air time. Forget the economy, health care, racism or
whatever. Every 13 seconds, Obama was talking about … Obama.
If a first-person pronoun falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, would it make a difference in the polls?
"I feel pretty, Oh, so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and bright!"
Tonight at sundown Yom Kippur begins. It is the holiest day of the year for Jews.
To my Jewish readers, may you be blessed with an easy fast.
I was heartened to find out that my beloved Rabbi, who serves a predominately liberal congregation, will be speaking about supporting Israel. I am sure there will be many at services troubled that the sermon will not cover health care reform but I am relieved and delighted and hopeful.
Well, folks, looks like the Obama peeps are really, really desperate! They want their uninformed, kool-aid drinkers to make vidoes about Obamacare! I wish I could watch all of the submissions. You just know it's going to be a veritable smorgasbord of stupidity! Can you even imagine is Bush had sent something like this out?
--
In many ways, the fight for health insurance reform comes down to a
battle over information. The more people know about how broken the
system is and the President's plan to fix it, the more they want
change. But there are an awful lot of lies to cut through, and a whole
lot of truth to get out.
So today, we're proud to announce a powerful new way for you to help: Organizing for America's Health Reform Video Challenge.
This is your chance -- you ingenious, insightful, funny people out
there -- to make a 30-second ad telling the story about why the status
quo has got to go, or explaining how the Obama plan will ensure we get
the secure, quality care we need without breaking the budget. (If Obama can't do this, how does he expect his minions to?)
The top submissions will be voted on by the public and a panel of experts, with the winning ad aired on national television.
This is your opportunity to add your voice and creativity to the
debate, get some great exposure for your work, and make a huge
difference.
No experience is needed -- if you have an idea, we want you to give it a shot.
And if you know someone who is especially handy with a camera, please
forward this note along right away. Just make sure you submit your ad
by October 18th.
Your video could be as simple as you talking straight into the camera,
as complex as a full-blown production with a script and special
effects, or anything in between.
We're looking for serious videos: You can tell your personal story
about how the broken health insurance system has affected you. You can
illustrate the big picture about what's wrong now and how the
President's plan will help with animations, charts, and facts.
We're looking for funny videos: You can parody those trying to scare us
into inaction (between the lying pundits and the insurance company spin
doctors, they've given us some good stuff to work with).
And we're looking for new ideas we never would have thought of but we know will blow us all away.
We know that compelling videos can touch people in a way that words
alone simply cannot. The messages that regular people put together will
make a bigger difference than any false smears or slick ads the other
side can dream up. And who knows -- your creative, powerful, or
touching video could help tip the balance in favor of health reform.
When Bush was in office we mocked France, with Obama in office, they mock us. Note: As Maura Flynn points out, no US newspapers are covering Sarko's blasphemy against Dear Leader.....
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good
has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More
uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN
member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend
viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a
world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
Here is the transcript of Prime Minister's speech to the UN.
This, my friends, is the speech Obama should have delivered. This is the speech of a true leader. Bravo!
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the
Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in
their ancestral homeland.
I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II
and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the
recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that
central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.
Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing
his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again
claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee.
There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials
met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed
minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German
governments.
Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise
instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is
this a lie?
A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original
construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.
Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself.
Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million
Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?
This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration
camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the
Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded
on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?
One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every
Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents,
her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles
and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie? Yesterday,
the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those
who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I
commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to
your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on
behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere:
Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a
man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and
pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery
of the charter of the United Nations!
Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime
threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and
again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up
engulfing many others.
This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that
burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for
centuries.
In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with
a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of
victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews
and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different
offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return
humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward
regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed
to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.
The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against
faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization
against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who
sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the
9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century.
The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of
communications should surely win the day.
Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the
future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of
progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from
the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone
to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal
computer to the internet.
What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.
We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We
will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil
fuels and clean up the planet.
I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these
advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine
and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These
innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined
promise.
But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly
weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like
the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom
will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been
exacted from mankind.
That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the
marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to
prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?
Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes
its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?
Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in
broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the
streets choking in their own blood?
Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?
Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist
regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the
peace of the entire world?
The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People
of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who
have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand
by their side?
Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.
Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons,
some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent
UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they
targeted.
For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles,
mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as
these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single
UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.
We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from
every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over
8,000 Israelis.
We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base
fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to
Gaza became a nightmare.
You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was
finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?
Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets
being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the
Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.
During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds
of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently.
Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on
civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct
surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles
from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting
explosives in ambulances.
Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging
Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped
countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and
called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.
Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove
the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such
a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights
Council decide to condemn? Israel.
A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally
hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have
dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a
perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!
Delegates of the United Nations, Will you accept this farce?
Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days,
when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the
law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when
an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.
If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message
to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from
densely populated areas, you will win immunity.
And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to
peace. Here's why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile
attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel
would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of
self-defense.
What legitimacy? What self-defense?
The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to
back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country -
of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense.
What a travesty!
Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and
unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand
with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?
We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later.
Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must
know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.
Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace. Any time an
Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made
peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by
King Hussein.
And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the
people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a
defensible peace, a permanent peace.
In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a
Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution.
The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what
they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.
Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the
Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the
nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign
conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.
Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical
vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They
shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish
prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city -
in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem. We are not
strangers to this land. It is our homeland.
As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the
Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to
live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace,
prosperity and dignity.
But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the
powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could
endanger Israel.
That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively
demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed
terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few
kilometers from Tel Aviv.
We want peace.
I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back
the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace,
eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.
The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the
"confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of
civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.
Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the
unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack
of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes,
until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.
In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years
ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril,
secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for
generations to come.
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor in New York
Published: 11:49PM BST 23 Sep 2009
It
was disclosed earlier this week that Mr Brown would not hold bilateral
talks with Mr Obama, despite the President hosting individual meetings
with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia.Photo: GETTY IMAGES
British officials made five attempts to secure official talks with the US
President and even agreed to a policy change in an attempt to land a joint
appearance between the two leaders, said diplomatic sources.
But the White House rebuffed the offers and Mr Brown, who had hoped to
increase his popularity by appearing on his own with Mr Obama, had to settle
instead for a snatched conversation with the President in a New York kitchen.
The setbacks led to fears that relations between Downing Street and the White
House were at their lowest point since John Major's frosty dealings with
Bill Clinton.
It was disclosed earlier this week that Mr Brown would not hold bilateral
talks with Mr Obama, despite the President hosting individual meetings with
the leaders of Japan, China and Russia. Downing Street claimed that this was
not unusual.
However, a British diplomat told The Daily Telegraph that the White
House's refusal to meet Mr Brown had been a serious embarrassment for the
Prime Minister.
(what on Earth did Brown think would happen? Gordon is like the fat, ugly girl in high school who sleeps with the popular guy. That guy will NEVER acknowledge the girl in public after he's used her. Obama used Brown and now that he's done, Gordon doesn't even exist.)
The Saudis twice said no to his request for normalization gestures towards Israel (at Barack Obama's meeting with King Abdullah
in Saudi Arabia, and in Washington at meetings with Hillary Clinton).
Who says no to the American president twice? What must they think of
Obama in the desert kingdom?
The North Koreans said no to repeated attempts at talks, by
test-launching long-range missiles in April; Russia and China keep on
saying no to tougher sanctions on Iran; the Iranians keep saying no to
offers of talks by saying they're willing to talk about everything
except a halt to uranium enrichment; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
is saying no by refusing to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu until Israel
freezes all settlement construction; the Israelis said no by refusing
to agree to a settlement freeze, or even a settlement moratorium until
and unless the Arabs ante up their normalization gestures. Which brings
us back to the original Saudi no.
The only thing Obama did manage to get Bibi and Abbas to say yes to is a photo-op at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in NY. Mazel tov.
So why is everyone saying no to Obama?
It's the economy, stupid.
Everyone
has worked it out by now: The great secret is out. America's economy
has made Obama a weak president, and he will likely remain weak
throughout his first term. He has about two years to pull the American
economy out of its free-fall before he begins his reelection campaign.
If he can do it, and that's a big if, chances are good that he'll get
reelected, and in his second term he can try to pull some geopolitical
strings. But for the next three years, expect to see a world that says
no to Obama. No meaningful and dramatic diplomatic initiative can come
out of the White House in the next three years, as long as Obama
remains weak.
And that's a real pity, because there are some serious and imminent issues that need to be addressed.
Pyongyang is getting more bellicose and not being punished. The
North Koreans have violated every single international agreement and
norm, and nothing tangible has happened to them.
In Iran, this registers. "Look at how bad they're being," the
mullahs say, "and they're getting away with it." Even so, the Iranian
government is weak internally and internationally following its
election fiasco.
The US and EU could tighten sanctions against Iran without the
support of Russia and China, but they would need political will for
that. Sanctions, such as a ban on refined oil imports, barring Iranian
flights to America and Europe etc., could have a serious impact on Iran
and weaken the regime further. The US and EU can act now against Iran
like the US and UK did against Libya several years ago when they
persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions. Back then, though,
the US was much stronger. Now, the American economy, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and North Korea have all weakened the US.
In retaliation for increased, unilateral sanctions, Iran could
turn up the heat on US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which will stymie Obama's plan to win and withdraw. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, Iran has the US president by the kishkes, in a manner of
speaking. And so do the Taliban.
So, when a president with so many problems comes asking for a favor, everyone finds it easier to just say no.
(February 17, 2009)Tiger Woods family, (L-R) Sam, Elin, Tiger,
Charlie Woods and their dogs Yogi (L) and Taz
on a tip from my dear friend, Griff
AS
IF YOU NEED ANOTHER REASON TO ADMIRE "AMERICA'S" TIGER WOODS.
Tiger
Woods is a Highly Educated Individual who was properly raised and taught
to be his own man by an educated Mother and Father.
You can
readily see that Tiger Woods listened to his parents and remains very
proud of them both.
Many
citizens are not aware of the following, which is the reason for
me sending this e-mail to my friends and I would appreciate you sending
it on to your friends.
A COPY OF HIS SPEECH AT THE 2009 INAUGURATION
Tiger
Woods received a special invitation to speak at the Obama
inauguration. His
inviters were stunned, shocked when he did not deliver the message they
expected. A brief
read and you will understand why the media swept Woods' remarks under
the rug with no further ado and why the liberal left of our American
society was again displeased with Tiger. His
speech was entitled;
"You'll
Never Walk Alone"
[text is
word-for-word as posted on Tiger's web site]
"I
grew up in a military family - and my role models in life were my Mom
and Dad, Lt. Colonel Earl Woods.
My dad
was a Special Forces operator and many nights friends would visit our
home.
They
represented every branch of the service, and every rank.
In my
Dad, and in those guests, I saw first hand the dedication and
commitment of those who serve.
They come
from every walk of life; from every part of our country.
Time and
again, across generations, they have defended our safety in the dark of
night and far from home.
Each day
-- and particularly on this historic day --we honor
the men and women in uniform who serve our country and protect our
freedom.
They
travel to the dangerous corners of the world, and we must remember that
for every person who is in uniform, there are families who wait for
them to come home safely.
I am
honored that the military is such an important part, not just of my
personal life, but of my professional one as well.
The golf
tournament we do each year here in Washington is a testament to those
unsung heroes.
I am the
son of a man who dedicated his life to his country, family and the
military, and I am a better person for it.
In the
summer of 1864, Abraham Lincoln, the man at whose memorial we stand,
spoke to the 164th Ohio Regiment and said 'I am greatly obliged to you,
and to all who have come forward at the call of their country.'
Just as
they have stood tall for our country - we must always stand by and
support the men and women in uniform and their families..
Thank
you, and it is now my pleasure to introduce the US Naval Glee Club
..."
====
Tiger
Woods' 2-minute, 5-second tribute to the our nation's military was
delivered January 18th at the Inaugural Celebration in Washington,
DC.He had
been subjected to intense pressure to attend and offer remarks. Especially
so by liberals who have demeaned and criticized him for a decade for
not joining their ranks.
Yet, at
the Lincoln Memorial, instead of paying homage to Barack Bbama, Tiger
paid tribute to our soldiers.Not once
did Tiger mention Obama, the inauguration or the new administration.
Understanding
that expressing his love for America and his appreciation for our
military men and women would disappoint the national news media and the
liberal left, he did what he thought was best for the people of
our country. But
Tiger, being is his own man, just as his father taught him to
be his own man.Somewhere
over that cold, gray Washington sky, Colonel Earl Woods was smiling
down on his beloved son.
And there
will be one more crying hug waiting for Tiger when the time comes he
passes through heaven's gates into God's arms.
******
What's
that you say? You did
not previously know what Tiger said?
You did
not see a video clip of him speaking on any national television
network?
You did
not see a photo of Tiger at the Lincoln Memorial offering his remarks
honoring our military.
You did
not read a story in the NY Times?
His
appearance at the Inaugural Celebration had been widely hailed and
promoted in advance by the Obama inaugural organizers ... yet January
18 when he came and spoke ... afterwards, a black out.
Blackie-O is at it again. Sporting an Angela Davis chic-cum-JC Penney gun belt, Michelle Ma Belle has parachuted onto the PR scene in order to boost the Democrats' efforts in their losing war on the American healthcare system.
But
Flo Jo Nightingale is going to be rudely awakened while she is playing
medic to the bloodied troops; though she might fashion herself as
savior to The Saviour, she might as well be called "The Angel of Death
Panels."
First lady Michelle Obama
sought support for the administration’s health-care plans from family
advocacy groups and health-care professionals, saying the treatment of
women under the current system is “unacceptable.” [..]
Michelle
Obama said women are being “crushed by the current structure of our
health care” because they often are responsible for taking care of
family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.(I guess now that Obama has ensured so many men will be unemployed, they should arrange the follow-up appointments? Wait, I thought they couldn't get appointments because so many can't get care. I'm so confused!)
So
was Rush Limbaugh a sexist when he suggested that the left's welfare
state panders to the maternal instincts of women across the nation? Or
is the left sexist for doing it?
WASHINGTON -- Republicans are rejecting comparisons made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came near to tears Thursday
when she compared anti-government rhetoric over President Obama's health care proposals to
the debate over gay rights in 1970s San Francisco.
"I
have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I
saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco," Pelosi told
reporters, her voice catching in her throat at her weekly press briefing.
Without
making an eponymous comparison, Pelosi was referring to the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and city
Supervisor Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist immortalized in a recent
movie starring Sean Penn. Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted in the case. He
committed suicide in 1985.
At the time, gay
rights activists and others said the assassinations were the result of the loud and sometimes violent debate over gay
rights. Pelosi was chairwoman of the Democratic Party for northern California and friendly with Milk and Moscone.
Pelosi
said Thursday that while she values free speech, a careful line must be tread between the First Amendment Right and regard
for public safety.
"Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe," she added. "But I
also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause."
Pelosi's
response came to a question about whether she is concerned that the
political debate and anti-government rhetoric could mimic the era of
1993-1994, when then-President Bill Clinton offered a health care
option and as the reporter noted, "Around that time, we also saw acts
of domestic violence, domestic terrorism."
"I wish that we
would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that
are made," Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message "are not
as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."
As my fave blogger, Reasonsjester, pointed out in a recent comment, this is likely a tactic to justify unprovoked attacks on the right. The relentless propaganda campaign, painting those who oppose the new administration's policies, as violent or crazed or extreme and even, terrorists will allow them to, at the very least marginalize us and at worst, imprison us. I think for our part, we best stay focused and civilized. We are up against a tsunami of propaganda by the media and the liberal politicians who realize they are on the losing side of the arguments and are getting desperate. BTW, if we are so unhinged, why was the September 12 protest so civilized not a single arrest was made?
Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not
vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for
president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a
Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth
living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .
I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no
smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph
in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to
deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and
survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of
America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know
about Barack Obama as a politician.I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that
Obama asserts has come to America .
Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that
you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for
over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has
no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your
rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine
depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12
million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them
(that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were
joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him
because he doesn't look like them.
I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of
people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his
administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of
justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward
in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking
in my interest.. I would have to accept the premise of a man that
economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who
arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of
government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of
living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and
the generators of wealth.
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the
scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally,
I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard
politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and
intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one,
including, and, especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption
that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they
want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything
remotely equivalent to capitalism.
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected
a Black man to the office of the president of the United States ,
the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane
Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern
must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last
gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists
in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a
Black person.
So, toast yourselves: 60s counter-culture radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s
bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout
your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and
Berkeley. You have elected, not an individual who is qualified to be
president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt,
promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up
the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also
foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left -
for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.
Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois
State University and continuing Visiting
Scholar at StanfordUniversity 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the
American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical
Association.
She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a
Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education.
In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were
featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas."
The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his
book, A World of Ideas.
Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A
Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how
race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy
issues.
She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual
rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories
of social and cultural marginality.
Recently, she has published articles on the significance of
multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of
victimization and the social and political impact of political
correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was
awarded tenure.
Anne
Wortham [send her mail] is
an individualist liberal who happens to be black and American.
Next week the Obama Administration will allow Ahmadinejad, Castro,
Chavez, Gaddafi and several other international thugs into New York
City to speak in front of the United Nations General Assembly. However,
one country's president will not be allowed into the United States.
President Roberto Micheletti from Honduras will not be allowed to enter into America. The Obama Administration revoked his visa back in July.
For
the first time in our nation's history, the Obama administration is
siding with Marxist leaders Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Raul Castro and
Evo Morales in condemning our democratic ally Honduras.
It's
obvious to me the superintendent is a member of the KKK, maybe even
it's Imperial Wizard (with an outside chance he's Hitler's illegitimate
child)*....
VALDOSTA — The Rev. Floyd Rose called for Valdosta City School Superintendent Dr. Bill Cason’s resignation Monday night.
During the regular Board of Education meeting Rose, president of the
Valdosta/Lowndes County Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, spoke to the board about the superintendent’s decision not
to air President Barack Obama’s speech on education during school hours.
Rose and hundreds of others converged on the BOE office
demanding answers for why the speech was not shown in a school system
that is predominately black.
On the day the speech was scheduled to air, Rose and others met with
Cason and discussed why the speech would not be shown. Cason, Rose
said, had plenty of time between the meeting and the speech to call the
schools and tell them to allow the children to watch the speech.
Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born American psychiatrist who was named as one of TIME Magazine’s
most influential people in 2006. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks,
she has participated in many political discussions through various
media outlets, including Al Jazeera and CNN. She became famous as the
first Arab Muslim woman on Al Jazeera who demanded to be heard. You've got to watch the whole thing, she rocks!
Today's Tea Party protest in DC today was an extraordinary gathering of more than one million; people of all colors, backgrounds, shapes and sizes! I know of college professors and wealthy entrepreneurs who marched, (not to mention the loveliest pianogirl in the world) and anyone watching CNN or PMSNBC could see rednecks were there, too! I wasn't there but I'm told me it was a singularly exhilarating experience. It is a primal thing to protest for freedom. What could be more human or more American? There were lots of great protest signs but my favorite would have to be; Stalin called, He wants his policies back! How great is that? Oh, and the star of the show has to be Radio Host Mason Weaver who gave a fab speech and opened with, "I thought you'd like to hear a black man speak to you without using a teleprompter!" OUCH! Watch the whole speech, it's terrific.
So, I get these e-mails from Obama's perpetual campaign and as I look at the listings of their 'meetings' I notice that for at least one of these events, their 'speaker/representative' is A COLUMNIST FOR THE LA TIMES! WTF? So now, they aren't even trying to pretend the media is unbiased. WOW! Check it out, friends, and if you can make it to one of these meeting, make a sign and get out there.
Education on what is actually being proposed, with
opportunity to let representatives know the items on which
there is consensus.
Speaker, Mike Hiltzik, columnist for the LA Times and a representative from the CA Medical Association,...
The Democratic club: Foothill Community Democrats next
meeting is September 24th. We have speakers lined up to
discuss health care insurance reform. We will also...
Now, we have inscribed a new memory alongside those others. It’s a
memory of tragedy and shock, of loss and mourning. But not only of loss
and mourning. It’s also a memory of bravery and self-sacrifice, and the
love that lays down its life for a friend–even a friend whose name it
never knew.
---President George W. Bush
The
true horror of 911 has been kept hidden from the American people. I am
sick of it. Sick of covering up for an enemy whose goal is to conquer
this nation and render us all slaves.
Choosing their death. And eight years later we are apologizing? Vid hat tip Bare Naked Islam
"The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort
to erase the meaning of the 9/11 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and
convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry,"
Matthew Vadum, senior editor of the Capital Research Center wrote in a recent
article posted on The American Spectator's Web site. "They think it needs to be
taken back from the right."
Baucus Plan Allows for Fines Up to $3,800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance
The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top
Senate negotiator.
Sen.
Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is
leading talks among the "Gang of Six" senators to hammer out a
bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a
"framework" and not a "final product."
But the detailed proposal
comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a
deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a
bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.
The
framework, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News, includes what
amounts to a no-choice option. It would make health insurance
mandatory, like auto insurance.
The plan would provide
tax credits to help small employers and help cover the cost for
households making up to three times the federal poverty level. That's
about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.
Those who still don't sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and
$1,500 for families -- for those making up to three times the poverty level.
For those who make more than that,
the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.
There would be
a few exemptions, including for Native Americans and for those making incomes below the federal poverty level. (And let's not forget the illegal aliens. You think they will have to pay a fine? Living in So Cal, my car was hit by an illegal (and me 8 months pregnant at the time) who didn't have a license or insurance. Can't get blood from a turnip and the police didn't make it to the scene so guess who paid for the damage to my car while the illegal went on his merry way? Ah yes, the wisdom from the left...)
Surprise! Obama knew in advance about the release of Lockerbie
bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who murdered 169 Americans, into the
welcoming arms of terrorist dictator Moammar Qadhafi. Eric Holder, who
has been involved in the release of terrorists before, talked with his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill about letting al-Megrahi go back in June.
The Scottish government told FOX News Tuesday that the U.S.
government refuses to allow them to release details of any
communication between Scotland and the U.S. over al-Megrahi's release.
By the way, Obama's close friend and spiritual mentor for 20 years,
Jeremiah Wright, once traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to kiss Qadhafi's ring.
The trip was in violation of a travel ban imposed by President Reagan
due to Libya's terrorist activities, and was clearly intended to flaunt
their allegiance with America's enemies. At the meeting, Farrakhan
agreed to help Qadhafi fight America from the inside. He and his friends are doing a bang-up job of it.
The Brits may have released al-Megrahi as part of an oil deal,
but our moonbat rulers don't believe in blood for oil. They just
believe in blood — American blood, spilled by their terrorist allies.
If the suppressed documents ever come to light, they won't
show that Comrade Obama tried very hard to prevent the release of a
killer regarded by Qadhafi as a hero. Why would he? They are on the same side.
A sensation of rushing air and frantically grasping for support are two symptoms of "falling", which is caused by "gravity".
According to the National Safety Council,
you have a 1 in 15,085 chance of dying from a pandemic that the CDC
describes as "gravity". Your lifetime odds of dying from gravity are 1
in 194. In 2005 alone, this gravity killed nearly 20,000 Americans
through a condition known as "falling". Gravity is spread by objects
with mass being attracted to one another. In fact, odds are that
gravity is effecting you and your children right now.
The CDC
has released a statement saying that H1N1 is no longer of primary
concern, as it has only killed 556 unfortunate individuals in the
United States. But in 2005, gravity killed 1,690 people though falling
down stairs. The CDC has said that none of the major pharmaceutical
companies worldwide possess or plan to produce a vaccination against
gravity, or falling. This despite the fact that gravity killed over
5,000 Americans through "falls on the same level", or falling on a flat
surface. Furthermore, over 9,000 Americans died in falls of unknown
origin or description. Though gravity tends to kill the very young and
very old, it also preys on the occasional young and healthy person. No
one is completely safe, though some groups are at greater risk than
others.
The United States Mission to the United Nations
has a new look online. If you check out the redesigned site, you see
it’s decked out in United Nations blue, with the U.N. logo prominently
displayed.
Fine, the U.N. logo is there. But where is the
United States flag? And where did the red, white, and blue that used to
introduce the site go?
If you compare the new U.S. Mission
site to the Mission sites of other permanent member nations, you’ll see
that America takes a backseat to not just the United Nations, but
nationalism as compared to:
France:
Russia:
The United Kingdom:
China:
For an idea of what the U.N. Mission site used to look like, check this out:
But that overbearing U.N. logo is new. A waving U.S. flag used to be in its place.
You also won’t find archived statements from
past U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations. It’s all Susan Rice, all
the time. That means the U.S. Mission site is currently no longer
hosting historic documents concerning our ongoing operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
In Barack Obama’s America, we don’t just apologize for the past, we erase it?
I
assume with a little uproar, the U.S. flag will, at least, make a
return. If nothing else, members of the European Union, who have
already made strides in surrendering their sovereignty, should do the
job. Currently, their Mission websites put ours to shame.
There is great discomfort these days among those who backed Barack
Obama’s “new” approach to the Middle East when he took office 10 months
ago. That shouldn’t surprise us. Everything about the president’s
shotgun approach to the region, his desire to overhaul all policies
from the George W. Bush years simultaneously, without a cohesive
strategy binding his actions together, was always going to let the
believers down.
As the president’s accelerated pullout from Iraq begins to look
increasingly ill-thought-out, as his engagement of Iran and Syria
falters, as Arab-Israeli peace looks more elusive than ever, and as
Americans express growing doubts about the war in Afghanistan, Obama is
discovering that personal charisma is not enough to alter the realities
of a Middle East that has whittled down better men than he.
For the US president, the clearest articulation of his approach to the
region was his speech in Cairo last June. However, there was always
more mood to that address than substance. The president put out a
wish-list of American objectives, padded with reassurances and
self-criticism, but there was no solid core to what he said – a
discernible sense of the values and overriding political ambitions the
United States was building toward. As Obama himself admitted, no single
speech could answer all the complex questions the Middle East has
tossed up. However, American behavior on the ground has made things no
easier to understand, which is why regional uncertainties are turning
to bite the administration in the leg.
For example, what is the policy in Iraq? In recent weeks, following the
American military withdrawal from Iraqi cities, the upsurge in
devastating suicide attacks has threatened to reverse years of efforts
by Washington to stabilize the country. Ultimately, Obama’s priority
can be summed up in one word, reflecting his psychological hesitation
to commit to an enterprise that he associates, in a dangerously
personalized way, with his predecessor. That word is “withdrawal,” and
Obama described his Iraqi policy this way in Cairo: “Today, America has
a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to
leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we
pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s
sovereignty is its own.”
Those were noble thoughts, but how do they square with other American
concerns, such as the containment of Iran, the avoidance of sectarian
conflict that might engulf the region, the stability of oil supplies,
and much else? Obama feels that an America forever signaling its desire
to go home will make things better by making America more likable.
That’s not how the Middle East works. Politics abhor a vacuum, and as
everyone sees how eager the US is to leave, the more they will try to
fill the ensuing vacuum to their advantage, and the more intransigent
they will be when Washington seeks political solutions to prepare its
getaway. That explains the upsurge of bombings in Iraq lately, and it
explains why the Taliban feel no need to surrender anything in
Afghanistan.
Engagement of Iran and Syria has also come up short, though a
breakthrough remains possible. However, there was always something
counter-intuitive in lowering the pressure on Iran in the hope that
this would generate progress in finding a solution to its nuclear
program. Engagement is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end
among countless others. Where the Obama administration erred was in not
seeing how dialogue would buy Iran more time to advance its nuclear
projects, precisely what the Iranians wanted, while breaking the
momentum of international efforts to force Tehran to concede something
– for example temporary suspension of uranium enrichment. For Obama to
rebuild such momentum today seems virtually impossible, when the US
itself has made it abundantly clear that it believes war is a bad idea.
Attacking Iran is indeed a bad idea, but in the poker game he has been
playing with Tehran, Obama didn’t need to show all of his cards. He’s
virtually folded over Iraq, is stumbling in Afghanistan, and does not
occupy himself very much with Lebanon, all places where the Iranians
can and are hurting the Americans. By placing most of his chips on
engagement, the president has failed to develop a more multifaceted
strategy while relinquishing other forms of coercion that could have
been effective in Washington’s bargaining with the Islamic Republic.
On Syria, the US has been more steadfast, particularly in trying to
deny Damascus the means to reimpose its will in Lebanon. However, the
Assad regime has shown no signs of breaking away from Iran, a major US
incentive in re-engaging with the Syrians, even as it has facilitated
suicide attacks in Iraq and encouraged Hamas’ intransigence in
inter-Palestinian negotiations in Cairo. The Obama administration can,
of course, take the passive view that Syria is entitled to destabilize
its neighbors in order to enhance its leverage; or it can behave like a
superpower and make the undermining of vital US interests very costly
for Bashar Assad. But it certainly cannot defend its vital interests by
adopting a passive approach.
With respect to the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, Obama has taken
Israel on over its settlements. It was about time, since the Bush
administration’s permissiveness on settlement construction neutralized
its own “road map”. However, there is more to Palestinian-Israeli peace
than settlements. Obama is exerting considerable political capital to
confront Israel, but it may be capital wasted at a moment when Hamas
can still veto any breakthrough from the Palestinian side. In other
words, Washington is working on a narrow front whereas its failure to
weaken Hamas may render the whole enterprise meaningless.
But how can the US weaken Hamas when improving relations with the
movement’s main regional sponsors, Iran and Syria, remains a
centerpiece of American efforts?
Barack Obama’s devotees may imagine that because he spent a few years
abroad as a boy, he is well equipped to understand our complicated
world. Perhaps he is, but his approach to the greater Middle East,
short of the soaring rhetoric, has been artless and arrogant. The
president is being tied up every which way by his foes, who can plainly
see that the Obama vision is an unsystematic one. If ever the US has
been close to achieving potentially terminal self-marginalization in
the region, it is now.
Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in
Lebanon and a contributing editor at Reason magazine in the United
States.
Recent Comments