Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

You want to talk about a hard punch right in the gut of American national security.

Allow me to sum this up for you: Obama is telling the Russians, “I assure you that I’m going to cave in to you like the pandering weakling that I am.  But I can’t do it yet.  If I sacrifice American security before the election, the American people will rightly turn on me and I’ll be out – and you’ll have a strong leader to deal with who will confront you as an obvious opponent rather than the Neville Chamberlain-style Appeaser-in-Chief that you have in me.  If you give me ‘space’ to get re-elected I promise you I’ll bow down before you the same way I’ve already bowed down so many times before.  I’ll even apologize to you for America’s ‘aggression’  if you want me to.  Heck, I just got through apologizing to the people who murdered American soldiers!  So you KNOW I’m good for it!”

Hot mike moment: Obama overheard telling Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense
By NBC News’ Shawna Thomas

SEOUL, South Korea — It was a comment not intended for public consumption, and another lesson for President Barack Obama on the importance of being careful about what you say around microphones, especially in an election year.

At the end of a 90-minute meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, journalists rushed in to hear remarks from the leaders about the content of their talks.

Journalists spied the two leaders leaning close together and talking in hushed tones.  According to those in the room, the conversation was difficult to hear but the videotape revealed Obama asking the Russian leader to wait until after the November election before pushing forward on the topic of a planned missile defense shield.

“Pool” videotape provided more information about the conversation between the two leaders:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

While most journalists didn’t catch the rest, one Russian reporter managed to record the context with his equipment.

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

The planned anti-ballistic shield system has been one of many sore spots between the two world powers in the last few years.

Obama says US can reduce nuclear stockpile

Moscow says it fears the system would weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent. It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system.

That’s actually NOT what Moscow wants.  Yes, it is their rhetorical posture to make them sound “reasonable,” but the reality is that Russia doesn’t just want some “contract.”

Moscow wants the United States to abandon this missile defense system altogether.  Moscow wants to throw a monkey wrench into the entire system that the United States says is necessary to protect America from the now very real prospect of a nutjob Iranian ballistic missile attack.

You need to understand what current American policy is.  And then you need to realize that Obama is signalling the Russians that he is going to abandon his own policy and undermine American security if Russia just gets off his back so he can get re-elected.  Because getting re-elected is all that Obama cares about.  And he’ll violate any trust no matter how sacred if it will purchase enough votes.

To frame it in terms of the title below, if Obama was going to “stick” to the missile shield as is official US policy as of just a few months ago (December 2011), he wouldn’t have anything to be afraid of.  Which is to say that Obama is already planning on appeasing Russia; he just needs “space” to betray America:

U.S. sticking to missile shield regardless of Moscow
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:37pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama Administration plans to complete an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect European allies against Iran ”whether Russia likes it or not,” the U.S. envoy to NATO said on Friday.

Moscow’s objections to the project, which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain, “won’t be the driving force in what we do,” Ivo Daalder, the ambassador, told reporters at a breakfast session.

The U.S. estimate of the Iranian ballistic missile threat has gone up, not down, over the two years since President Barack Obama opted for a new, four-phased deployment to protect the United States and NATO allies, Daalder said.

“It’s accelerating,” Daalder said of the U.S.-perceived threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles, “and becoming more severe than even we thought two years ago.”

“We’re deploying all four phases, in order to deal with that threat, whether Russia likes it or not,” he added. At the same time, he urged Moscow to cooperate in both to deal with Iran and to see for itself that, as he put it, the system’s capabilities pose its strategic deterrent force no threat.

If the perceived threat from Iran ebbs, “then maybe the system will be adapted to that lesser threat,” Daalder said.

[...]

Daalder said the sides remain at odds over, among other things, Russia’s demand for the legally binding pledge, before any cooperation, that its nuclear forces would not be targeted by the NATO elements.

“They have gotten themselves quite hung up on our unwillingness to put this in legally binding writing,” he said.

The administration was not convinced that such a pledge would be ratified by the U.S. Senate, he said, nor should Moscow be convinced that even if it were, “we wouldn’t necessarily at some point walk away from it,” as the George W. Bush administration did from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the only U.S.-Russia missile defense pact.

That withdrawal opened the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense shield that the U.S. government says is designed to protect the United States from countries like Iran and North Korea.

Daalder said that if the United States ever were placing interceptors to counter Russia’s nuclear missiles, “we wouldn’t deploy them in Europe. We would deploy them in the United States.”

The physics of missile defense intercepts make it “easier and better to approach an incoming missile from the opposite side than it is to try to chase it down.” he said. “That’s the way that it works.”

Russia knows full-well that we wouldn’t build a system designed to protect America from Russian missiles in Europe.  What Russia is trying to do is create difficulties that will make the missile shield politically impossible to build altogether.  The Russians also very much like the idea (which is why Russia has helped Iran develop its nuclear program to begin with) of America being vulnerable to Iran which very obviously gives Russia more influence and power over US policy.  At least unless we build a missile defense shield.

And ask yourself whether the threat from Iran has gone up or down given that Iran was just caught red-handed scrubbing evidence of a nuclear weapons program at its Parchin facility.

But Barack Obama is worried about the Iranian threat.  Obama isn’t worried about millions of Americans being murdered.  Obama is looking out for #1.  Obama is worried about his re-election and he will betray America if that’s what it takes to keep his job so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America from a constitutional republic into a Marxist banana republic. 

This has always been a nation that was determined to protect itself.  Barack Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” that.  He just needs “space” to do it so he can betray the American people with impunity.

America’s Enemies Saying, ‘Thanks For Giving Away BILLIONS In Hi-Tech Stealth Technology, Obama!’

Barack Obama said something a few days ago that festers like a nasty strain of brain cancer.

When mainstream media “reporters” handed Obama a softball question about Republicans calling him out for appeasement (in a question that failed to mention ANY of the reasons the Republicans had given for accusing Obama of appeasement in the first place), Obama said:

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” the president said during a news conference.

Now, it’s hard to find because our media is so in the pocket of liberalism, but the Republcians’ charge occurred during a Republican Jewish Conference forum.  They put a little content into their charge; for instance, pointing out that - due to Democrats in general and Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular blocking George Bush from confronting Iran over its growing nuclear program, and due to Obama’s weakness and appeasement since taking office – Iran is now six months away from a nuclear weapon and it is too late to stop them from getting one.  Which of course exalts Islam and directly threatens our ally Israel.

Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon SOON.  That day will be a dark and terrible one, because Iran will ultimately be able to a) shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing above $14 a gallon; b) launch an international wave of terrorism; or c) even attack Israel with IMPUNITY when they get nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.  Because if we attack a nuclear – and frankly crazy and truly evil - Iran, we get to kiss a few cities and tens of millions of Americans goodbye.

There were several other reasons the various GOP rivals rightly accused Obama of appeasement.  But let’s just ask ourselves: if those biased leftist hyper-partisan psuedo-journalists had confronted Obama with the disgrace of Iran’s nuclear program in the context of their question about “appeasement,” wouldn’t that have made it just a little bit harder for a biased leftist hyper-partisan pseudo-president to give us such a smash-that-lob response???

In any event, Obama is a great, strong, powerful leader and NOT a timid appeaser because he got Osama bin Laden – and just don’t you mind the rest of the foreign policy disasters he’s presided over.  That’s the Obama line.

Let’s forget about your apology tour (see also here) when you went around the rest of the world damning America.  Let’s forget about how you repeatedly insisted on a timetable for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that would make any victory possible.  Let’s forget how you abandoned commitments made to Czechoslovakia and Poland to needlessly appease Russia.  Let’s forget that even Europe has recognized your spinelessness.  Let’s forget how you refused to denounce Iran even as that country was massacring its own people for demonstrating for freedom.  Let’s forget that you are demanding that the U.S. pull out its troops from Iraq after we fought so hard for it to the shock and disgust of our generals.  Let’s forget the many times you have undermined Israel, such as when you demanded Israel return to indefensible 1967 borders after America promised Israel it would NEVER do such a thing.  Let’s forget how you undermined valuable ally Egypt under Mubarak and proceeded to give us a country instead that will be run by terrorists and based on Shariah law.  Let’s forget that Iran initiated an act of war against the United States – and you spinelessly did NOTHING about it.  Let’s forget that you actually are DEMANDING that the defense budget be gutted $600 billion more than the $450 you already gutted it.

Let’s forget that, mainstream media, so we can lob Obama a softball question devoid of any context at all – and allow Obama to say something like, oh, “Ask Osama bin Laden if I’m an appeaser.”

So let’s consider Obama’s answer: does Obama being the brave, brave Sir Robin who happened to be the carbon-based lifeform inhabiting the Oval Office at the time we got Osama bin Laden make up for all of the above appeasement???

Well, first consider the FACT that the waterboarding Obama opposed, demonized and in fact actually tried to criminalize-after-the-fact was ESSENTIAL to finding out where Obama was (see also here).  If Obama had got his way, and Bush had not waterboarded terrorist suspects, we can toss out the only link we had to Obama (courier) and we can toss out the city where he was hiding (Abbottabad):

Oops.  Did I forget to mention that Obama has actually had many more acts of appeasement than what I had above?  Because not only did he denounce the very waterboarding that got us Osama bin Laden, but he also denounced the Gitmo where we got that information.

So why does Obama get all the credit for getting Obama and Bush none?

Please refer to my previous statements regarding the level of bias in American pesudo-journalism.

But then there’s also “the decision” to get Osama bin Laden.  Wasn’t that like really brave?

Well, I’m going to the dentist this week to get some really painful work done.  I’m just as brave as Obama was to get in my car and show up at that dentist office.

Imagine if Obama had REFUSED to get Osama bin Laden (after making a campaign promise that he would do so if he knew where bin Laden was hiding).  What do you think are the odds that that information would never get out?  What are the odds that no so much as one single member of the armed forces or the intelligence community would be outraged by such an act of cowardice and not leak the fact that Obama refused to get the world’s number one terrorist in the world?  And what are the odds that Obama would have been re-elected with Republicans running that ad again and again and again like Bush Sr.’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” line???

It wasn’t “brave” for Obama to approve that mission; it was an act of self-political-survival.

And that mission to get Osama bin Laden had some huge consequences that for some strange reason the media has refused to lay at the door of the guy they gave all the credit for getting him to. 

If Obama deserves the credit, does he not also deserve the blame?

For one thing, U.S. relations with vital partner in the war on terror Pakistan are at an all-time-low because of the thing that Obama claims so much credit for having done.

Imagine if Mexico launched a commando raid into the heart of the United States to kill someone their government was after.  Or imagine if Canada did that to us.  How would we respond to the fact that soldiers with guns flew into our country without our knowledge or consent to start shooting people?

Combine that with the fact that Obama “air raided villages and murdered innocent Pakistani soldiers” – to the tune of 24 dead Pakistani soldiers killed in their own country by Obama - and our relations with Pakistan couldn’t get much lower if we started firing nuclear missiles at each other.

Do you remember when Obama falsely and in fact demonically attacked Bush for bringing down the U.S. image to the rest of the world.  Now the world hates us more than it ever did under Bush.  Even the ARAB WORLD hates us more, because they at least had some respect for Bush.  Versus Obama who is just a simpering – and yes, appeasing – scrawny-necked dumbo-eared little weasel.

But hey, I’m not a “journalist” or a “reporter,” so I can bring facts like that up, can’t I???

There was another casuality to Obama’s grand mission that everyone gave him total credit for: we gave away BILLIONS in stealth technology to our enemies in China and Russia.

Remember that helicopter tail section Obama left behind in Pakistan?

Pakistan Shares US Stealth Technology With China: Did That Bring Down The Chinook With SEALs?
Posted by Jason Bradley Aug 15th 2011 at 9:10 am

Several of us at Big Peace have reported in the past about the noticeable warming relationship between China and Pakistan. This has concerned the US because of the amount of cooperation and assistance – worth billions of dollars — given to Pakistan. It was eventually decided that that we would have to accept Pakistan’s warts if we were to have a regional partner in the War on Terror. It was an uneasy concession from the start and hard pill to swallow. In fact, that pill hasn’t fully worked its way down.

Just recently there were immediate questions over the successful downing of Chinook that did more damage to US forces in an instant in what otherwise could not be accomplished by the Taliban in over ten years of war. Those questions were directed to the highest reaches of the Pakistan government and its intelligence arm, the ISI.

Now comes in what appears to be an open betrayal by our so-called mission partners.

The US employed new stealth technology in the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Special Forces used a previously unknown capability, and so far as we know, is unduplicated by any other country, when they swooped down on Osama’s compound in stealth-modified Blackhawk helicopters. One of those helicopters had a mechanical malfunction and crashed on site as a result. Despite urgent requests by the CIA and the US government, Pakistan allowed China to view the new machine.

“The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” the paper quoted a person “in intelligence circles” as saying.

Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed chopper as well as take samples of its special “skin” that allowed the American raid to evade Pakistani radar, Reuters reported.

No one from the Pakistani army was available for comment, but the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan’s top spy agency, denied the report. The paper said Pakistan’s top general, chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani, denied that China had been given access.

Do you know how much it cost to develop that technology that China can now easily reverse-engineer for pennies on the millions of dollars?

You don’t want to know.  Seriously.

Our enemies can not only reverse engineer our stealth technology and make their own stealth helicopters to use against U.S. interests, but it can also now devise better countermeasures against our stuff to leave us weaker in the future.

And Obama isn’t through on that score.  He just left behind a hi-tech radar-evading stealth drone for Iran to find.

Now, again, being a weak, appeasing COWARD Obama isn’t going in and GETTING his damned drone; he’s saying, “Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Ayatollah, can I have my drone back?”

And what did it cost us to develop that thing?  A bunch.  What’s it going to cost Iran – and its allies Russia and China to develop?  Nada.

But, hey.  That kind of thing gets in the way of the mainstream media narrative that anything that we don’t want to credit Obama for we will blame Bush for.

We’re back in the days of the Marxists and the Nazis (fellow socialist travellers) rising to power.  All it would have taken for the ugliest period in the history of the human race to have been averted was a little honest reporting by the medias of those countries.  But the media had become ideological pawns of totalitarian agendas.  It had become an actual ally of those agendas.

Deja vu all over again.

Obama To America’s Enemies: ‘I Will Veto Any Effort To Maintain U.S. National Security’

For the record, the Pentagon already had it’s budget slashed by $450 billion during a turbulent and violent time – and during a time when Obama has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. military intervene in several wars (Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and now likely Syria) as well as expand the U.S. military global presence (in Australia – to the outrage of China).

“Pentagon officials are pushing back against cutting any more beyond the $450 billion they’ve already been asked to make, but at half the federal government’s entire discretionary budget — and growing — the defense budget is an obvious place to keep cutting.”

Now Obama is demanding that the military be cut by another $600 billion on top of that $450 billion.  He wants to preside over the destruction of America’s military strength.  And he is succeeding in his failure.

One of the characteristics of “God damn America” is that we would have a president who is determined to gut our national security when we need it the most.

Which is precisely why Obama is trying to gut our military when we need it the most; he is the epitome and the embodiment of God damn America.

Here’s what OBAMA’S OWN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID ABOUT CUTTING OUR MILITARY BUDGET:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned of the possible damage to national security with a supercommittee failure. That warning is echoed by leaders of every service and by others.

They are worried because the same Budget Control Act that gives unprecedented power to the special panel of six Republicans and six Democrats also comes with what Panetta calls a “doomsday mechanism” in case a majority of committee members refuse to reach a deal.

The mechanism — sequestration — forces future defense budgets and some popular entitlement programs to take across-the-board cuts. For defense, the deepest cut would occur in 2013, followed by automatic cuts of up to $55 billion a year for eight more years. This would be on top of $465 billion in defense cuts already planned over the next decade.

Recently, Panetta laid out in new detail what will befall defense programs if “maximum” sequestration is triggered so defense cuts total almost $1 trillion over the decade.

“The impacts…would be devastating,” Panetta wrote. In fiscal 2013, assuming the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel accounts from automatic cuts, a 23-percent cut “would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program” of the Department of Defense, leaving “most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable — you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building.”

Many civilian workers would be furloughed, Panetta said.

“The situation does not get better” beyond 2013, he added, with cuts of up to $100 billion a year possible compared to the 2012 defense budget.

“Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history,” Panetta wrote.

Wartime funding for Afghanistan would not be directly impacted, the secretary explained, but war efforts would suffer.

“Contracting personnel would be cut, resulting in delays in the contracts and the contract oversight that support the war. Payroll personnel would be cut, resulting in late payments to wartime vendors, and legal and policy support would be disrupted,” Panetta advised.

That’s what Obama’s OWN Secretary of Defense says.

Here’s what our Traitor-in-Chief says to those who care about their country:

“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”

As we speak, the United States Navy is preparing to lay off 3,000 mid-level career sailors with ten years of experience who form the BACKBONE of our ability to protect our nation.

It won’t be long before Iran gets the nuclear bomb and the means to deliver that bomb. The day they do, they will be able to launch a wave of international terrorism and they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz. With impunity.

George Bush TRIED to keep America safe from the Iranian threat. But Democrats - and in particular Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton – did everything they could to successfully frustrate the safeguarding of America from its worst enemies:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

It’s not enough to say that they were completely wrong. They were DEAD wrong. They were TRAITOR wrong.

Meanwhile, on top of Iran moving full-speed ahead in developing nuclear weapons, Russia just threatened the United States with a clear act of war because they understand that Barack Hussein Obama is a feckless puke who is dismantling our ability to stand up and fight as quickly as he possibly can:

Medvedev threatens to target U.S. missile shield in Europe if no deal is reached
By Will Englund and William Wan, Updated: Wednesday, November 23, 6:02 AM

MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday that Russia will target the American missile defense system in Europe with its missiles if Moscow cannot reach an agreement with Washington and NATO on how the system will be built and operated.

Russia just threatened Obama with World War III unless Obama backs down like the pencil-necked little coward they know he is.

Even during the height of the Soviet Union’s power, Russia would never have DARED to say anything that threatening to Ronald Reagan.

But then again, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a weak, pathetic, gutless fool who despised the United States of America.

And the Russians knew that Ronald Wilson Reagan – unlike Barack Hussein Obama – would stand up for the United States in a strong, powerful way.

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry - who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all -

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” - at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of ”discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word ”Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers.  Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL ”polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title ”PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology^[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world^[4].

[...]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[...]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. ”fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[...]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[...]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  ”collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and ”collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

- We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

- We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

- We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

- We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

- The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

- The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

- We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

- We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine“ long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year - more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And - disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin - openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue- which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home - the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.

Let’s Contrast Obama’s Work Schedule With His Economic Team’s

I found this interesting.  We’ve heard the inside stories that Christina Romer is quitting over conflicts with Lawrence Summers and frustration at being left out of Obama’s incredibly insular “team.” And then there’s also the fact that Romer recently published an academic paper that contradicts Obama’s central theses regarding government spending and high taxes.

But now we’re fed a different story, courtesy of the Official Obama Propaganda Service (OOPS):

Obama’s economic team exhausted
By Sam Youngman – 08/07/10 06:00 AM ET

President Obama’s economic team is exhausted, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and that is one the reasons Christina Romer announced her departure Thursday.

Gibbs dismissed reports that Romer, the outgoing chairwoman of the president’s council for economic affairs, was leaving because of conflicts with Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council.

The press secretary told The Hill on Friday that Romer and the rest of the economic team have worked the equivalent of six years during the 18 months they’ve been in office, and Romer wanted to return to her normal life.

“These guys have probably packed a term and a half into a half of a term,” Gibbs said.

Romer is the second member of the economic team to leave this summer. She follows Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The early days of the administration alone were enough to wear the team down, he said, as they realized the depth of the recession.

“If you think about what we went through in the beginning, nobody knew when we woke up if the whole thing was just going to come crashing down,” Gibbs said.

[If one listens carefully, one can hear a shrill, whiny voice screaming, "It's all Bush's fault Romer is resigning!"].

Romer was involved in the administration’s planning of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Ever since the legislation was approved by Congress, she’s been at the forefront of the administration’s effort to sell the product to the public.

That’s been difficult given the fact that the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent after the legislation’s approval. The administration had hoped the jobless rate would top off at 8 percent.

Romer was the administration’s public face every month when the national unemployment numbers were released – usually to bad news. She issued a statement on Friday noting the private sector created 71,000 jobs in July, not enough to lower unemployment.

Reports surrounding her departure suggest she was leaving because of the heavy presence of Summers, an economist with a reputation for less than stellar people skills, and because she was frustrated with life in Washington.

Gibbs dismissed those stories, saying Romer had been in on every critical meeting with Obama on the economy and played a key role in the White House’s economic policies. [...]

So here’s the White House narrative to cover up the fact that there are big pissing matches going on inside the White House economic team, and the fact that Obama’s own economist has written a paper suggesting that her boss is leading the nation to “highly contractionary” economic ruin: Romer is quitting because she’s been working 32 hours a day (6 years divided by 1.5 years, times an average 8-hour work day).

Let’s not laugh and take it seriously for a moment.  The White House economic team has worked themselves into a frazzled mess, burdened with their profound care for the average America.

Well, what about their boss, Barry Hussein?

From the GuardianUK:

As Barack Obama settles into the White House, the differences between the way the old and new presidents manage their time will begin to show. Now it is time to break the puritan fiction that the only way to achieve is to get up early and live clean.

Ex-president Bush rose at 5.45am and was at his desk by 6.45am. He worked until 6pm, taking meetings in strict five-minute blocks. He ran three miles in 21 minutes before lunch every day. He does not drink. Women’s skirts – in his White House – had to fall below the knee.

Obama gets up hours later – aides during his campaign said he did much of his strategising after midnight. He smokes, he drinks beer while watching sports, and has mentioned keeping his regular poker night while president.

Bush showed up ready to work at 6:45AM.  For Obama, it’s kind of nice if he shows up by 9:30 – and not particularly bright-eyed or bushy-tailed after the partying from the previous evening.

That economic team is working themselves to the bone.  Obama couldn’t give a flying favorite-Emanuel/Blagojevich-phrase.

But staggering in to the office late in the morning at a time when useful people might be typically taking their first break of the day isn’t really enough to get the picture of contrast between those frazzled, overworked economic team members and their boss Barry Hussein.  Because we haven’t taken into account for all the vacations and all the golf outings, have we?

Obamas Take 4 Vacations in 1 Month

While many Americans are cutting back on their vacation plans or eliminating them altogether, Barack Obama is setting an aspirational example for all of us. Sure, times are tough, but perhaps we can enjoy a life of leisure vicariously through our betters.

On July 16-18, the Obamas enjoyed their first summer vacation in beautiful Bar Harbor, Maine. The idyllic town has long been favorite summer getaway for the rich and powerful going back to the Gilded Age. Truly a resort fit for a king public servant.

Anticipating exhaustion from two long weeks in Washington, D.C., Michelle Obama is hosting her eldest daughter and several family friends on a “private vacation” to Spain, August 4-8. Staying at the luxurious Villa Padierna, Americans can rest easy knowing the accomodations will “pamper guests with elegance, spaciousness and a comforting array of amenities.”  With three golf courses on the property, it’s quite a shame Barack must attend a party thrown in his honor by one of his billionaire friends.  Despite this hardship, I’m sure Michelle will sing “Don’t Cry for Me, America”. Or at least hum a few bars. (After the spa’s Chakra Balancing treatment with Hot Stones.)

The five days back in the White House will be a horrible burden to the family. Thankfully, the Obama clan will take a third vacation, Aug. 14-15, to Florida’s Gulf Coast, following charges of hypocrisy for vacationing in Maine earlier. As any PR pro will tell you, the best response to “out of touch” accusations is to face them head on. Preferably from a balcony, sipping a mojito while watching Helios’ golden rays paint the beach in myriad shades of gold as the fiery orb slips ‘neath the azure horizon.

Obama started out partying in a wildly inappropriate way:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is the place to be on Wednesdays.Since the presidency changed hands less than six weeks ago, a burst of entertaining has taken hold of the iconic, white-columned home of America’s head of state. Much of it comes on Wednesdays.

The stately East Room, where portraits of George and Martha Washington adorn the walls, was transformed into a concert hall as President Barack Obama presented Stevie Wonder with the nation’s highest award for pop music on Wednesday.

// <![CDATA[//

A week before that, the foot-stomping sounds of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a female a cappella group, filled the East Room for a Black History Month program first lady Michelle Obama held for nearly 200 sixth- and seventh-graders from around the city.

Cocktails were sipped during at least three such receptions to date, all held on Wednesdays.

And he hasn't let up since:

President party boy
The wrong kind of leadership
By JOHN GIBSON
Last Updated: 4:15 AM, June 10, 2010

Last week's jobs report tanked the stock market; the president took weeks to assert control of the oil spill that threatens doom on the Gulf Coast -- but at the White House the Gatsby-like parties roll on as if happy days were here again.

Just yesterday, President Obama held another fun-filled White House event, a picnic for Congress members, complete with hot dogs, cold beverages and a fire pit.

All told, during the last seven weeks of spewing oil and rampant unemployment, he has frolicked and danced through three major White House music parties:

Of course, the hypocrite propagandist lamestream media constantly criticized George Bush for golfing or vacationing or partying or pretty much anything, claiming that he needed to be constantly working to solve all the problems they said the nation faced.  And that was, you know, at a time when the nation didn't have anywhere NEAR as many problems as it faces now.

Obama’s golf outings have generated favorable reports from the media, in contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

On Aug. 5, 2002, The Washington Post wrote about President Bush golfing near his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.”

“Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote.

“However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead,” Allen wrote.

And the entire country wasn't falling apart at the time Allen took his leftwing cheap shot at Bush in the name of "journalism," unlike what's going on all around us today.

Blatant media hypocrisy and total disregard for anything approaching objectivity aside, the real emphasis needs to fall back on our Vacationer-in-Chief, as contrasted with his near-dead from exhaustion economic team.

There's an ad for Direct TV that features a Russian Zillionaire.  He says, "Opulence, I has it."  As he strolls leisurely along, he looks at two golden sculptures of himself, and without bothering to seriously study either he casually points a finger and says, "Zis one."

That pampered Russian is apparently playing the roll of Obama strolling through the White House at noonish after getting home from another vacation or from attending another lavishly-opulent and taxpayer-funded party.

On this scenario, Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer were both up all night working on an economic report – according to Robert Gibbs – and Obama strolls in while they each hopefully hold up their work and says “Zis one.”

And of course, according to the stories, most of the time it’s Lawrence Summers’ report Obama points at.  Because Summers can piss farther.

Obama is so out-of-touch with reality it’s unreal.  He knows nothing about business.  None of the people who are making all the stupid decisions around him know anything about business.

Our post turtle president:

There’s just one difference between Obama and the post turtle – or apparently Obama’s economic team.  The post turtle can actually be found at his post.

Update: In addition to the massive criticism Michelle Obama has deservedly received for her massively expensive vacation to Spain (complete with government-funded transportation and over seventy Secret Service agents), we now learn that the Obama’s are going on their FIFTH vacation since July.

Let them eat cake.

Obama Boasts Of ‘Reset’ In Relations With Russia – AGAIN

Obama is boasting about a “reset” in the United States’ relationship with Russia:

President Barack Obama welcomed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the White House on Thursday, boasting that the two men have reset their countries’ relationship in a way unthinkable when Obama took office.

But didn’t the Obama administration already do a reset with Russia last year?

Russian media has been poking fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a “reset” button with an ironic misspelling.Clinton’s gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva on Friday evening was meant to underscore the Obama administration’s readiness to “to press the reset button” in ties with Moscow.

But instead of the Russian word for “reset” (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning “overload” or “overcharged” (peregruzka).

Daily newspaper Kommersant put a prominent picture of the fake red button on its front page and declared: “Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton pushed the wrong button.”

Well, yeah, but it was a really crappy one.

Newsweek sure isn’t very impressed with Obama’s “reset.”  They point out that it’s cost us a whole bunch while delivering virtually nothing beyond Obama being able to boast vacuously about a “reset”:

The problem, though, is that all this good will has been bought almost exclusively at Obama’s expense. The United States disappointed allies in Eastern Europe by scrapping plans to station missile-defense batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic, all in order to please Moscow. The Russian occupation of Georgia, America’s best friend in the former Soviet Union, has effectively been acknowledged as a fait accompli by Washington, again to please the Kremlin. At the same time, Washington has remained silent about increasing crackdowns on freedom of assembly inside Russia and the ongoing second trial of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

And what has Obama bought with all these diplomatic sacrifices? The list is pretty short.

Ooops.

Obama’s “reset” is just another empty exercise that allows Obama to pretend that he did something wonderful when in reality he merely failed – again.

Ronald Reagan – now widely recognized by the American people to have been our greatest president – had a far different concept of negotiating with a hostile power than Obama does.

Obama’s is to bow down.  I don’t even know what the “bow” count is now.

Ronald Reagan spoke of “victory” regarding Russia.

Reagan summed up his foreign policy dealing with hostile nations in a very few words:

“We win, they lose.”

For Barack Hussein, “victory” – especially AMERICAN victory – is a four-letter word:

“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

One can understand why Obama does not want victory.  Losing is far more politically correct than winning, because the loser gets to plead that oh-so-special-to-liberals status of victimhood.

And isn’t that worth losing to get?

Obama’s misguided mindset is not based on history, as is itself evidenced by the fact that Obama gets his history wrong here when he says Hirohito surrendered to MacArthur.

It was the Japanese Foreign Minister who surrendered to MacArthur.  Hirohito was nowhere to be seen on the deck of the USS Missouri.

Maybe Obama should have asked the toes of the current Japanese emperor about that while he was grovelling before him:

The left mocked George Bush for saying he had looked into Putin’s eyes and found someone he could work with.

Now they’re proving they are even more naive than Bush was on his most naive day.

Obama is now seeing through Joseph Stalin’s eyes (after bowing, of course) and finding the Great Patriotic War.  It’s just so neat that Obama agrees with Russia’s historically revisionist view that allying itself with Nazi Germany, plundering Poland and Finland and agreeing to turn the rest of Eastern Europe into slave states, and then fighting the Nazis only after being double crossed was so, so, well, “great” and “patriotic”.

Do you think that Ronald Reagan would have gone to Russia and honored Stalin’s “Great Patriotic War”?

That is part of the reason why Barack Obama isn’t worth one of Ronald Reagan’s toilet leavings.

What is hilarious in its sheer ironic patheticness is that just a day after Obama announces his “reset,” we find this report coming just minutes ago (as of Monday, June 28):

WASHINGTON — Ten Russian intelligence officers have been arrested in the U.S. for allegedly serving as illegal agents tasked with recruiting political sources and gathering information to send back to Moscow, the Justice Department said Monday.

Eight of 10 were arrested Sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term, “deep cover” assignments on behalf of Russia. Two others were arrested for allegedly participating in the same Russian intelligence program within the United States.

Ooops.  Looks like Obama’s going to need yet a third “reset” with his former KGB buddy Vladimir Putin.

Iran Sucessfully Launches Satellite: Ballistic Nuclear Missiles Not Far Off

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius.  At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say
By Turner Brinton
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 February 2009

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,” Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

Israel certainly does, given the fact that Iran has repeatedly vowed that “Israel is a cancer” which they one day intend to “wipe off the map.”

The fact that Ezekiel prophesied some 2600 years ago that Iran (Persia) would one day attack Israel in the last days along with a coalition that looks eerily like the one being assembled today.

About a quarter of Israelis have said that they would leave Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would literally mean the death of the Jewish state.  Israeli leaders cannot possibly allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

And time is running out on them.

But it’s running out on the United States and Europe, also.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack.  Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran?  I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran.  And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s.  Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad.  The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will.  They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat.  Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat.  They couldn’t have been more wrong.

I wrote something about Iran’s nuclear program in May of 2008, and I stand by it:

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

I also repeatedly pointed out in that three part series that countries such as Russia and China had protected Saddam Hussein by blocking every single United Nations resolution that could have prevented the Iraq War:

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way.  They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq.  Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose.  And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT.  Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Obama’s Mentor/Pastor For 23 Years A Confirmed Marxist

Remember this poster?

I don’t know (or frankly care) what you thought about the “Obama as Joker” motif, but the label at the bottom is shockingly real.

We voted a Marxist into the White House.  Our greatest Democrat president of the last fifty years, John F. Kennedy, along with our greatest Republican president of the last fifty years, Ronald Reagan, are both rolling in their graves right now.  They dedicated themselves to fighting Marxism.  John F. Kennedy was actually murdered by a Marxist assassin.  And yet, tragically, the country these two great men left behind actually invited a Marxist into the White House.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

Obama has surrounded himself with all sorts of incredibly radical and extremist figures (see here for a small sample), but none was more of a sustained influence on him than the man whom Obama chose to be his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

This is from Jeremiah Wright’s September 17, 2009 speech honoring the socialist Monthly Review. As Jeremiah Wright puts it, Monthly Review offers what it calls “no-nonsense Marxism.”

Jeremiah Wright knew where he was and why he was there.  He delivered his speech from prepared written remarks.  He praised the self-acknowledged-socialist Monthly Review as “a forum for commentary and analysis from a specifically socialist perspective.”  He lauded the publication for its “no-nonsense Marxism.”

He said, “You dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word socialism or Marxism.”

Wright salutes and praises “six decades of dedicated [Marxist] service.”

The man who Barack Hussein Obama chose to follow for 23 years, to be his teacher, his mentor, his spiritual guide -the man he chose to marry him to his wife and baptize his children – expressed his view of the United States of America as follows:

“the land of the greed and the home of the slave.”

Which of course reminds us of the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church whose pastor said things like:

“No, no, no.  Not God bless America; God damn America.”

Take a tour of how Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years routinely preached evil of America and Americans.

Are you aware that that’s how your new president thinks of you?

Barack Hussein Obama’s spiritual leader and mentor for 23 years says of Marxist ideology went on to say to an audience of socialists:

“Thank you for fulfilling the invaluable purpose … [of] offering insights that force your readers to wrestle with reality in some new and exciting ways, moving us inch by inch from a herd mentality to a place where we have to come to grips with the uncomfortable truths with our world.”

This “moving us inch-by-inch” thing is frightening.  What kind of place are we being led to?  Well, let’s find out.  The man who introduced Jeremiah Wright was Robert W. McChesney, who wrote an article entitled, “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,” in which he declared, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

And of course Obama has surrounded himself with radical Marxists who in his administration who are working to do that very thing.  There’s Obama’s Communications Director Anita Dunn, who in addition to being a demagogue warring against a free press is also an admitted follower of Maoist communist ideology.  There’s Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd who praised Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, and praised Chavez’ seizure and control of the media.  There’s Obama’s manufacturing czar Ron Bloom, who called the free market “nonsense” and said, “We kind of agree with Mao.”  We can add Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, who was not only an admitted communist, but a man who held all kinds of frightening extremist positions.

And there’s Obama himself who wrote in his Dreams of My Father book:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

And before Obama surrounded himself with all those Marxist professors, he was mentored in Hawaii by communist Frank Marshall Davis.  And after those Marxist professors, Obama chose to go to Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology (i.e. Marxist) church.

At some point if you are not a complete fool you seriously need to ask yourself WHY Barack Hussein Obama chose to  spend 23 years in a Marxist “black liberation” church that preached anti-white racist hatred and anti-Americanism.  As I pointed out back in March of last year:

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Where are these people leading us?  Toward their ideology, toward Marxism.  Inch-by-inch whenever necessary; yard-by-yard whenever possible.  But there is one direction this “change” is heading.

McChesney co-authored an article in Monthly Review entitled, “A New New Deal Under Obama?”  And he said about Obama’s New Deal, “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

The goal of these Marxists radicals is to overthrow the capitalist free market system that has made America the greatest, most powerful, and most free nation on earth and impose a socialist system in its place.  Think Cloward-Piven strategy, the strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis:

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Let’s take a moment to learn about what two men who have regularly visited the Obama White House have said.

George Soros is a terrible and evil man.  He has been such ever since he was a Nazi collaborator during his youth.  Given the fact that “NAZI” was merely an abbreviated form of “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (National Socialist German Workers Party), it was never far for him to go to embrace the liberal socialism of his fellow fascists.

George Soros – the money behind many liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org – has visited the Obama White House four times.  And what is the message he is communicating to Obama?  Something very much like this:

But the system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it.

It’s like Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

And the fact that your ideological brethren have deliberately created the crisis is really besides the point.  What matters is “change.”

Andrew Stern, the president of the historically thuggish (and see here) SEIU (Service Employees International Union) that gave $60 million to buy the Obama presidency, has been at the White House 22 times.  When he visits Obama, he has  stuff like this to say:

ANDY STERN: And we are beginning. We have offices now in Australia and Switzerland and London and South America and Africa. We’ve been working with unions around the world. And what we’re working towards is building a global organization because “Workers of the world, unite!” — it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s a way we’re going to have to do our work.

That little slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” comes directly from The Communist Manifesto. Stern is quite the  fan of Marxism.

STERN: We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. And I’m not naive. We’re ready to strike.

This White House visitor sounds like a union thug.

From Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, February 20, 2007:

NARRATOR: It started last summer with the so-called Big Box Ordinance. Labor wanted it. Business didn’t.

STERN: We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.

NARRATOR: In October, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union:

STERN: There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.

We know that Obama is on the same page as Stern regarding spreading the wealth around.  I mean, after all, our first Marxist president is already on the record wanting to spread the wealth around.

Obama is still with SEIU.  He vowed to “paint the nation purple,” the colors of SEIU.  Stern’s quoting Karl Marx, promising to use thuggish “persuasion of power tactics,” and using the power of government to impose the hardcore union agenda on the country, doesn’t frighten Obama away.  Quite the opposite.  And Obama is still supporting the ACORN agenda (just a little more quietly since it became public that this leftwing organization is so vile it was actually willing to help a prostitute cheat the tax system to buy a house in order to import underage illegal immigrant girls to start a brothel).

We are at a crisis point in which we could literally implode under the massive weight of our own debt.  But instead of slowing down our deficit spending, Obama is actually stomping on the accelerator and increasing our speed as we hurtle off the cliff.  Because his people have a plan to take rapid political advantage of the ensuing chaos and fear.

Under Obama, even the former communists in Russia who used to write the propaganda for the Soviets are shaking their heads in amazement over how quickly we are speeding toward our societal demise.

Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes

For the official record, it was not Dick Cheney who first accused Barack Obama of dithering over Afghanistan while our troops languished and died.  It was the Pentagon.  From September 22, 2009:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House.

From September 18, 2009:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy.  Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on.  And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan.  And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment.  But there won’t be.  It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan.  Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

October 24, 2009
Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall

President Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel.

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. [...]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. [...]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.

Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” [...]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject.  Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.  This has been the case for years.  We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives.  What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now.  You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

As far back as April of 2008 I pointed out that the election of a Democrat to the White House would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, concluding:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

And it’s actually even worse than I thought.  In Barack Obama, we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated he is toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.  Subsequent to that piece, Obama reneged on a major missile defense deal with key Eastern European allies in order to appease a hostile Russia – who gave us nothing in exchange for our betrayal.  And if that wasn’t bad enough – we sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.  And Iran knows that.  Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb.  And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.