"Traitors" of the Lost Snark

In keeping with our Harrison Ford themed headlines...I give you Moooove On dot Org!

Dear MoveOn member,
What's the word for American citizens who undermine the diplomatic efforts of the American president by communicating directly with a foreign government?
"Traitors," according to the New York Daily News—referring to the 47 Republican senators who signed a letter to the Iranian government with the goal of derailing sensitive and potentially historic nuclear negotiations.

I've been hearing this "47 traitors" horse hockey being tossed about for too long now. What's the word for American citizens who undermine the diplomatic efforts of the American president by communicating directly with a foreign government? Traitors?? Let me take you on a little trip down memory lane, and then you tell me!

According to wikipedia:

In the fall of 2002, (Baghdad Jim) McDermott and fellow Representatives David Bonior of Michigan, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Mike Thompson of California visited Iraq; in Baghdad they met with members of parliament and the Iraqi Foreign Minister...

Wow! George Bush is president in 2002. (He was a Republican in case that small detail slipped anyone's mind.) Jim McDermott, Democrat, David E. Bonior, Democrat, who served as Democratic whip in the House from 1991 to 2002. Mike Thompson, Democrat. Nick Joe Rahall II, Democrat:

Rahall and another Congressman of Arab descent traveled to Syria and ignored State Department policy by meeting with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat...

Great! Nicky Joe is a twofer! He was not only trying to "undermine the diplomatic efforts of the American president by communicating directly" with the foreign government of Iraq, but tried to "undermine the diplomatic efforts" of the American State Department by communicating directly with a foreign leader (and part time terrorist), Yasser Arafat.

So these four...traitors(??) didn't just send a letter to Saddam Hussein. What's that they say? When you care enough to send the very best? They traveled to Iraq and met with the Iraqi foreign minister and members of their parliament.

Now, typically foreign policy isn't the purview of the House of Representatives, there probably isn't a lot in the budget for treason (according to good liberals), so where did they get the funding to pay their way to Iraq? Funny you should ask!

Muthanna Al-Hanooti was an official with a Michigan "charity" that offered to pay their way. But, in reality, Saddam Hussein offered Al-Hanooti some 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil in exchange for the charity funding the treasonous (according to liberals) quartet.  Saddam apparently used Iraqi intelligence agents (read: "spooks") to fund the intermediary.

And, as they say in the infomercials, But wait! There's more!!

Remember the Sandinistas? Ronald Reagan was president. (He was a Republican, in case that has slipped anyone's mind). Remember how many Democrats tried to thwart Reagan?

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger hammered John Kerry in 1985 for interfering in diplomatic negotiations with Nicaragua’s Marxist government as a (Democrat) Massachusetts senator.
... Kerry and then-Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (Democrat) visited Nicaragua in 1985 to cut a deal with the Sandinista government, which was close to the former Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan, however, was already set on overthrowing the Marxist government in Nicaragua by sending aid to a group of Nicaraguan rebels — the contras.

So, Kerry and Harkin were  "trying to "undermine the diplomatic efforts of the American president by communicating directly" with a foreign government".  Which makes them (say it with me, America!)

Traitors.

(By the way, if you really wanted to call Kerry a traitor, there's more than enough material, but that's a story for another day!)

In 1984, Speaker of the House Jim Wright, Democrat (Are you starting to see a pattern here?) sent a letter - SENT A LETTER! - signed by ten Democrats, to  "undermine the diplomatic efforts of the American president by communicating directly" with a foreign government"!

Looking for this reference, I ran across the following from Breitbart News:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.
Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov...

...Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq...

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him.

Traitors, traitors, traitors, traitors, TRAITORS!!!!

Can you say "hypocrisy"? I will bet you a large lunch at a drive in of your choice, that you will not be able to find a liberal, Democrat, no good lying weasel (but I repeat myself) who called any of these Democrats "traitors".

Democrats have been trying to criminalize differences of opinion for years. (Remember the Boland amendment?)  Aside from the Jonathan "I know the entire Democrat base is stupid" Gruber crowd,  this is demagoguery of the worst kind. Well, maybe not the worst kind. Nancy Pelosi bleating that Republicans wanted to defund Homeland Security and leave America defenseless, because they wanted to defund the part of Homeland Security that funded Obama's illegal illegal alien program is petty demagoguery.

Of course, you can find examples at least as far back as Newt Gingrich's speakership, when Newt proposed giving MORE money to school lunches, but funding it through the states, demagogues and their accomplices in the MSM spread the lie that the Republicans wanted to "starve kids", because they wanted to eliminate federal funding for school lunches. More money for school lunches = starving kids, if the feds aren't in charge of the funds.

So, I guess you could say that dishonest, lying Democrats (but, I repeat myself!) accusing Republicans of being traitors for doing no more or no less than the things they themselves do is just more of the same when it come to demagoguery.

Blazing Diplomacy

Fans of "Blazing Saddles" will remember Cleavon Little as the sheriff taking himself hostage. That was the impression that fist came to my mind after hearing President Obama's plan to normalize relations with Communist Cuba.

But, did the President take himself hostage? Just his credibility (if there were any left!) Step into the Wayback Machine with me to 2009:

President Obama marked his 100th day in office Wednesday by holding a prime-time news conference from the White House. Obama said the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding was torture...

OBAMA: What I’ve said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

At the very beginning of his presidency, Obama made known his erroneous and disparaging views on enhanced interrogation, falsely calling it torture, which has specific meaning and connotation around the planet, casting the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' as being morally equivalent with nations that practice genuine torture.

There was much public debate about the subject in 2009. A number of reporters volunteered to be waterboarded, (more reporters were waterboarded than terrorists, it turns out!) The lines were drawn. The Left disparaged everything George W. Bush did, so there was no reasoning with them. The furor eventually died down and people were soon inundated with a barrage of scandals, economic malaise and foreign policy debacles unabated by a White House obsessed with celebrities and golf, with an occasional funeral selfie.

Suddenly, after five years of being a non-issue, the lamest of lame duck partisan Senate committees under Dianne Feinstein, felt compelled to revisit the issue. They had to act with alacrity, since in January, adults would take over in the US Senate and such partisan claptrap would never see the light of day.

And then, mirabile dictu, after bringing the issue back into the limelight and into the nation's consciousness once again, Barack Obama announces that despite all the hand wringing and faux outrage shown towards the US for enhanced interrogation techniques, that he would seek to normalize relations with a brutal dictatorship known for torturing and killing political prisoners.


Desperately in search of a legacy, Barack will not let the lack of a consistent and rational foreign policy on his part, or the utter hypocrisy of his positions, deter him from giving aid and assistance to our enemies and their allies.

"Do as I say, or the black dude gets it!"

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

"We Don't Have a Strategy Yet" - Obama

The good news is, they've brought in an adviser from the Carter administration...

Sluggish

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

President Selfie: Hopelessly Delusional, Cravenly Dishonest or Mind Numbingly Incompetent?

President Obama made a statement the other day in response to a question about what Mitt Romney had said in the presidential debates about a possible Russia threat. At the time, Obama cavalierly dismissed it as living in the past.

"The 80's called. They want their foreign policy back!"

He doubled down on that stupidity in his reply:

"Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness"

Weakness? Really?? Was Germany in 1939 merely a "regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength, but out of weakness"? BTW, Mr. President, in case you were on vacation at the time, Russia did more than merely threaten her neighbors, she invaded one and annexed it with nary a shot fired. And as far as being merely a "regional power", exactly how many nukes and ICBMs does this "regional power" possess?

Prior to WWI, Archduke Ferdinand was the leader of a "regional power", whose assassination sparked a global conflict. Some of the "neighbors" the current regional power of Russia might be threatening, are members of NATO. The US has signed treaties with them, that we will defend them the same as if the US were attacked. To quote from their website:

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Now, you can debate all day long whether or not making alliances with various allies is the wisest course to take, or whether we will pursue this course in the future, but are we going to run away from these treaties we have already signed, as Obama has done with the agreements to guarantee the sovereignty and defense of the Ukraine?

The White House is making a big deal out of the fact that the last phone between Putin and Obama was initiated by Putin. Really? This is not because of any weakness. Putin is the kind of guy who, when he shakes your hand, you'd do best to count your fingers afterwards. He is seeking to consolidate his gains and perhaps gauge when the next bit of Russian adventurism might most effectively and efficiently take place.

Barack "President Selfie" Obama and John "Magic Hat" Kerry try to portray Russian acts of aggression as being "weak" and "old fashioned". Perhaps, if either had spent a significant amount of time in the military, they might have learned that the aggressor in a war is not "weak", and war, rather than being somehow a uniquely 19th century phenomenon or as old fashioned as last year's bicycle spandex, is historically an integral part of the human condition.

Someone had best remind The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™, that part of his job is Commander-in-Chief, and to explain to him everything that goes along with that responsibility. If you can ever get him off the 18th green...


BTW, the headline does not preclude the possibility of a combination of all three.

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Chicago Fireman

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Excuses-R-Us : Expect 2014 to be a Vintage Year for Presidential Whine

Over at the Political Clown Parade, The Insufferable Airhorn And His Insufferable Hubris, I took a closer look at some of the remarks President Selfie has made of late. Whine-a-palooza! Some examples from the New Yorker:

“There have been times where I’ve been constrained by the fact that I had two young daughters who I wanted to spend time with, and that I wasn’t in a position to work the social scene in Washington."

First of all, given the one hundred and fifty plus golf outings, and pictures of him playing golf on "vacation with his family", with his family nowhere in sight, make it hard for me to believe that President Selfie ever pines for moments alone with his daughters. "If you like your picture of strong fatherhood and domestic bliss, you can keep it," intones the president. Second, when has "working the social scene" ever been a prerequisite for presidential leadership? Shouldn't at least a small portion of that take place in the Oval Office? (If we could ever get him there??) Somehow Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and a few others all managed to be effective leaders without smoozing the capitol's "social scene" or being on CNN.

Or this gem?

"...the issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think. "

This, too, is laughable. President Selfie, your message has penetrated to the Republican base ever since you told "Joe the plumber" that you intended to "spread the wealth". Your problem with the Republican base is not that your "message hasn't penetrated", but precisely because it has. You have been governing against the will of the people ever since you took office. There has never been a majority of people in this country who wanted Obamacare, yet you and your fellow Democrats shoved it down our throats in an obscenely partisan manner, much to the detriment of our country. We got your message loud and clear. And we opposed it, not because you were some caricature foisted upon us by Fox News, but because we knew that the government take over of the health industry would lead to misery and a loss of freedom for millions. Millions have already lost their current insurance because of Obamacare, with millions more to come. And millions will be paying more for coverage they don't need, because your law takes away their choice.

And if the only roadblocks to your success are Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, how do you explain your failures of foreign policy? Do Putin and Assad (and Merkel, and Ahmadinejad, and Mubarak, and Morsi, and Karzai, and...) watch Fox News, too? Or does the weakness you project, in withdrawing from military conflict, the vain saber rattling about imaginary red lines you warn our enemies not to cross, that either you have not thought through the consequences or have no spine to enforce, the petulant begging from world leaders, like Putin, to give Snowden back, or the lifting of embargoes against Iran, with no concessions from them in return, make you ineffectual, and not Fox News?

"I’m somebody who is... pretty practical..." When it comes to rewarding political cronies and contributors. If you have a failing solar company like Solyndra, that cannot manufacture solar panels for less than what they sell for, give money to Barrack, there's millions in it for you! Same for electric car companies and people who build websites! Anyone want to guess what the primary qualification for building healthcare.gov was? Follow the money! And if you want to see bumbling fools in action, who have no qualifications to become a US ambassador, other than the amount of money they donated, go here.

According to White House sources and others, the Bush recession ended in June of 2009. That was the start of the 'Obama Recovery'. How's that working out for you, Mr. President? The problem isn't that your message "hasn't penetrated", Mr. Obama, it's that it doesn't work. But, then, apparently, neither do you. Have fun on the 18th green! Spend a little quality time with your caddy!



Cross posted at LCR, Political Clown Parade

Barack Bombs in Berlin

Funny that the president's speech suggesting unilateral disarmament once again, should "bomb", in what the Telegraph described as :

"... a weak, underwhelming address from a floundering president".
In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama’s message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world’s superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama’s favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.

Remember Barry's 2008 Fake Styrofoam column tour of Europe?? (At least he didn't have to rent the Styrofoam columns this time!) He tried to mask his complete and utter incompetence and lack of experience on foreign policy by standing in historic spots where real presidents conducted the nation's business. (I particularly liked his visit to 10 Downing street, home of the British Prime Minister. He didn't actually visit the PM, he just stood outside the door and got his picture taken making a speech. Barry likes making speeches.)

In Germany, sandwiched between two rock concerts, as I heard today, Barry spoke to a crowd of nearly 200,000. The novelty of seeing one who was supposed to be America's first post racial president. (Stop laughing!) Today, I hear 6,000 were invited and maybe 4,500 showed up.

And the Bamboozler-in-Chief had this profound statement* about nuclear arms:

We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.

I'd like to challenge the logic, or more aptly the illogic, of that statement. Nuclear weapons can and have stood as a deterrence to large scale convention warfare. If the presence of a nuclear deterrent, in the hands of just and honest men (this leaves you out, Barry!), stops an invading army with guns and tanks and bombs and poison gas, are we not safer than having to stockpile more conventional arms and larger standing armies? In a non-nuclear world, does the nation who can muster the most troops win?

A smaller scale analogy, Mr. President, one you can take back home to Chicago with you when you go: Are there policemen in Chicago Mr. President? Do they have guns? Does your own Secret Service contingent have guns? Is it fair (or rational) to say that as long as guns exist, we are not truly safe? Or do the guns not prevent crimes and protect the law enforcement officers (and your sorry ass) by their presence?

Great Britain has had nuclear weapons for years and no American has ever lost a night's sleep over their intention to use them on us. There is a balance of power to be maintained in this world. But, as you voted "present" as a state senator, as you were absent during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as you trade away our missile defenses and strategic advantages around the globe, and disrespect our democratic allies, no one is surprised that you do not have the best strategic interests of the US at heart.

Your pious platitudes, and "combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries" have not gone unnoticed. Whether or not the Republic survives, historians will note and properly blame you for its rapid decline while you occupied the Oval Office.



*Closed Captioning for the Thinking Impaired: Sarcasm

Cross posted at LCR.

Timeline of the Middle East Attacks and White House's False Narrative

I share this, compliments of Smitty @ The Other McCain, because it appears that many on the Left are still in denial about the incompetence of this administration's foreign policy.

A more recent Bret Baier report is here:

The Foreign-Policy Disaster Maker

by Andrew Roman

_______________________

So, while the American left obsessively spent most of the last thirty six hours or so trying to divert attention away from the continuing disaster that is Barack Obama in the White House, my thoughts were focused on matters that are actually relevant to the real world.

Islamic rage was all the rage late last week. It continued into the weekend and right on into this week at points all across the globe. From the assault on our embassy in Cairo to the murder of four Americans in Libya, from the fires set at our embassy in Tunisia to mobs burning our flag in London, there was no respite.  We were told that an obscure video negatively depicting the Prophet Mohammed was responsible for triggering this latest edition of Muslim fury. The shock waves of this insult even found its way onto American shores when two college campuses were shut down and evacuated last Friday due to threats from some entity identifying itself as Al Qaeda. The nuclear facility at the University of Texas was also evacuated.

On Monday, we heard of new waves of protests breaking out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, we heard about an Iranian submarine being deployed in the Persian Gulf.

And while we were reminded by the First Lady last week that the greatest threat to national security is, in fact, obesity, anyone who may have been holding their breath waiting for the President (or anyone in this administration) to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” - or heaven forbid it, an “act of war” – regarding the attacks on our consulate and embassies has long since keeled over. (Just imagine if the terrorists had stormed the consulate brandishing twinkies and Doritos). Equally, anyone who may have been hoping for a strong showing from the leader of the free world in the wake of terrorist acts against American interests on the eleventh anniversary of the worst single act of terrorism in this country’s history had better find a new place to channel that hope.

The lamestream media did not see the immediate need, nor recognize the immediate relevance, in asking this President of the United States why security was not beefed up at American embassies in hostile territories for the 9/11 anniversary, but have had no problem utilizing every nanosecond of air time over the past day and a half to turn its collective focus on Mitt Romney and comments he made about non-income-tax-paying Americans.   (Had Obama been a Republican is there any doubt he’d have been hammered with this obvious question?) They didn’t bother to inquire as to why he, as Commander-In-Chief, did not (and still does not) feel the need to attend the majority of his own intelligence briefings. They didn’t even ask how he and fellow Democrats can claim that Mitt Romney was playing politics with the events overseas when President Obama himself flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser that same day.

Fortunately for us, the White House on Friday assured the public that the anti-American violence was not directed at the United States.

Repeat: Not directed at the United States.

It must have been the storming of the American embassies, the torching of American flags and the burning of President Obama in effigy that confused me.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, wasted no time espousing the administration’s view that the inane little anti-Mohammed YouTube video being “credited” for triggering all of this terroristic upheaval – the one unseen and unheard of by just about every living human being on earth – was officially judged to “be reprehensible and disgusting.”

Thank heaven that was cleared up.

So, in the wake of Americans being murdered and our interests remaining under assault overseas, while our embassies were being attacked, while American flags were being burned, while protests were spreading, and while the entire region teetered on the brink of full explosion, our President wanted to let the bad guys know that we think the film that supposedly made all of them mad is disgusting?

Leadership.

Meanwhile, those of us who recoil and wince at this ongoing projection of American weakness and appeasement do not give a rat’s earlobe how offended or insulted radical murderers become. The instant the decision was made  to trade insults for innocent lives, their feelings about anything became irrelevant. The fact that Americans were murdered because of an amateurish internet movie that no one saw, followed by an official stance of “I’m sorry” by our pathetic Clinton-run State Department was – and is – enough to make me sick. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear which adjectives the White House will muster to describe the breeches of American sovereignty through these terrorist acts overseas. Surely, Obamacrats are aware that embassies actually do represent sovereign states - that an attack on an embassy is, by definition, an attack on the country itself.

Oh wait, these events transpired last week. It's old hat. It's immaterial today because that lout Mitt Romney had the nerve – the unmitigated gall – to talk about the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax….their fair share, to quote a phrase.

To his credit, Carney did concede that the ever-escalating acts of protest and violence overseas were “fairly volatile.”

Fairly volatile.

Yet the movie was reprehensible.

I cannot help but ponder: How many dead Americans move that word from the “fairly volatile” column to the “reprehensible” column.

Indeed, there are times when it is impossible to determine whether or not this administration is actually as incompetent and clueless as they portray themselves, or whether they are commandeering a calculated effort to make sure that no one alive (save for Christians and Republicans) is ever offended again – as if to be loved is (or should be) the United States’ purpose on this globe. On a daily basis, I watch how this President handles himself, this country and world at large, and almost daily I am astounded at the absolute ineptitude I see.

How, for instance, can the President of the United States look so ridiculously indecisive – I mean embarrassingly bad - when asked if Egypt is an American ally? 

How can he possibly say that Mitt Romney “shoots before he aims” when the President himself jumped the gun (if not the entire arsenal) when declaring the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department stupid in what was a nonexistent case of racism in the matter of Professor Henry Gates? Or commenting on the Trayvon Martin killing before knowing any of the facts (wasting no time interjecting his race into the matter).

This is the man who has, time and time again, spoke ill of his own country on foreign soil and has bowed to foreign heads of state. He has adopted an apology-first approach in dealing with the world-at-large – his I’m- sorry-we’re- so-big-and-powerful motif - that has done nothing but alienate long-time friends and allies while emboldening America’s enemies. It quite literally sickens me.

He continues his hell-bent pursuit of reducing America’s relevance and influence in the world, while proffering a position of moral equivalence – the How-can-I-ask-Iran-To-Not-Pursue-Nukes-When-We-Have-So-Many approach.  He is almost obsessed with being as inoffensive as he can to those who would – and do – commit evil acts on innocents (the “t” word), but has absolutely no problem unleashing his wrath on American entrepreneurs and innovators with his “you didn’t build that” message.

The man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing and for saying that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to American-Muslim relations – the man who predicted that his living in a Muslim country as a boy would be a useful tool in promoting international Kumbaya, saying, “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view” – must now be wondering what has gone wrong. Everything was in place for a complete transmutation of a pre-Obama world into a post-everything age of peace, stability and fuzzy bunnies. 

Surely, this unrest cannot be because of him - the leader of a fundamentally transforming United States - or his policies. It must be - has to be - that lousy filmmaker. After all, President Obama has a half-Indonesian sister.

This is the man who apologized in Cairo for his country employing interrogation techniques that saved countless innocent lives and ultimately contributed to the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. This is the man who has called his own country arrogant and dismissive. This is the man who condemned his own nation for “too often” making decisions “based on fear rather than foresight.” This is the man who publically announced military withdrawal dates from war zones, thus lightening the load for our enemies. This is the man who said nothing while Iran’s government killed innocents during uprisings there. This is the man determined to make dangerous and drastic cuts to our defense budget.

So, in a world where angry Muslims seem to be dictating the terms – a world where French fear is prompting the closure of twenty of its embassies worldwide because of a cartoon – the President of the United States continues to believe that peace through softness is the correct course. In a world where our collapsing exit strategy in Afghanistan is making things exponentially more unstable and chaotic, the President finds time for $40,000-a-plate fundraisers in New York and fun-loving sit-downs with David Letterman. In a world where video cameras just happened to be present as police found and took into custody the two-bit movie maker in the middle of the night (for other reasons, of course), President Obama parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Meanwhile, the press continues its assault on Mitt Romney, that heartless bastard.

Welcome to the future, Mr. President.

You did build this.

-

The Current Header and our "Head" of State

Some folk might take exception to a picture of our Commander-in-Chief in his golfing clothes while our embassies were being attacked. In all fairness to the president, he was not golfing. He was at a fundraiser in Vegas.

Obama has been skipping his presidential national security briefings of late, in favor of campaigning and fundraising. The return of the bodies of our diplomats and staff from the attacks on our embassies in the Middle East caused him to take a break from his busy campaign schedule to return for a memorial service. As I not kindly noted on Twitter,

"You want the president's attention? Come home in a box!"

Harsh note to follow...

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy: "Most Assuredly an Isolationist"

More from senior aide Eric Dondero:

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously.

Not the most surprising thing you'll read all year, but refreshing to hear a little honesty on the matter.

But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay" (sic)...

Paul's isolationism would have extended to us not entering WWII, according to his aide. If that is the case, he certainly would have viewed FDR's Lend/Lease program as interventionism, which would have weakened Britain's ability to resist Hitler. Danke Gott, Paul wasn't in the Oval Office at the time, or far too many of you would have understood that phrase perfectly!

I have been trying, since the last debate, to try to get someone from the Paul side to tell me the difference, in principle, between the Israeli arms blockade that he condemned as an act of war and the blockade put in place by JFK, whom he praised for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis. (Without mentioning JFK's pesky blockade, that Paul, were he consistent, would have considered an act of war without a declaration of war.)

Paul is all over the map when it comes to lunacy on his foreign policy. It appears that those closest to him recognize that as well. Most of them are just keeping quiet.


H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at Say Anything

Maureen Dowd: "Obama is Bi"

Maureen Dowd doesn't think he's bi-polar. Not sure I'd want to take that bet! But her NYT piece seems to be similar to the theme I noted a little while ago, about Obama being firmly on both sides of the automation issue! Ms. Dowd:

Our president likes to be on both sides at once.

In Afghanistan, he wants to go but he wants to stay. He’s surging and withdrawing simultaneously. He’s leaving fewer troops than are needed for a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops than are needed for a counterterrorism strategy — and he seems to want both strategies at the same time. Our work is done but we have to still be there. Our work isn’t done but we can go.

On Libya, President Obama wants to lead from behind. He’s engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi while telling Congress he’s not engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi.

On the budget, he wants to cut spending and increase spending. On the environment, he wants to increase energy production but is reluctant to drill. On health care, he wants to get everybody covered but will not press for a universal system. On Wall Street, he assails fat cats, but at cocktail parties, he wants to collect some of their fat for his campaign.

On politics, he likes to be friends with the other side but bash ’em at the same time. For others, bipartisanship means transcending their own prior political identities. For President Obama, it means that he participates in all political identities. He does not seem deeply affiliated with any side except his own.

Maureen, we are in rare agreement. But you may not have come out and pinpointed the exact reason that Obama is on both sides of every issue.

On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.

As just an ordinary, scum sucking, tell the people whatever it is they want to hear, politician.
I'm with you, Maureen!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Israeli Peace Proposal in Cartoons

There seem to be a lot of these floating around. Pretty good ones, too!















H/T Brutally Honest, Wyblog, Michael Ramirez,

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Speaks at AIPAC, Again

Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions on Iran!

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ addressed an AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington today. (Candidate Obama addressed them in 2008.) A couple of things jumped out at me.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.

A "tough neighborhood"??? Excuse me, Mr. President, but Israel is a nation under siege from its enemies. Chicago has rough neighborhoods, Israel is in a war zone.

"You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime."

Tough sanctions against Iran? How'd that work out for us against Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Did tough sanctions bring down his regime or bring about peace in the region or extinguish his desire to rebuild his WMD capabilities? Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions! /sarcasm

"...a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region."

Oh, you mean like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after you were instrumental in the removal of Mubarak, who are avowedly hostile to Israel? And whatever factions are rebelling in Libya, about whose ideologies and intentions towards Israel you haven't a clue?

So, let me see...we have turmoil in Egypt, Syria, and Libya, where you just started a military action. We have shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you sent a military mission into Pakistan, without the knowledge or permission of their government, and now you want to impose your will on our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, because...you needed to draw attention away from your golf outings??

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"

Here's where you plan goes off the rails, Mr. President. Take the city of Jerusalem, the city of David, the capitol of Israel. Your proposal not only has it jutting like a peninsula into what would then be another country, but the old lines transect Jerusalem. Which part of Jerusalem do you envision either side would "mutually agree" to give up? On what would you base that belief? Certainly not on the last 44 years of history! And you have publicly stated that Jerusalem "must remain undivided". Who mutually agreed to that swap, Mr. President?

In the end, you have a pretty speech, which is only as dependable as the man who gives it. Too often in the past, Obama's promises have come with an expiration date. Why should we believe these are any different? And why should the nation of Israel risk its security and existence based on your words, Mr. Obama?

Full Text Of Obama's Speech To AIPAC

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Barack Obama: Master of Understatement

Jake Tapper of ABC, on the inept foreign policy pronouncements of Barack Hussein Obama II



"Obviously, there are differences between us." -Barack Hussein Obama II

Ya, think, Barry??? That's a little like saying there are differences between the lion and the gazelle.

"Precise formulations and language" - B Obama.

You think there's merely a difference in the "formulation" of how you say it? President Obama, which part of "Hell, no!" didn't you understand?

H/T Memeorandum

The Cain Doctrine: "You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the United States"

Stacy McCain had this great piece of video to cleanse the residue of Obama's folly from earlier this week. On the brighter side, if the world does come to an end in the next twenty four hours, no one will really care just how bad a president Obama truly is.



"You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the United States" Sounds an awful lot like the way we used to treat our allies!

Obama is no Friend of Israel

Obama took another giant step towards making sure our allies are treated worse than our enemies.
Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal

WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem.

...The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.” Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut.

So many things wrong with this. First, it goes against long standing support for defensible borders for Israel. It gives away the high ground of the Golan Heights and bringing virtually all of the country into mortar and rocket range of its enemies.

Second, why 1967? What gives the president of the United States the right to demand what territories a sovereign and democratic state must cede to its neighbors and, truth be told, enemies based on a purely arbitrary determination? The claims of Israel on what has been called the Promised Land go back literally thousands of years. Why 1967?

It is interesting that for many years liberals accused conservatives of wanting to "turn back the clock" on any number of issues. Why does Obama want to "turn back the clock" on Israel? And compared to thousands of years of Israeli history, 44 years is but a tiny fraction. Why not add a couple of decades and take the borders back to the 1947 borders? What's that you say? The modern state of Israel did not come into existence until 1948? Reducing Israel to a country eight miles across will go far in returning Israel to its 1947 borders...

And just for giggles, what if the President of Mexico demanded that the US return to it's pre-1848 borders before it would negotiate any new treaties with us? If Obama can void the Six Day war, why can't Mexico void the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Great Speeches by US Presidents, Edited by Ron Paul

I recently found a copy, in a rare book store*, of Great Speeches by American Presidents, edited by Ron Paul. It's a slim volume, not well used, but allow me a couple of excerpts:

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace."

…should they ever cross our border. -RP

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, suffer any hardship . . . to secure the survival and success of liberty."

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

…within the confines of the continental US. -RP

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"

-Ronald Wilson Reagan

…or would that be interfering in the internal "squabbles" of East Germany and the Soviet Union? Because I'd never want to do that! -RP

It is a sad thing to report, but after hearing the remarks of Congressman Paul and a number of his followers in the past few days, I have come to the realization that Ron Paul's foreign policy is much more closely aligned to that of Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan. Paul's echoing of bring the troops home smacks more of isolationism than "bear any burden, suffer any hardship". His castigation of Israel for the Gaza blockade could just as easily be applied to Kennedy's Cuban crisis. And how could a neo-isolationist ever have stood at the Brandenburg Gate and called for the Berlin Wall to come down? None of our business, don'tcha know?

I have heard Paul compared to Jefferson and I have heard him compared to Reagan.
But, please tell me how the "bring the troops home and spend our money here" memes of Paul and Obama differ? In fact, if you can believe either of them, Ron Paul would be far more reckless in abandoning our allies abroad than would Barack Obama, who has shown himself to be no great friend to either Israel or Great Britain.

Sorry. I'm not drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid®.

*If you believe this, I have a bridge for you!

Ron Paul, On Throwing Our Allies Under the Bus

Classic Liberal had a number of videos for an interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano with Sarah Palin and Congressman Ron Paul.



Let me preface this by saying that I admire Ron Paul for (most of) his views on the Constitution. He is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and his views on domestic policies are largely in alignment with mine. But on matters of foreign policy, the Congressman and I part ways. I heard this interview early this AM and have not been able to get it out of my mind. At around 4:35 into the video, Congressman Paul says the US is an empire. This is either hyperbolic on his part or he is badly mistaken. This may be due, in part, to what I call Paul's neo-isolationism. Our military projects the power of the US beyond our borders. Congressman Paul sees this influence as some kind of "empire", though not one classically defined*. I see it more as "deterrence" and "influence". We want to encourage other countries to embrace freedom. We want to discourage other countries that would take freedom away.
*The US has defeated a number of enemies and we have seized neither their lands nor their resources, which is what empires typically do. On this point, Congressman Paul is wrong.

Then, he goes on to speak about how we don't need to be the cops of the world and how we don't need nine hundred plus bases around the world, and both those things may be true! There are certainly areas around the world where we could reduce our presence while still projecting our power. However, when asked about coming to the defense of our allies, Paul said this at 5:08:

"No, I'd treat Israel like all the other countries."

Really? I have heard this from Mr. Paul's mouth before and I am still no less incredulous. The idea that we should treat all countries as equals strikes me as either naively idealistic or borderline insane. The idea that we would treat Great Britain and Israel the same as we would Iran or North Korea is preposterous.
I believe, in theory, we should treat all people equally as well. But, if I see two men coming at me on the street and one is carrying a Bible and the other is carrying a switchblade, I'm going to treat those two individuals differently. Refusing to aid our allies until the enemy is at our doorstep is a good way not to have any allies when the enemy is at our doorstep.

...we don't get involved in their internal or external squabbles and we just stay out of it

"Squabbles?" My dictionary defines "Squabble" as a petty quarrel. Does Congressman Paul believe that Israel fighting for its very survival is a "petty quarrel"? Is smuggling rockets to Hamas indicative of a petty quarrel? A petty quarrel might be the neighbor playing the stereo too loud or too late at night. The first RPG I lob through my neighbor's window escalates that up from a "squabble" to something more.
But, if it's just a squabble, then let's not send warships to the gulf, let's send guidance counselors! A couple of good shrinks with a PhD in psychology and we can solve all the problems in the Middle East. After all...they're just "squabbles", right?
One would think that after so many years of public service that Mr. Paul could be more precise in the words he uses to describe the US and our allies' plight in the world than "empire" and "squabbles"? Unless, that's what he really believes...


My fervent hope is that his son Rand has not adopted his father's views on foreign policy.

More videos linked at Classic Liberal
Cross posted at Say Anything