Obama needs to slow down and consider all his options. We can't have a repeat of Bush's disasterous impulsive foreign policy, especially when it comes to sending more U.S. troops into a combat zone.

It's time for Mr. Nice Guy to get tough! We all saw how brutal the leaders of Iran are this summer, and enough said about the Taliban. Send enough troops to Afghanistan to crush the Taliban, and make Ahmadinejad think twice.

What Would Bush Do?

If he wants to prevail in Afghanistan, Barack Obama needs a Bush moment.

September 4, 2009

If he wants to prevail in Afghanistan, Barack Obama needs a George W. Bush moment. He’ll have to ignore the polls, brush aside doubters in his own party, and reinforce a failing war effort.

Bush did all that, and more, when he ordered the surge in Iraq in January 2007. He also had to buck his own military brass and almost the entirety of a foreign-policy establishment that considered the feckless recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission holy writ. He operated from a position of political weakness so debilitating, Lyndon Johnson might have identified with it in his final days.

Compared with those headwinds, Obama is experiencing a late-summer breeze on Afghanistan. He’s a new president in whom the American public hasn’t yet lost faith, even if he’s faded from his post-election heights. In a CBS poll, four in ten say they want troop levels decreased, and only 48 percent approve of Obama’s handling of Afghanistan. That’s nothing like the collective “enough” the public had exclaimed about the Iraq War prior to the surge.

But Obama will need three especially Bushian qualities if he is to spare his country a humiliating retreat or an underresourced, inconclusive slog in Afghanistan: sincerity, perseverance, and courage.
Bush risked his presidency on Iraq because of his heartfelt belief in its strategic importance. Obama sounds just as categorical about Afghanistan. If he believes it, he’ll make the tough calls. If not, he’ll be prone to Rumsfeldian half-measures that will ensure all our sacrifices are made on behalf of failure.

We’d be in even worse shape if Obama hadn’t already sent 21,000 additional troops earlier this year. The buzz among coalition commanders on the ground was that August would be a trying month — casualties would spike, and Americans back home would sour. So it has come to pass. If Obama approves another request for additional forces from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, it will mean even more casualties as — for some period of time — the Taliban look as strong as ever.

Bush had to endure a similarly treacherous lag between our troops’ fighting their way to outposts among the population in Iraq and the results in enhanced security. Obama, too, will have to persevere, and have the fortitude to disregard the voices of his own politicos who want nothing to do with an Afghan escalation, to ignore his most fervent supporters who fear he’ll wreck his presidency in the Hindu Kush, and to stomach poll numbers that will get worse.

If the war can’t be fought on the cheap, it can’t be sold on the cheap, either. Obama gives the impression of wanting to maintain at least 68,000 troops in a far-off conflict in Central Asia in which dozens of Americans die every month, without ever mentioning it except when scheduled for the occasional speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

He’ll have to convince the public that the war is necessary and winnable when the charm of simply characterizing it as the “good war” in contrast to Iraq has worn off.

If we withdrew, the Taliban would take over swaths of the country and would likely host al-Qaeda again. Pakistan would feel pressure to return to embracing the Taliban fully as its proxy in a war that would become a free-for-all for Afghanistan’s neighbors. This would strengthen the hand of extremists within Pakistan at the same time our credibility would have sustained a devastating blow.

The war is far from lost. Kabul is relatively safe, certainly compared with the hellish extremity of Baghdad in 2006. The areas that are in the worst shape, in the south, are those in which we have had the fewest forces. The population doesn’t want a reprise of Taliban rule. If we could recover in an Iraq that had descended to Dante’s seventh circle, Afghanistan is salvageable with enough resources and time.

As he contemplates his next move, Obama should ask an unexpected question: “What would Bush do?”.

RUN LIKE HELL! GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

General McCrystal is nuts, and Obama wants time to think about it! Patton--"The poor sons o' bitches."(Can you hear Patton?) And, McArthur are rolling in their graves--"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to WIN IT!"

How can you conduct a war when the American soldier has to babysit? and do combya to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghanistanies, the ones the US soldiers are dying to liberate, The US IS NOT THERE TO PROTECT THE AFGHANISTANI PEOPLE. Civilians will do what they did in World War II--take sides with the stronger side and FIGHT!

AS it is, the Taliban and Al Queda use the civilians as human shields to hide behind them, and THEN, THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE NOT GOING AFTER THE ENEMY!

American soldiers are dying for rediculous reasons in the Afghanistan war, and instead of American soldiers, Bill Graham and the Jehovah Witnesses should be conscripted to fight this war.

General McCrystal says protecting the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people is more important than killing the enemy--the taliba and alquada--with direct action.

The other day--Obama on Friday said that he DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN'S NUCLEAR PLANT OR MISSLES. I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SHOULD JUMP ALL OVER OBAMA fAND CALL OBAMA A LIAR, TOO. OBAMA IS FOR CALLIG THEM A LIAR! OBAM IS TOO BIG FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NOW IS LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. OBAMA IS DEPENDENT ON OTHERS TOO EVEN IF HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and now Obama is calling the Joint Chiefs of Staff and everybody under them LIARS! (Satellite photography and they knew wha was oing on rigt along FOR YEARS.)


Permalink 09/28/09 @ 16:26

Obama needs to slow down and consider all his options. We can't have a repeat of Bush's disasterous impulsive foreign policy, especially when it comes to sending more U.S. troops into a combat zone.

I'll have to respectively disagree with you there. Bush's decision was neither disastrous nor impulsive ... why? Because it was approved by both the Democrats and Republicans in response to Iraq's failure to comply with allowing UN inspectors to inspect their weapons facilities. After being attacked in 9/11, we're not messing around. Bush has shown tremendous leadership and toppled an corrupt and dictatorial regime. After US/English coalition forces stormed Iraq in a shock&awe fashion in a matter of 2 short weeks with minimal casualties, no one has dared to mess with our country...

However, things have changed ... ever since that one has voted to deny support to our troops with necessary fund nor equipment. Ever since that one has replaced our former commander in Afghanistan w/ an less experienced minority for a fresh outlook ... it's just an recipe for disaster.

Now we have to worry about Iran's nuclear programs, had Bush or McCain been president they wouldn't have dared to show such audacity and defiance. It's an direct challenge to our current president for the simple reason that they know that this is the time they can get away with it without much consequence. (that one's a puppet)

I suspect that one will stick with his plans of making pretty scripted speeches to try to get international sanctions on Iran, but he will fail miserably. his records has never shown him to make any decisive decisions nor taken a stance on any issues. I suspect that he'll follow that path of remaining on the side-lines harping away until it's too late.

US troops in Afghanistan? There are mixed feelings about this issue, it's one thing people can't agree on, so I'll just leave it there.

I wish Obama would say, 'We're leaving the Middle East because we're at the point where we either blow-up the area to kingdom-come or do the only humane thing and end our occupation'.

Then as far as Iran goes, I wish Obama would tell Iran, 'We have our eyes on you. We know Cheney's Halliburton has been caught selling you nuclear plans and components (and we're going to hold those war profiteers accountable); -now think twice before you use WMD's against ANY country, because we'll nuke you.'

Afganistan = Viet Nam, '65, redux.


Three words on Iran. James Earl Carter.
Worst quaterback in the history of the game.
Sent the wrong signals and watched dumb-foundedly as Iran burst into chaos.

Bill, I was watching Petraeus yesterday on C-Span and he did not mentioned Bush on any question posed too him.

A few people asked about Bush and Crocker and Petraeus talked, and talked, and talked, how great Crocker was and never mentioned Bush.

One more thing.....President Carter was a Churchill compared to President Obama.

"...Iraq's failure to comply with allowing UN inspectors to inspect their weapons facilities."

Sadam Hussein let UNSCOM inspectors go anywhere they wanted in Iraq (except his personal palaces) for nearly ten years. UNSCOM kept telling Washington that they found no signs of WMD or facilities for making them. Washington kept telling them to go back and look until they found something. When this back and forth failed to set up a justification for invading Iraq, Washington became more and more heavy-handed with Hussein until he finally revolted and told UNSCOM to leave. Tada! Justification for invasion! Hussein quickly opened up his borders to inspectors again, but the US was going around holding its ears and saying nanana I can't hear you. It's all on record, but those who like war insist that Hussein was perenially refusing to allow inspectors into Iraq,-simply not true. But truth is inconsequential when war lust is aroused.

And it's President Obama, not "that one." We never called President Bush "donkey boy" or "the little troll" or any other such disrespectful names. You will reciprocate.

Caspian: It appears that our friend Topper has been topping off his psychotropics with some unauthorized mushrooms lately.
Now all of a sudden... he's seeing the pink, 1085 day AWOL, Bush Energizer bunny everywhere.
In his world, it's called the "miracle of wishful thinking" the "practicality of hindsight" and winning hearts and minds by recontructing history.
...And all he is asking for is another $600b to 2trillion for the opportuniny to revisit the same realitys when the sun rises tomorrow.
Perhaps, what he is really in search of is a medical discharge for Post Party Depression.

Caspian: It appears that our friend Topper has been topping off his psychotropics with some unauthorized mushrooms lately.
Now all of a sudden... he's seeing the pink, 1085 day AWOL, Bush Energizer bunny everywhere.
In his world, it's called the "miracle of wishful thinking" the "practicality of hindsight" and "winning hearts and minds" by recontructing history.
...And all he is asking for is another $600b to 2trillion for the opportunity to revisit the same unrealitys when the sun rises tomorrow.
Perhaps, what he is really in search of is a medical discharge for Post Party Depression.

Mike Q: Nobody is willing to mention the vacant between the ears, absentee former tenant, that occupied the Fright House during of his reign of errors as crowned prince and self proclaimed Decider. Why? because nobody ever saw him or had any coherent or meaningful conversation with the man. BUSH AWOL 1085 DAZE OUT OF THE 2,290 DAYS IN WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. GOT CREDIT FOR HIS ATTENDANCE AT FUND RAISERS, HOSTING CELEBs, AND LUNCHES IN FOREIGN LANDS.
Isn't that sad? Gone just 8 months and already an after thought. Poor Madden couldn't even enjoy the Giant beatdown of the Cowboys cuz he had to hold Bushie's hand throughout the endeavor.
*After Bushie's red faced embarassment being caught stupid at the Chinese Olympics as Putin zapped him with the Georgia attack, who could blame him.
Didn't we warn him not to go that event too?

John

I have suspected our friend is talking a multitude of drugs from day one!

I do not understand how any person can believe politicians and their propaganda mouthpieces on TV and Radio.

==========================

Democrats Don't Deliver Healthcare Reform...Again
September 29, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/yk8oh2o
For weeks now it's seemed more and more evident that instead of significant, meaningful healthcare reform, we are--if we're lucky--going to wind up with something akin to health insurance reform. These reforms will be pretty unassailable (who could oppose making it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, for instance?) but a far cry from what just a couple months ago seemed not just possible but probable--reform that included a robust, affordable public option accessible to all Americans.
Why has the healthcare reform battle disintegrated so rapidly? Certainly the seemingly endless barrage of right wing lies and downright insanity over the summer didn't help. Neither did the White House's lackadaisical approach to countering it. But at the end of the day, real reform--the public option, considered today by the Finance Committee--should have had the votes it needed to pass. Instead it failed by fifteen votes to eight, with five Democrats voting against it. / http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/howard

Americans need a viable third and fourth party who will represent “We The People” instead of the wealthy few who own Congress!

Progressive Democrats / http://pdamerica.org/

Green Party / http://gp.org/index.php

Ralph Nader / http://www.votenader.org/

Ron Paul / http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Libertarian Party / http://www.lp.org/

Generals: Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney are scare mongering
9/29/09 / http://tinyurl.com/yaugnnp
About a dozen retired generals and admirals, trying to add momentum to President Barack Obama’s effort to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, are accusing former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz of scaremongering about the dangers of closing it.
“It’s up to all of us to say these arguments advanced by Cheney and his acolytes are nonsense and that really what they’re doing is undermining our national security by delaying the date at which Guantanamo is closed,” retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a former chief judge of the Army’s Court of Criminal Appeals, told POLITICO Tuesday.
“Some of the fear issues that are being raised in this are really unfortunate. It gets people excited about things they shouldn’t be excited about and impedes doing what is critical to this country. Get that damn symbol off the table,” said retired Gen. David Maddox, a former Army commander-in-chief for Europe. “We take a setback every time somebody, whether it’s the vice president or his daughter comes out and says the things that they say….We have to get out there again and just keep pounding.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27705.html

"I do not understand how any person can believe politicians and their propaganda mouthpieces on TV and RadioIran: The great US intelligence fraud"

And I could never understand how anyone could constanty turn his back on his country!
--------------------------------------


September 29, 2009



The revelation of an Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried in a mountain at an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base near the religious city of Qom might seem ominous. If, that is, the Iranians were determined to develop a nuclear weapon.

Fortunately, we are advised that they are not.

In November 2007, US intelligence agencies wrote a National Intelligence Estimate concluding, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The intelligence community appears to be sticking by its judgment, which means — cue the sighs of relief — that the Qom facility may be only a strange curiosity.

Apparently, the Iranian regime is an obscurantist theocracy with an unquenchable taste for conducting massive experiments in advanced physics. In secret. In heavily defended facilities.
The 2007 NIE had a very circumscribed definition of a weapons program, but it included “covert conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.” Exactly what Qom is for. What do the Iranians have to do to convince US intelligence they have a weapons program?

Iran has been very lucky in its watchdogs. The 2007 NIE, which stands exposed as about as worthless as then-CIA Director George Tenet’s prewar talk of a “slam-dunk” on Iraq’s WMD, crushed any thought of the politically weakened Bush administration moving against Iran. And the punch-pulling International Atomic Energy Agency has been suppressing damaging material, concerned more with forestalling a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program than forestalling the program itself.

If the mullahs have a sense of humor, they must enjoy the farcical aspect of their showdown with the hapless “international community.” Immediately after President Obama & Co. scolded them over the Qom facility, they test-launched short- and medium-range missiles in an in-your-face military exercise named The Great Prophet IV. The Iranians want to become a nuclear power on the Pyongyang Plan, featuring lots of bluster and lies coupled with interminable negotiations and negotiations over negotiations.

The Qom facility is less a surprise than more confirmation of standard Iranian procedure. In 2002, the Iranians were caught with an undeclared enrichment facility at Natanz. A few years later, they were caught trying to figure out how to get a warhead onto a Shahab missile.

Each revelation brings its international tsk-tsking, as Iran’s program marches on.

In a painfully wishful sentiment, |Obama says that gaining a nuclear weapon is not in the Iranians’ interest. But Tehran isn’t so foolish. With a nuke, it knows it will have a deterrent against us; a means to destroy Israel, and an instant boost to its influence and prestige in the region.

The Iranians consider the world order to be deeply unjust, foisted on everyone else by the Jews and the West, using the lie of the Holocaust for leverage. Iranian power is to be the instrument of this order’s reformation. The regime would have to be thoroughly irrational — even on its own apocalyptic terms — to want to give up the prospect of a weapon merely to avoid tougher sanctions that may never arrive.

The notion that a bomb isn’t in the Iranians’ interest feeds the fantasy that they can be coaxed out of it by dialogue. If only they could understand our good intentions, if only we hash out a mutually agreeable accommodation, then they will realize their true interest is in eschewing proliferation. This attitude is about as clear-eyed as the 2007 NIE.

The Europeans have been embroiled in negotiations with the Iranians for years, pleading with them to abide by repeated UN resolutions urging them to suspend their uranium enrichment. The Iranians have kept going since 2006. Tellingly, they had indeed suspended enrichment back in 2003, after the Europeans told them they risked courting the same fate as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Through the haze of delusion over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, that’s a stark lesson in the persuasive power of fear. But why would anyone who isn’t an American insurance executive or a highly compensated banker be scared of Barack Obama?

Caspian: Regarding your healthcare post I never saw healthcare reform as the primary concern for America this year. JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! Without them and job security having any form of healthcare insurance based on "term payment" contingencys negate all of the presumed gains.
Who can afford COBRA payments on a $500 per week or much less in most states stipend?
Ooooops there goes the coverage... and the insurance companies don't even have to lift a finger to deny the coverage. Miss one payment ...and YOU'RE OUT! Insurance companies can cut out the 15% of their workforce that denies coverage and the banks and Goldman's revel in delight as they reap in the rewards of devalued assets as the hospitals and their boards cry poverty and later are allowed jack their pricing.
Doctors become legal drug dispensers. Natural cures can no longer be prescribed due to legal concerns and big pharma runs AMOK!
A drug addled America imprisons then itself,... and who cares about any one elses ideas of independence.

Wait a minute! I think I saw a glimmer of hope for dumbfounded America yesterday.
Do you know what happened yesterday with the Rockefeller and Shumer proposals?

Wait a minute! I think I saw a glimmer of hope for dumbfounded America yesterday.
Do you know what happened yesterday with the Rockefeller and Shumer proposals?

------------------------

JOHN:

After all these years "NOW" out of the blue Jay Rockefeller has become a liberal?

LOL

That was all show yesterday to fool Americans into thinking Chuck S and Jay R. are on the side of 99% of the masses.

If Obama truly wanted Single Payer or Public Option every Democrat would have voted for it.

Don't forget the public option voted on yesterday was only very limited in scope and even if implemented would not be effective and meaningful reform.

Jay and Chuck's Public Option would not start until 2013. I Think?

I saw CBS news yesterday and Harry Smith talked about the earth quake, Swine Flu, and only mentioned the defeat of Public Option in less than 30 seconds.

This is what the corrupt corporate mainstream media always does with pertinent and important issues.

They just mention it quickly in passing and then move on to other stories.

As for Jobs I think Obama can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time.

We all know Bush could not!

LOL

And I could never understand how anyone could constanty turn his back on his country!

============================

BILL: If General Patton were alive he'd slap your face!

LOL

Genius: re: Iran and its enrichments of any kind.

First: you need a delivery system in order for us to be directly affected. Second: they would need a 100% impervious and bulletproof missile shield to stave off total annihilation if they were to ever launch a preemptive strike. Duh!
Nobody is that stupid or that bent on suicidal tendencies.
Unless you wish to count that insane portion of our 1% elitists and pie-eyed incompetant military strategists still willing to sellout to NWO who are so desperate and self absorbed that they choose without descretion to leverage foreign concerns and their labor against the very people and backbone we would need to man their armed forces should any such emergency arise.
You should ask why your government has chosen to pay mercks for doing your job and then ask twice why they haven't paid any of the price for making your jobs more hazzardous and making the indigenous population more hostile. Since you never ask these questions all we can summize from your postings is that any and all of this posturing, boasting and bravado attached to the claims of we will do better next time is just another heap of psychobabble manure flung from the likes of Rush Oxycontin and the we need another Pearl Harbor event crowd- that facilatated 9/11.
Hey, didn't we read once that DR was willing to concede a $1million stipend to all the people of Israel to resettle in Arizona. What was that all about?
Is this promotion of a new nuke threat the precursor to the next 9/11 event? This time with Israel as the target in order to trigger a NWO takeover. Remember the general public is no longer reason enough to hold fire or cease it.
-------------
THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT!

*I'll leave you the source of the DR proposal as soon as I can access it just in case you might be interested.
You see the entities who plotted along with Hitler and some that conspired to depose FDR never ever had any real feelings for Jews or democracy. They just wanted to RULE WITH IMPUNITY!!!

Genius: re: Iran and its enrichments of any kind.

First: you need a delivery system in order for us to be directly affected. Second: they would need a 100% impervious and bulletproof missile shield to stave off total annihilation if they were to ever launch a preemptive strike. Duh!
Nobody is that stupid or that bent on suicidal tendencies.
Unless you wish to count that insane portion of our 1% elitists and pie-eyed incompetant military strategists still willing to sellout to NWO who are so desperate and self absorbed that they choose without descretion to leverage foreign concerns and their labor against the very people and backbone we would need to man their armed forces should any such emergency arise.
You should ask why your government has chosen to pay mercks for doing your job and then ask twice why they haven't paid any of the price for making your jobs more hazzardous and making the indigenous population more hostile. Since you never ask these questions all we can summize from your postings is that any and all of this posturing, boasting and bravado attached to the claims of we will do better next time is just another heap of psychobabble manure flung from the likes of Rush Oxycontin and the we need another Pearl Harbor event crowd- that facilatated 9/11.
Hey, didn't we read once that DR was willing to concede a $1million stipend to all the people of Israel to resettle in Arizona. What was that all about?
Is this promotion of a new nuke threat the precursor to the next 9/11 event? This time with Israel as the target in order to trigger a NWO takeover. Remember the general public is no longer reason enough to hold fire or cease it.
-------------
THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT!

*I'll leave you the source of the DR proposal as soon as I can access it just in case you might be interested.
You see the entities who conspired along with Hitler and some that plotted to depose FDR for his compassionate view on the human condition in this country and elsewhere never ever had any real feelings for Jews or democracy. They just wanted to RULE AUTONOMOUSLY WITH IMPUNITY!!!

Another war based on innuendo? If the price is right and it could remove all their present debts... Hmmmmmmmm! You Betcha!
Right now they are doing what they do best. Controlling the airwaves with fear propaganda in the hope...

Bill F: this should provide you with enough information to Know the masters you serve

Quotes from the orchestrators of the movements toward the disembowelment of the USA for their own NWO.

----
"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation.
*** "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
This David Rockefeller quote is found in these quote Categories:
Foreign Policy quotes, Globalism quotes, Illuminati quotes, Independence quotes, NWO quotes, Terrorism quotes

David Rockefeller quotes:
Bilderberger Meeting: The world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government... (more)
David Rockefeller quotes:
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. ****All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.

David Rockefeller quotes:
***"Everything is in place - after 500 years - to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere... And what happens if we don't pass NAFTA? I truly don't think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word for rejecting NAFTA."
WHAT I SEE AS "CRIMINAL" IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE ASSETS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS THE RESULT OF NAFTA!
________________________


CASPIAN, BILL F, KATHY, MAGGIE MAMA, BIG BOB, robert, MIKE Q, MARIA, GAIL...


STILL DON'T BELIEVE IN NEW WORLD ORDER? REVELATIONS FROM GREAT AND POWERFUL MEN
http://www.svpvril.com/nwo.html

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

THAT quotation and the following - and many others like them - clearly demonstrate that the words "new world order" are deadly serious and furthermore, have been in use for decades. They did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." -Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets.
-------

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other." Myron Fagan

LET THE BUYERS BEWARE!!! THE DEVILS MARK
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." -David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
___________________

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semi-occult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I." British military historian Major General J.F.C. Fuller, l941...
"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didnt. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by... ---->*the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

___________________
In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, to use William James famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!


I took these quotes out of context to emphasize their significance when reading the script

LET THE BUYERS BEWARE!!! THE DEVILS MARK
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." -David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." -David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

==================================

Revelation 13:17

so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

--------------------------

1 Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

================

John, History repeats itself and the Apostles all died horrible deaths all because they would not stop preaching and believing in JESUS.

President Bush:

Thank you, Mr. President ........
You have provided outstanding leadership

Friday, January 16, 2009

Dear Mr. President, as 2008 has passed and we look to the New Year there is a piece of business which is past-due. America owes you a thank you. During the past campaign seasons Democrats and the media often portrayed your leadership as being wrong at every point. In fact, you have provided outstanding decision-making on a number of essential issues.

Thank you for the primary focus you placed on protecting America following September 11. Your pro-active approach may be criticized, but it worked. Against the impending terrorist threat, you believed that in our free and open society a strong offense provides the greatest protection. You have carried the battle to remote corners of the world, and America has not been re-attacked. You recognize the simple fact that bullies respect strength and resolve.

Thank you for your tenacity in winning the peace and rebuilding Iraq. You went to war to depose a terrible despot whom the world intelligence community believed was linked to terrorism. You were supported almost unanimously by Congress to redress a situation where the toothless threats of the U.N. had failed. Through five frustrating years of waging a very complex and difficult war, you faced a national media which was fixated on every loss. You paid a high political price as did the Republican Party who lost the majority in Congress. In spite of this setback, you changed leadership, and proceeded with the surge despite the strenuous objections of the Democrats and national media who called for us to withdraw and quit. Six months later, the corner was turned and Iraq achieved unparalleled stability. The media moved on. Perhaps one day, in a quiet park in Baghdad, there will be a brass plaque that reads, "Thank you America for investing in our freedom." Mr. President, we needed to win this war. Thank you that our service men and women, including my son, did not fight in vain.

Thank you for appointing Supreme Court justices who resist the urge to turn our High Court into a legislative oligarchy. Some of the most polarizing events in American history can be traced to arrogant justices who decided to create law. Thank you for defending our Constitution by appointing judges who interpret existing law rather than dictate new laws.

Thank you for implementing Ronald Reagan's proposed ballistic missile defense. You ignored the whining of the Europeans, the saber rattling of the Russians and the Democrat skeptics who claimed it wouldn't work, and have made a good start. Some day the residents of some city will owe you thanks that they are not nuclear dust.

As Ronald Reagan laid the political groundwork for missile defense, you laid the ground-work for Social Security reform, Mr. President. You had the courage to grab the "third rail of American politics" - Social Security - and alert Americans that the system is mathematically and economically broken. Public awareness of this problem is an important first step toward reform. Thank you for your courage.

President Bush, thank you for using the successful supply side model for treating the recession you inherited in 2001 and for your insightful warnings on government mismanagement. JFK and Ronald Reagan both used large tax cuts to allow businesses to invest and boost productivity, thus pulling the nation out of recession. Your reduction of capital gains and dividends tax, and reductions to the death tax, provided a strong economy with low unemployment, good GDP growth, and good government revenues. Early on, you also warned of the reckless mismanagement of Freddie and Fannie and of the risk of the government having to bail out loans that should never have been written. Unfortunately, Democrat Congressman Frank and Democrat Senator Dodd ignored your advice (New York Times,Sept. 11, 2003). It is ironic that the Democrats, whose policies facilitated the securities crisis, have now been charged with the task of fixing the trillion dollar mess of their own creation. Thank you for the supply side tax cuts that provided us with a number of years of a strong economy and your warning about run-away loan policies.

Mr. President, thank you for the consistent priority you placed on developing American energy independence. You sought to advance a collection of environmentally responsible technologies while allowing the market place to pick the winners and losers. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats were able to block many of those initiatives, thus maintaining our dependence on foreign oil. As a member of Congress, I was not surprised to find a strong party line divide on the abortion issue, but I still find it odd that there is an equally partisan polarity on the development of American energy. If the Democrats remain in leadership, they will be forced by political pragmatics to change their anti-energy position.

Lastly, Mr. President, thank you for the character you exhibited while you served. On a personal basis you were timely, professional, upbeat, and people knew where you stood. You set clear goals and worked your plan. You saw the best in America. You had the courage to tackle the tough issues and make decisions. Your foreign policy blended the soft partnership of daring to dream of a better world with the muscular condemnation and opposition of evil. Although I opposed a number of your big government initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Modernization Act and the bailout, I'm still deeply grateful for your leadership. Thank you, Mr. President, God speed. .

Putin's Iran plan
Atomic ayatollahs: Fine by Vlad

October 1, 2009

Iran's traditional emblem has been the Persian lion. Russia's should be a vulture: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intends to feed on the carcass left by any confrontation with Iran.

For Moscow, this crisis isn't about Tehran's acquisition of nukes. It's about Russia's acquisition of a stranglehold on global energy markets.

Putin's playing with fire -- but he's sure we'll be the ones burned.

As for the Obama administration's desperate (and stunningly naive) hope that economic sanctions can deter President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his fellow thugs-for-Allah from pursuing nuclear weapons, forget it.

Even were Putin to permit his front-man, President Dmitri Medvedev, to agree to half-baked sanctions, Moscow would violate them before Obama could step out of Air Force One with a piece of paper in his hand guaranteeing peace in our time.

The current crisis is a win-win-win for Putin. But before laying out his plan, let's run the numbers:

The Persian Gulf's littoral states hold over 60 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and 40 percent of the natural gas. Russia has "just" 10 percent of the oil reserves and 35 percent of the world's natural gas.

Do the math: Iran and its neighbors, along with Russia, own two-thirds of the world's oil reserves and 70 percent of the natural gas. And the global economy still runs on oil and gas, folks.

Despite the State Department's compartmentalization mentality, Russia and Iran don't exist in separate worlds. It's less than a day's drive from Russia's southern border through Azerbaijan to Iran's northwestern border. I've driven it.

This is one macro-region for energy, the zone of ultimate control. Putin gets it, even if we don't. Here's Czar Vladimir's strategic trifecta:

* For now, Russia profits wonderfully from its trade, both legal and illicit, with Iran, while the West talks itself to death. Life is good.

* But life could get even better: If Iran's nuclear quest isn't blocked, a nuclear arsenal will give Iran de facto control of all Persian Gulf oil. Putin envisions a Moscow-Tehran axis, an energy cartel that dramatically increases the value of his oil and gas -- the only economic props keeping the corpse of Russia upright.

* If Israel's driven to a forlorn-hope attack on Iran's nuke program, Iran will respond by striking Gulf Arab oil fields and facilities, while closing the Strait of Hormuz. The US military will be in it, like it or not. Oil and gas prices will soar unimaginably -- and the bear will have its paws on the golden tap.

So the worst outcome for Putin -- more of the same -- is still good. A bad outcome for everybody else is even better in Putin's strategy to renew Russia's superpower status.

Why on earth would this guy help us stop Iran? When he hates us, anyway? (It isn't you, Barack. It's just business.)

For all his viciousness, Putin's a serious strategist. We don't have any high-level strategists. Not one. On either side of the Potomac.

In his first decade on the throne, Czar Vladimir focused on addicting Europe to Russian gas, while moving successfully to exert control over as many pipelines as possible. That was the constructive decade.

The second decade in the reign of Vladimir I is the energy-cartel-building phase. This will be the confrontational phase.

Energy's the only real power Putin has, so he's maximizing it.

It's no accident that a strategic triangle has emerged between Moscow, Tehran and Caracas -- home of the great Latin mischief-lover, Hugo Chavez, who thrives on his own nation's petro-wealth.

For us, the Iran crisis is about peace. For Putin, it's about power. Yet the self-deluding Obama administration really believes that Moscow's going to support us. After our president gave away our only serious bargaining chip, the missile-defense system promised to our European allies.

Putin thinks in 10-year-plans. We can't think past the next congressional roll-call vote.

The Obama administration's primary legacy to the world is going to be a nuclear-armed Iran.

GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham: Birthers Are "Crazy," Beck is "A Cynic"
October 1, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/yefwbpu
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) divested himself of the trappings of the extreme right wing of his party on Thursday, calling the popular Fox News host Glenn Beck a "cynic" and birthers "crazy."

Graham was speaking before The Atlantic's First Draft of History conference.

"So I'm here to tell you that those who think the president was born somewhere other than Hawaii are crazy. He's not a Muslim. He's a good man
http://snafu-ed.blogspot.com/2009/10/gop-sen-lindsay-graham-birthers-are.html

Obviously you do not have a party who represents your views.

NOT ONE Republican voted against the legislation that states Obama was born in Hawaii.

Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are liars and propagandist.

Sincerely,
Josef Goebbels

Congress: Yes, Obama Was Born in Hawaii ( 378 - 0 )
July 28, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lhngae
Yesterday, an innocuous-sounding resolution in honor of the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood came up for vote on the House floor.

The resolution from Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie, which Greg Sargent first reported, included this line: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii…"

Why is that notable? Because it's just the sort of claim that angers the birthers – the movement of folks who believe, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that President Obama was not really born in Hawaii, and is thus not a U.S. citizen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5193422.shtml

Glenn Beck EXPOSED - Crying On Cue Using Vicks under His Eyes.
http://tinyurl.com/yb8jb95
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4I2f0ZO6g&feature=player_embedded

BRING BACK BUSH!

--------------------------------------

Obama's French Lesson

October 2, 2009


"President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

WASHINGTON -- When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia ... what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports The New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N."

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world."

He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite."

Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacre bleu, he's sitting on Qom!"

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can ... dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.

Obama looks like a stumbling weak jerk to the world, once again
---------------------------
Obamas Fail in Personal Pitch to Bring 2016 Olympics to Chicago

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama risked their political capital and the prestige of the presidency on an enormous Olympic campaign that resulted in an early exit for Chicago and the top prize going to Rio de Janeiro.

October 02, 2009

President Obama's failure to grab gold in his personal quest to send the 2016 Olympics to Chicago was a stunning setback for a president who has enjoyed a pop star reception abroad.

But Obama's stumble may cost him more than the $1.2 million of taxpayer money to make the overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama risked their political capital and the prestige of the presidency on an enormous Olympic campaign that resulted in an early exit for Chicago and the top prize going to Rio de Janeiro.

After returning to Washington, Obama said he wished he had come back with better news on the Olympics but congratulated Brazil and thanked everyone who worked on Chicago's bid.

"I'm proud I was able to come in and help make the case in person," he said from the White House. "I believe it's always a worthwhile endeavor to promote and boost the United States of America and invite the world to see what we're all about."

But critics immediately decried Obama's visit to Copenhagen, the first time a U.S. president made such an in-person appeal.

"It demeans the office," said GOP consultant Brad Blakeman, a former Bush administration official. "For the president to be reduced to the effect of the Billy Mays pitchman for the United States to get the Olympics for his home city of Chicago is just not something that presidents do."

Blakeman said Obama spent more time wooing International Olympic Committee officials than he did in his meeting with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, before returning to Washington.

"His priorities are screwed up and the American people are seeing that this president just doesn't get the effects and importance of governing," Blakeman told FOX News.

Instead of making a personal appearance, Blakeman said Obama should have sent a delegation led by the first lady and the mayor of Chicago.

"But it does not warrant the participation of the president of the United States, especially when we didn't get the games," he said. "It puts his prestige on the line and we're rebuffed by a bunch...of thugs steeped in fraud and abuse and the president lowered his high office by doing this."

The White House expressed no regret about Obama's effort.

"There was never any guarantee. All the bids were strong; we knew that," senior White House adviser David Axelrod told FOX News minutes after Chicago was eliminated.

"This president was proud to go and represent our country and make the case for the U.S. and make the case for Chicago," he said. "He'd do it again if he had a chance. We're disappointed it didn't work out but life goes on."

Chicago's elimination was one of the most shocking defeats in IOC voting history. It had long been seen as a front-runner and got the highest possible level of support -- from the president of the United States himself.

But the emotional appeals from Obama and his wife Michelle -- they both flew to Copenhagen to fight in Chicago's corner -- fell on deaf ears in the European-dominated IOC. The IOC's last two experiences in the United States were bad: the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics were sullied by a bribery scandal and logistical problems and a bombing hit the 1996 Games in Atlanta.

"I urge you to choose Chicago for the same reasons I chose Chicago nearly 25 years ago -- the reasons I fell in love with the city I still call home," Obama told members of the International Olympic Committee, many of whom he later mingled with as some snapped photos of him on their cell phones.

"And if you do -- if we walk this path together -- then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud," the president said.

Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo made their cases to the IOC for more than a year, with many IOC members believed to be undecided as late as Friday night.

By the time the winning bid was announced, the Obamas were back on a plane to Washington.

The president's whirlwind trip put him in the Danish capital for less than five hours Friday, with Chicago-backers hoping that would be sufficient to give Obama's adopted home town the advantage it needed to win the close, four-way race to become the host city of the 2016 Summer Games.

But the compressed time frame did not shield Obama from Republican criticism that he shouldn't be hopscotching to Europe in Air Force One when there were so many pressing issues to deal with at home.

Both Obamas spoke on deeply personal terms about Chicago, the city at the center of the world's spotlight so many times, including in November when the former Illinois senator won the White House. The president described Chicago as a city of diversity and warmth, a place where he finally found a home.

"It's a city that works, from its first World's Fair more than a century ago to the World Cup we hosted in the nineties," Obama said. "We know how to put on big events."

For all the anticipation surrounding Obama's appearance in Copenhagen, his arrival at the IOC meeting was decidedly subdued.

The 100-plus committee members, who had already been warned not show bias during the presentations, sat silently as the Obamas walked into the Bella Center with the rest of 12-member Chicago delegation.

Michelle Obama gave a passionate account of what the games would mean to her father, who taught her as a girl how to throw punches better than the boys. She spoke fondly of growing up on the South Side of Chicago, sitting on her father's lap and cheering on Olympic athletes.

The president anchored the U.S. charm offensive,referencing his own election as a moment when people from around the world gathered in Chicago to see the results last November and celebrate that "our diversity could be a source of strength."

Though IOC President Jacques Rogge has said heads of state aren't required to attend the IOC meeting, recent votes indicate their presence can make a difference.

During the 2005 IOC meeting in Singapore, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair successfully lobbied members on behalf of London's bid for the 2012 Summer Games. Two years later, Vladimir Putin, then president of Russia, helped secure the 2014 Winter Games for Sochi on Russia's Black Sea coast.

Fox News is un-American because they celebrated that the United States lost the bid for the Olympics.

-----------------------

Bush Republicans are antidemocratic with an attraction to authoritarianism.

Liberals are always trying to enfranchise citizens and Bush Republicans always try to block some citizens from voting.( BLACKS & LATINOS )!

Liberals defend the Constitution and long standing institutions like Social Security and Medicare.

Bush Republicans want the USA to go back to the Gilded Age and privatize Social Security and undo “The New Deal”!

Most if not all Bush Republican supporters are not conservatives. They are Neo-Cons who are apologist for the wealthiest top 1% percentile.

They have been thoroughly bamboozled for the last 30 years of rightwing propaganda and corrupt corporate mainstream media filter, which they believe is liberal!

Sincerely,
Leo Strauss

"Fox News is un-American because they celebrated that the United States lost the bid for the Olympics."

From what I've seen, not any more than CBS, NBC or ABC or the NY TIMES. Its unanimous, the tide is turning. Obama embarrassed us all.

What Else Would One Expect From A Leader Who Resides IN The Left???

NEVER AGAIN!!!

--------------------------------------

Bam's Gifts to A'jad:

'Nuke' talks break Iran's way

October 3, 2009

BY all accounts, Thursday's talks between Iran and the 5+1 group of major powers represent a diplomatic coup for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he faces continued political unrest at home.

Before the talks, Ahmadinejad's opponents -- among them former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mussavi, the man who believes he won last June's presidential election -- claimed that Tehran's stance on the nuclear issue was driving the country toward "sanctions and war."

Ahmadinejad had countered the claim by promising to lock the 5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) into "long and well-planned talks" with an agenda proposed by Tehran.


Now that the talks are over, it's clear that, under pressure from the Obama administration, the 5+1 group fulfilled Ahmadinejad's promise and confounded Mussavi.
So far, Obama has made several concessions to Iran:

* The negotiations are no longer about Iran's compliance with the Security Council resolutions it has violated. Obama is careful not to even mention the resolutions in his statements.

* A new agenda, based on a "package" proposed by Iran, is to be developed. Talks on that issue will start by month's end.

* The 5+1 are no longer demanding that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Instead, they're promoting a range of ideas that would let Iran continue its program.

* Obama's delay in challenging Iran on the newly revealed Qom nuclear site also played into Ahmadinejad's hands.

Britain and France shared intelligence about the plant with the US four months ago. They wanted Obama to disclose the information when he chaired a Security Council session last month -- a move that would have dramatized Iran's defiance of the United Nations. Obama refused, preferring an announcement in Pittsburgh with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and UK Premier Gordon Brown at his side. This let Ahmadinejad claim that he was facing "the Crusader-Zionist" camp rather than the whole of the UN.

* Obama got his allies in Congress to bury a resolution to impose a ban on the sale of gasoline to Iran. (The move, supported by 300 House members and 75 senators, was one of the "crippling sanctions" threatened by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.)

* For the first time in 16 years, Iran's foreign minister was granted a visa to visit Washington -- sending a signal that Obama endorses the second Ahmadinejad administration.

* Obama has rejected Sarkozy and Brown's suggestion to fix a time frame for the talks to produce results. Ahmadinejad thus needs only to stall: All he wants is another 18 to 24 months, by which time Iran's nuclear program would become irreversible.

When Obama became president, Iran had 800 centrifuges enriching uranium. Now it has 8,000. By 2010, it may have twice as many -- including the "ultraefficient" new ones promised by Ahmadinejad's new nuclear chief, Ali Salehi.

Ahmadinejad is intelligent enough to have understood one fact: For Obama, the way things look are more important than the way they are. The Iranian will happily feed the American's illusions. He has already done so by taking a number of steps:

* He has agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment plant in a few weeks' time rather than the three months previously promised. This allows Obama to declare a diplomatic victory: "We forced Iran to open its plant in weeks rather than months," he told Charlie Rose. (Rose was too polite to ask: Why wait weeks, when IAEA inspectors could be there in an hour?)

In the process of winning this "concession," the US has fudged away the fact that Iran built the plant in defiance of UN resolutions and that its existence was kept a secret from the IAEA.

* Iran will allow retiring IAEA Director Muhammad ElBaradaei to make one last visit to create the illusion that Obama's "smart engagement strategy" is working.

* The regime-controlled media are donning kid gloves for Obama and blasting Sarkozy and Brown. The official news agency, IRNA, talks of Obama's "reasonable approach" as opposed to "conspiracies hatched by France and Britain."

Ahmadinejad can also please Obama by releasing the innocent Americans that the regime has imprisoned. In fact, this was the key subject raised by US envoy William Burns in his one-on-one encounter with Iran's Saeid Jalili.

Perhaps former President Bill Clinton will get to make another trip to win the release of US hostages. Or perhaps Iran will aim for an even more prestigious visitor: Do not underestimate Obama's and Ahmadinejad's shared love of theatricals.

What Else Would One Expect From A Leader Who Resides IN The Left???

NEVER AGAIN!!!

--------------------------------------

Is Jimmy Carter racist?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Jimmy Carter time and again blames the Middle East's only true democracy, Israel, for the woes in that region while providing excuses for Arab terrorists, and there we have it. This Sunday school-teaching Baptist is an anti-Semite, a hater of Jews, someone whose political views on the subject of Arab-Israeli peace are most persuasively informed by his deep-seated bigotry.

Unfair? Of course it is, but no more unfair than Mr. Carter's own recent blather that the extent of opposition to President Obama's policies is driven by racism, an accusation unfounded in any substantive evidence but owing a lot to a game that certain holier-than-thou liberals especially love to play. It's the old ad hominem ruse, the resort to name-calling instead of logical argumentation when the debate gets tough.

If you happen to believe that increasing the minimum wage has a virtually meaningless impact on national take-home pay while costing people jobs, liberals say you lack compassion. If you believe illegal immigration drives down wages for low-income workers while making it harder for them to find employment, liberals say you are prejudiced against Hispanics. If you believe vastly expanded health care entitlements could be economically ruinous for the United States, some liberals say you are a downright mean, greedy and probably stupid person.

And so now, when something like half the population is getting worried sick about Mr. Obama's massive, nation-altering and unaffordable proposals, the easiest response of supporters is to say it's perfectly clear what's up: racism. Their tune is that these whites out there don't think a black is fit to lead us, are going at him like no one has ever gone at a president before and that it is disgusting, awful, scary.

The fact is, of course, that critics have been going after presidents with vitriol, caricature and worse since the days of the founders, and mentioning Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie" during an Obama speech in the Capitol proves absolutely nothing.

He was one individual immediately and properly criticized by everyone on both sides of the aisle. Democrats loudly booed President George W. Bush when he was giving a speech, and although it was outside the chamber, senators such as the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy insisted Mr. Bush lied us into war in Iraq, in effect saying he slaughtered Americans for personal advantage.

I've watched the town-hall protests on TV, and while I think the shouting got out of hand, it was not being directed at a black president. Most of the time, it was being directed at some flabbergasted, pathetically out-of-touch white congressman.

The recent Washington protest was a peaceful affair, and Mr. Carter got it wrong when he said he saw a sign saying Mr. Obama should be buried with Mr. Kennedy. The sign - utterly distasteful, to be sure - said to bury Mr. Obama's health care plan with Mr. Kennedy.

Nothing I read about that protest compared with the shouts of anti-Vietnam college students screaming in the 1960s, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

Yes, of course, absolutely - there's still racism in America. But we just elected a black president in many ways admired even by his critics, we have put all kinds of civil rights laws in place, we have thrown away he worst of the past. And the examples of persisting racism are not all instances of whites manifesting deplorable attitudes about minorities, but the other way around. One thing that seems to me in some subtle way racist is to make the charge of racism without reasonable, intellectually persuasive arguments, to assume its existence based on nothing more than skin color.

The horror of this kind of thing in a democracy, of course, is that it tends to chill discussion because of the fear that criticizing a black president's actions will be taken as tantamount to bigotry. Mr. Carter, who has in fact been accused of anti-Semitic attitudes because of his Middle East stands, ought to know better.

What Else Would One Expect From A Leader Who Resides IN The Left???

NEVER AGAIN!!!

--------------------------------------

Obama Continues to Apologize to the World:


Barack Obama took center stage at the United Nations on Wednesday and continued his "I'm sorry for America" tour. Despite leading a nation that defends others, pays for others, promotes freedom for others, and shelters others, Obama once again talked about the past in order to make himself more accommodating and caring.

Word to Obama and other left-wing "speak softly and carry a wet spaghetti noodle" types.... his message was exactly what other nations want to hear. But it's not because they want a kindler, gentler America to get along with. It's because they want an America that will continue to pay the bills, continue to bail them out of emergencies, and let them run amok with their policies. Obama gave them everything they were looking for.


Obama wasted no time setting the tone for his U.N. address. (Read full address here at GOPUSA.) In just the first paragraph, he said that as president of the United States he is "determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad." Boldly AND collectively? Can someone please tell me how those two can coexist? Building coalitions is nice... we did it for both wars. (I mention that for the liberals who like to forget.) But when it comes time for "bold" action and real leadership, it will be a cold day in Hell before you can build a "collective" consensus. Acting boldly means exerting real leadership. Acting collectively tells other nations, "don't worry... we're not going to do anything without your permission." That is not leadership.

Shortly after that statement, Obama echoed previous world speeches by highlighting what he thinks is wrong with America:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

At this time, do you think that he addressed the "misperceptions and misinformation" about America? Did he describe how America really is? No. Did he explain that America has not acted unilaterally? Of course not.

Here's what for U.N. Ambassador John Bolton had to say to National Review Online about the speech:

"It was a very naive, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama's foreign policy," says Bolton. "Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president's decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan."

When talking about Iraq, Obama did not mention how the Iraqi's are now free from an oppressive dictator and holding democratic elections. Instead, he simply said, "In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war." When talking about Afghanistan, he never mentioned the Taliban. Obama did, however, talk tough against one nation: Israel.

Here's Bolton's comment:

"The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending 'the occupation that began in 1967.' That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders," says Bolton. "Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don't have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future."

The Heritage Foundation had a number of their foreign policy experts weigh in on the speech. Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, had this to say:

"The other U.N. member states have to be beside themselves with glee. President Obama gave them virtually everything they could ask for without demanding anything in return that was not already on the agenda - and which they are prepared to twist to their advantage. He did not even ask them to support more accountability, transparency, or efficiency in the U.N. , which will be leading action on the very complex and expensive tasks that he is proposing.

The Obama administration probably thinks that its actions and this speech have purchased them the goodwill of U.N. member states, which will translate into support for U.S. policies. They are setting themselves up for disappointment. The political nature of the U.N. is combative and tough. Most member states consider these concessions their due. They will pocket them and stand firm to defend their interests. Cooperation will be on their terms, on issues they wish to pursue. The naivete of the speech was staggering."

I would be remiss not to mention that Obama did receive some praise for his speech. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro praised Obama for his efforts on "climate change." The news story notes that "the former Cuban leader on Wednesday called the American president's speech at the United Nations "brave" and said no other American head of state would have had the courage to make similar remarks."

OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
http://tinyurl.com/25l8t9
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

FOX News Whistle blowers. UNBELIEVABLE
http://tinyurl.com/4d7wbm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc&feature=related

Net Neutrality Episode
http://tinyurl.com/cfmgkv
http://yournetwork.tv/episode_neutrality.php

What is the role of the media?
http://tinyurl.com/ccc4fb
http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php

=======================

"OutFoxed": How Rupert Murdoch Is Destroying American Journalism
A review of Robert Greenwald's new documentary investigating the Fox News Channel. / July 10, 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/5wwwr
As "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's powerful indictment of the Bush Administration, is influencing millions of Americans in the heartland, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," a devastating new documentary that exposes Bush's biggest cheerleader opens this week in New York and San Francisco and will be featured in thousands of house parties across the country, sponsored by MoveOn.org on Sunday, July 18th.

"Outfoxed" demonstrates in painful detail how one media empire, making full use of the public airwaves, can reject any semblance of fairness or perspective, and serve as the mouthpiece of right-wing conservatives, fully relishing its role. Media critic Jeffrey Chester describes the Fox News operation most succinctly in the film: "Fox News Channel is a 24/7 commercial for the conservatives and the Republican Party."
http://www.alternet.org/story/19199/

"OutFoxed": How Rupert Murdoch Is Destroying American Journalism"

Fox is the only TV cable station or TV network that you people don't control....and you insist on controlling that one too??? Then where would America hear about the news events that CBS, NBC, ABC or NY Times, for example, buries because they are forever protecting the world of the left??? Even PRAVDA never got away with what the Western Leftist Media is pulling on America. Why else do you think why Fox always has the largest amount of viewers.....because America, right, middle and even left want to hear the truth and nothing but the whole truth so they can make up their own minds..

Fox is mostly rightwing propaganda and the others are corporate owned and not liberal.

20 years later there are still millions of Fox News viewers who still believe the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster!

With All Due Respect,
Glenn "Vicks Vapor Rub" Beck
===============================

Obviously you do not have a party who represents your views.

NOT ONE Republican voted against the legislation that states Obama was born in Hawaii.

Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are liars and propagandist.

Sincerely,
Josef Goebbels

Congress: Yes, Obama Was Born in Hawaii ( 378 - 0 )
July 28, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lhngae
Yesterday, an innocuous-sounding resolution in honor of the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood came up for vote on the House floor.

The resolution from Hawaii Democrat Neil Abercrombie, which Greg Sargent first reported, included this line: "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii…"

Why is that notable? Because it's just the sort of claim that angers the birthers – the movement of folks who believe, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that President Obama was not really born in Hawaii, and is thus not a U.S. citizen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5193422.shtml

"Fox is mostly rightwing propaganda and the others are corporate owned and not liberal"

Man without a country....What would someone like you, who is only for himself know anything about Conservatives or Liberals???

Truth Teller 101:

Most if not all Bush Republican supporters are not conservatives. They are Neo-Cons who are apologist for the wealthiest top 1% percentile.

They have been thoroughly bamboozled for the last 30 years of rightwing propaganda and corrupt corporate mainstream media filter, which they believe is liberal!

Sincerely,
Leo Strauss

========================

American corrupt corporate media filter 101:
Clear Channel is hardwired into the Bush political machine. The company co-chair is Tom Hicks, who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1998 from Bush Jr. That deal made Bush Junior a multi-millionaire. Michael Powell is a neo-confederate of the worst kind. He tried to hijack the FCC to deregulate and give away the public airwaves to his corporate cronies. Expecting Fox News to report real news is about as silly as waiting for Dick Cheney and George Bush to tell the truth. Clinton / Gore Telecommunications Act of 1996 sponsored giveaway of our public airwaves removed long-standing restrictions. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. General Electric owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC. Time Warner AOL owns CNN. Disney owns ABC. Viacom owns CBS. All Corporate Media doing $Billions with the Pentagon for over 60 years.
================================================================

Silvio Berlusconi was the prime minister of Italy and owns state television networks, radio stations, three of Italy’s four commercial television networks, two big publishing houses, two national newspapers, fifty magazines, Italy’s largest movie and distribution company. Rupert Murdoch just happens to be Silvio Berlusconi’s best friend and as of July 31, all of Italy’s satellite hookups were switched automatically to Murdoch’s Sky Italia.

Thank God for FOX NEWS!

Sunday night at 9 PM Eastern. 10/04/2009

This Sunday Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama, Sunday night at 9 PM Eastern.

The report will go back to Obama's earlier days, showing even then his close ties to radical Marxist professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc. It will also reveal detail his ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ yrs. How he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he states!
The report has uncovered more of Obama's radical past and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. It will be a segment to remember.
Mark your calendar and pass this on to everyone you know: Sunday night, 8 PM. CT; 9 PM ET. 6 PM Pacific time. Democrat or Republican, this report will open your eyes to how YOUR country is being sold down the road to Totalitarian Socialism. If you care about the direction of our country, pass this notice on to everyone you know.

Greeks Vote Socialists Into Power
OCTOBER 5, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/yartua5
ATHENS -- Greece's opposition Socialists won national elections on Sunday as voters rejected the incumbent center-right party that had been tarred by scandals and unpopular economic policies during its five and a half years in office.
George Papandreou, leader of the winning Socialist party, Pasok, told supporters, "We bear a great responsibility to change the course of the country."
Pasok, the Socialist party, secured 43.9% of the vote in early official results, translating to 160 seats in Greece's 300-member parliament. Under Greece's reinforced proportional-representation system, the party with the largest number of votes is awarded seats based on overall results plus 40 bonus seats. The allocation is also affected by other factors, including how many parties failed to reach the 3% threshold need to enter parliament.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125463553190862261.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Nice Article

Fun to read

Awesome post

WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. …

great site

great blog, where can I find this theme?

Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend your web site, how could i subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a applicable deal. I had been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast provided shiny transparent concept.

Great goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just too excellent. I really like what you have acquired here, really like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it sensible. I can't wait to read much more from you. This is actually a tremendous website.