Tag Archives: World affairs. Nuclear

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown – Telegraph Blogs

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

3. Obama fails to inspire

4. The United States is drowning in debt

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

via The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown – Telegraph Blogs.

An excellent summary of where we are to date under Obama

Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur

The president is well-intentioned but can’t walk the walk on the world stage

Posted June 18, 2010

President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.

// <![CDATA[//

Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America’s offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.

The reviews of Obama’s performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America’s role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world’s leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America’s foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one’s own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the “special relationship” with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama’s visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president’s poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama’s policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama’s severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things “must be done” and “should be done” and that “it is time” to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is “the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy.” Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an “NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches.” In other words, he talks the talk but doesn’t know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.

In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama’s meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion.” Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, “There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don’t know how to play that game.”

Recent U.S. attempts to introduce more meaningful sanctions against Iran produced a U.N. resolution that is way less than the “crippling” sanctions the administration promised. The United States even failed to achieve the political benefit of a unanimous Security Council vote. Turkey, the Muslim anchor of NATO for almost 60 years, and Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, voted against our resolution. Could it be that these long-standing U.S. allies, who gave cover to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, have decided that there is no cost in lining up with America’s most serious enemies and no gain in lining up with this administration?

The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism. This was startling and clear when he chose not to publicly support the Iranians who went to the streets in opposition to their oppressive government, based on a judgment that our support might be counterproductive. Yet, he reaches out instead to the likes of Bashar Assad of Syria, Iran’s agent in the Arab world, sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it continues to rearm Hezbollah in Lebanon and expands its role in the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance.

The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power. Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That’s why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)

America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, “We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends.”

The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America’s economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.

American Apology Tour Continues

5/18/10 at 10:18am

On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.

Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.

– Sarah Palin

Obama’s Nuclear Cuts Could Prove Dangerous

Posted 05/08/2010 ET

The Department of Defense recently released the official figures of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile as of September 2009. Counting the strategic weapons we have now deployed—roughly 2,200—and the 500 tactical nuclear weapons we have—the United States has fewer overall nuclear weapons than at any time since the Eisenhower administration.

During the past 30 years, the United States has reduced its nuclear weapons by nearly 20,000, nearly ten times the total number of nuclear weapons we have deployed today. That is the extent of the progress we have made since President Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.

President Bush 41 and President Bush 43 reduced nuclear weapons by over 16,000, following agreement on INF and START and the Moscow Treaty. And of course it was President Reagan, under a policy and strategy of “peace through strength”, that built-up America’s power and negotiated reductions in Soviet military power. It was that strength that made such nuclear weapons reductions possible.

Under Reagan’s leadership, the first treaty eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons was signed—the Intermediate Forces Treaty or INF in 1987. Thousands of Soviet SS-20 warheads aimed at Western Europe and our East Asian allies, especially Japan, Taiwan and the Republic of Korea were eliminated.

But only after the United States, joined by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and supported by the Vatican, deployed hundreds of Pershing and ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe, over the violent protests of the Soviet Union and their $300 million nuclear-freeze campaign, did the Soviets cave.

Subsequently, the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed the first START treaty which reduced nuclear weapons from around 12,000 deployed weapons to 6,000. Although the START II treaty was signed by President Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1992, it was never approved in the same form by the Russian Duma and the U.S. Senate, so it languished.

However, President Bush 43 created a flexible arms-control process with the treaty of Moscow or SORT, Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which brought U.S. deployed weapons down to 2,200 but let us significant and flexible room for reconstitution should the security situation so require it.

And that is where we are today. For those critics who see the U.S. as having failed to “lead the way” toward reductions in nuclear weapons, the deployed and reserve weapons stockpile numbers are proof that the U.S. has, even before the new START treaty just signed by the U.S. and Russia is implemented, fulfilled its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, which the countries of the world are meeting to discuss now in New York.

These figures confirm that President Bush 41 reduced our tactical nuclear weapons by over 90% at the end off the Cold War, and encouraged Russia to do the same. Moscow never complied with the terms off this “informal” agreement. Now the U.S. is faced with a Russia armed with over 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons, unconstrained by any treaty.

Unfortunately, like all the strategic nuclear-weapons reduction treaties before it, the New START treaty leaves unsettled the question of the huge Russian advantage in such weapons, which further calls into question the security of our European allies on whose soil many of these weapons are targeted. America’s stockpile has certainly been reduced sharply over the past 30 years, but there is no question that our robust, effective and strong nuclear deterrent led to the nuclear agreements we signed with the Soviets and then the Russians, and the resulting remaining force that was sufficient to maintain deterrence.

The secretary of Defense has rightly brought attention to the prospects the U.S. faces with respect to our nuclear forces of the future. As he has counseled, the U.S. will need to maintain a nuclear deterrent for many years, although at a lower level of weapons than those we possessed at the height of the Cold War. He was concerned that the cost of replacing the 12 current Trident submarines—which now carry slightly more than half our nuclear deterrent—will cost some $84 billion. This does not count the cost of the 16-20 missiles per boat that have to be produced as well.

Given this cost, compared to $7 billion-$10 billion which would refurbish all 450 Minuteman missiles spread out over thousands of square miles in five of our Western and Great Plains states, we need to adopt a sound plan for future deterrent before we make irreversible decisions that may be costly to our security.

For example, pathways to growth not constrained by the new treaty may allow Russian advantages in the future, while U.S. capability to respond has been circumscribed. Russia will have 600 missiles and bombers and are allowed 700-800. The U.S. has 880 and is allowed 700-800. But before we start hacking away at our nuclear deterrent, we should keep our powder dry and keep all 450 Minuteman land-based missiles and the 12-14 Trident submarines until we know the shape of an uncertain future.

As recommended by a bipartisan group of six U.S. senators in an April 30 letter to the President, “The United States must make absolutely certain that we do not make any destabilizing choices as we make reductions…in today’s world, the ICBM force takes on an even greater importance as we have drawn down our nuclear force. With that in mind, we strongly urge you to maintain a robust and-based strategic nuclear deterrent force with 450 single-warhead ICBMs.”

Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Potomac, Maryland national security consulting firm he founded in 1981. During the Reagan administration he worked to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles, deploy missile defenses and defeat the communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua. He has been a guest lecturer at the Joint Military Intelligence College

Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?

Mr. President, is a strong America a problem?
Friday, April 16, 2010 at 10:09am

Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russia and China in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:

The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.

The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.

– Sarah Palin

Two and a Half Cheers for Joe Lieberman

Two and a Half Cheers for Joe Lieberman    [Frank J. Gaffney Jr.]

On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman announced that he has written President Obama’s homeland-security adviser, John Brennan, expressing strong objections to the administration’s systematic dumbing-down of its characterization of the enemy we face.  This has been manifested most recently in the leak last week that the National Security Strategy now being drafted by the White House will not use the term “Islamic terrorism” and similar formulations in describing the contemporary threat.  The senator noted that this practice flies in the face of “thousands of years” of sound military and intelligence practice, which makes accurate characterization of the enemy a prerequisite for developing and executing strategies for his defeat.

Senator Lieberman expressed frustration that he had failed in previous, evidently private, efforts to persuade the president and his senior subordinates to recognize the reality that “Islamist extremism” is the ideology that animates our enemies.  The Senator was particularly and properly contemptuous of the after-action report issued on the Fort Hood massacre, which failed even to mention the fact that the shooter, Dr. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was a Muslim — let alone that his business card called him a “Soldier of Allah,” that his thesis at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences explained why he was obliged to kill “infidels” who were going to kill Muslims, and that he shouted “Allahu Akhbar” (the Islamic martyr’s cry, meaning “God is great”) as he murdered his comrades.

Senator Lieberman is, of course, absolutely right that we have no chance of defeating the enemy unless we can properly identify him.  The senator deserves our heartfelt thanks for calling out the Obama administration for adamantly and repeatedly refusing to do that — and, thereby, for increasing dramatically the danger we face from such foes.

That said, it would be desirable if the distinguished senator from Connecticut, who chairs the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, would refrain from characterizing the enemy as “Islamic extremists,” as a way of disassociating them from the many millions of Muslims, at home and abroad, who are not determined to destroy us.  Our foes are most accurately depicted as adherents to Shariah — the virulently intolerant, supremacist, and totalitarian ideology of authoritative Islam — not as “extremists” who are somehow, in the preferred formulation of Mr. Brennan, “hijacking” the religion of peace.

The political ideology known as Shariah is the fault line between Muslims who are enemies and those who are not.  Joe Lieberman is absolutely right in trying to move the Obama administration toward honesty, transparency, and accuracy in understanding and depicting the threat we face today.  If Senator Lieberman will, himself, be more accurate about its wellsprings and character, he will make an even more vital contribution to our national security and public safety.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio.

Is There a Rhyme or Reason to U.S. Foreign Policy?

by [Victor Davis Hanson]

During the 2008 campaign, the Obama group argued that Bush & Co. were insensitive to allies and had acted in clumsy, unilateral fashion, permanently damaging our stature in the world. Given the first 15 months of foreign policy in the new administration, we can see now that Obama’s critique largely meant that we had damaged relations with supposed belligerents like Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela — inasmuch as right now, British, Colombian, Czech, German, Honduran, Indian, Israeli, Japanese, Polish, and South Korean leaders might privately prefer the good “bad” old days of the supposed cowboy Bush. All of which raises the question: Why Obama’s shift in foreign policy? I offer four alternatives, uncertain of the answer myself.

a) Obama in 2007 and 2008 created a campaign narrative of Bush the cowboy, and then found himself trapped by his own “reset button” rhetoric, which meant he could hardly credit his maligned predecessor by building on the multilateral work that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had established from 2006 onward (cf. the similar quandary of libeling Bush as a war-mongering anti-constitutionalist and then using new, kinder, gentler anti-terrorism euphemisms to mask the adoption of embracing Predators, tribunals, renditions, wiretaps, intercepts, and continuance in Iraq and Afghanistan);

b) Obama sincerely believes that states that were pro-American under Bush are now somewhat dubious, while other states’ anti-American rhetoric during 2001–08 was understandable and so rightfully now earns them empathy and attention as a reward;

c) Obama genuinely believes that those abroad who are more statist and voice rhetoric that dovetails with his own equality-of-result efforts at home are sympathetic, inasmuch as they too define “freedom” in holistic terms of state entitlements rather than individual liberty, free markets, and free expression — so to the degree a leader casts himself as a “revolutionary,” he finds resonance with an equally progressive Obama; or

d) Obama has no idea of what he is doing, and wings his way from one embarrassment to another, from snubbing Gordon Brown to gratuitously insulting Benjamin Netanyahu to abruptly changing the terms of commitments with the Czechs and Poles to constructing nonexistent Islamic historical achievements to browbeating Karzai to courting Putin to bowing to the Saudis, etc., all as he sees fit at any given moment — with an inexperienced but impulsive Hillary Clinton and gaffe-prone Joe Biden as catalysts rather than arresters of Obama’s own haphazardness.

Whatever the reasons, I think the seeds have been sown and the harvests will soon be upon us. Any initial delight that the world’s masses found in a post-national, post-racial, charismatic young American president will begin to be eclipsed by their leaders’ realpolitik calculations, both old friends and enemies — namely, that the U.S. will probably not assist (other than in soaring rhetorical cadences of empathy) any past ally in its hour of need, and will probably not oppose (other than in meaningless deadlines and melodramatic contextualization) any past enemy in its newfound efforts to readjust regional realities. (If only Obama treated Iran or Syria as he does Bush, Sarah Palin, and the top 10 percent of American taxpayers.)

So as the U.S. completes its metamorphosis into a much larger version of the EU, we should expect to see something of the following:

Karzai or Allawi will look more to Iran, which will soon become the regional and nuclear hegemon of the Middle East.

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics had better mend fences with Russia.

The EU should finally start on that much-ballyhooed all-European response force.

Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Korea should strengthen ties with China.

Buffer states in South America had better make amends with a dictatorial, armed, and aggressive Chavez.

Israel should accept that the U.S. no longer will provide support for it at the UN, chide the Arab states to cool their anti-Israeli proclamations, remind the Europeans not to overdo their popular anti-Israeli rhetoric, or warn radical Palestinians not to start another intifada. (In other words, it’s open season to say or do anything one wishes with Israel.)

As for bankrupt, wannabe national defaulters, don’t worry — we are rapidly catching up, and have neither the credibility nor the desire to lecture you about artificial constructs like “debt,” “bonds,” “trust,” and other archaic financial euphemisms manipulated to protect the international capital of an overseer class.

Sowing a new crop takes a while, but the sprouting has begun and the bitter, 1979-like harvests will soon be upon us.

Charles Krauthammer – Nuclear posturing, Obama-style

Charles Krauthammer – Nuclear posturing, Obama-style.

Putin vexes US over nuclear power

FT.com / US & Canada – Putin vexes US over Iran nuclear power

Here’s a surprise!  While President Obama plays nice, nice to the leaders of the world, examples of disrespect like this continue to surface.  Obama’s progressive mentality has placed the country in the position of having our adversaries challenging the USA in a way not seen since Jimmy Carter.  The frightening fact of all of this is that as all of these challenges continue, no one in this administration takes the hard line necessary to keep these opportunists at bay.  I didn’t agree with everything President George W. Bush did but he commanded the respect of world leaders with his realistic approach to the world scene.  At home it was a lose, lose proposition then, as it is now, with the main stream media slamming President Bush’s approach to world affairs.  He understood very well that the moment we show our weakness, there will be some power broker rushing in to fill the void.  Whether it’s the leaders of the European nations or the dictators like Chavez or Castro, they are laughing at us behind our backs.  They understand fully that we have a weak sister in the white house.  The only thing that keeps the Europeans from losing hope and our enemies from being even more provocative is the fact the 2012 is only 3 years away and things will change drastcally!  We should celebrate our form of government and the wisdom of our forefathers when they established our framework.

Joepf

Posted using ShareThis