On January 3rd, President Obama released his vision for military expenditures going forward. It is a plan that calls for reducing troop strength by tens of thousands because, Mr. Obama contends, ”we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership.” An integral part of the new strategy? Abandoning the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. ”Yes, our military will be leaner, said the president, “but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cut right through the rhetoric. ”This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” he contended. “The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”

The scope of the divestment is daunting. The additional $500 billion in new spending cuts come on top of the $480 billion this president cut out of the military budget his first three years in office. Neither of these cuts reflect the possibility that an additional $500 billion in possible cuts will kick in next January, under “sequestration.” And since the 2012 budget request already calls for the reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the next four years, it is likely those numbers will increase as well.

Critical technology has also gotten, or may get axed as well. The Airborne Laser, a project aimed at destroying enemy missiles soon after they blast off was killed 2010, along with the Future Combat Systems, a program deigned to coordinate mobile forces and unmanned vehicles. The latter was killed with the promise that modernization resources would go directly to the Army and Marines. So far it hasn’t happened, and now it may not. The Navy’s hypersonic electromagnetic rail gun, a project designed to intercept anti-ship missiles–like those that could be aimed at our carriers in a fight with Iran or China–lost funding in 2011. Cutbacks could also include the F-35 fighter plane, despite its radar-evading stealth technology that would allow us to maintain our dominance in the air.

Why? Incredibly, the president claimed “the tide of war is receding.” No doubt that would be news to Iraqis who are enduring large-scale attacks and the possibility of a civil war, due primarily to our premature withdrawal. So too for the Afghans, who must now contemplate the return of the Taliban, with whom the Obama administration has seen fit to negotiate, using Islamic cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a “key mediator,” despite his rabid anti-Semitism and his issuance of a fatwa urging the killing of American troops. No doubt Iran, fresh from conducting military exercises in the in the Strait of Hormuz last week, and further maneuvers near the Afghan coast on Saturday, would be equally surprised. And then there’s the multiple threats the Islamist uprisings, nostalgically referred to as the “Arab Spring,” have the potential to engender as well.

Yet the president remains undeterred, with his administration projecting military budget outlays of 2.7 percent of GDP by 2021. That number is comparable to our military outlays in the year 1940–one year before America’s fatal flirtation with both isolationism and peace literally blew up in our collective faces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

American innovation and freedom have long made our health system the envy (and “medical travel” destination) of the world.  But some new technologies challenge both medical ethics and the respected patient-physician relationship.  In a recent New York Times article, a method known as TeleMedicine (medical consultation and administration done via video conferencing) was explained, with one particularly shocking application.  Consider the following scenario:

You’re pregnant and terrified.  You have to make the problem disappear and know the one place you can go for “help.”  You enter the local Planned Parenthood, fill out some information, get an appointment for your procedure and leave.  Upon your return, you sit in a room with a video screen and a doctor in a remote location speaks.  Then, remarkably, a drawer is triggered open, and your prescription is made available for administration.  You take the pill, listen to some final medical advice from the screen and are on your way.  With brilliant efficiency, your panacea was delivered and your burden lifted. In Iowa, with the same amount of expediency, attention and, perhaps, forethought it takes to get you through the McDonald’s drive-thru for a McNugget fix, you can end a human life.

Essentially, a woman may now bypass meeting with an actual physician to receive Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486, to end their unwanted pregnancy.  While video conferencing is currently used in other medical settings, the Iowa chapter of Planned Parenthood is the first to use the technology to provide one of the already most widely used abortifacients available.  According to the NYT article:

Advocates say the idea offers an answer to an essential struggle that has long troubled those who favor abortion rights: How to make abortions available in far-flung, rural places and communities where abortion providers are unable or unwilling to travel. So far only Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa use this method, but around the country, abortion providers have begun asking how they might replicate the concept.

An “essential struggle” to make killing humans easier, in more places, faster!   Now without even bothering to have the physical presence of a doctor there for administration.  Are we not compassionate?  Are we not…enlightened?  After reading Peter “Infanticide Advocate” Singer’s recent piece extolling the virtues of (forced) sterilization for the sake of the planet,  linking the history and eugenic ambitions of Planned Parenthood to a future dystopia isn’t all that difficult.

It should surprise none of us that Planned Parenthood is at the forefront of removing yet another barrier, the actual attending physician, in their lust for further “abortion care.”  Many of us have long lamented the ease with which Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers facilitate death, to say nothing of their unethical and illegal tendencies.  Yet their desire to extend their reach to more individuals without even the physical presence of an attending physician confirms the worst stereotypes of a business already built on ending lives.

__

To read more, follow Diane on Twitter or her personal blog.

In Chicago politics, there’s an old term for the publicly subsidized pay-offs and positions meted out to the corruptocrats’ friends and special interests: boodle.

In the age of Obama, Hope and Change is all about the boodle. So it was with the stimulus. And the massive national service expansion. And the health care bill. And the financial reform bill. And the blossoming job-trading scandals engulfing the White House.

There’s always been an ageless, interdependent relationship between Windy City politicos and “goo-goos” (the cynical Chicago term for good government reformers). Chicago-style “reform” has always entailed the redistribution of wealth and power under the guise of public service. And it has inevitably led to more corruption.

In March 2010, this column first took note of allegations by Democrats Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff that the White House had offered them jobs in exchange for dropping their respective bids against Obama-favored incumbent Sens. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado. White House legal counsel Bob “The Fixer” Bauer’s attempt to bury questions about the Sestak affair with a Memorial Day weekend document dump failed. So has the attempt to make Rahm Emanuel-enlisted former president Bill Clinton the sole scapegoat.

Bauer’s memo mentions “efforts” (plural, not singular) to woo Sestak. But the White House refuses to divulge what offers besides Clinton’s were extended to Sestak. Moreover, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has now denied that Team Obama was involved in the one Clinton offer that has been publicized — an unpaid appointment on an intelligence board for which Sestak was ineligible.

After months of silence, Romanoff finally stepped forward last week to acknowledge that the White House had dangled several positions before him, too. He released e-mails detailing not one, not two, but three different paid positions offered by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina — whose boss, Emanuel, was subpoenaed this week by impeached former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois to testify in his Senate pay-for-play corruption trial.

So, can I say “I told you so” now?

In July 2009, when “Culture of Corruption” was first released, liberal critics scoffed:

How could you possibly write a 400-page book about Barack Obama’s rotten administration when he’s only been in office six months?!

When I proceeded to rattle off case after case of Chicago-style back-scratching, transparency-trampling and crooked special interest-dealing in the new White House, liberal critics such as “The View’s” Joy Behar interjected:

B-b-b-but what about Bush? Why don’t you write a book about Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush? Wha-’bout-Bush?

When I pointed out that I had reported extensively on cronyism in the Bush era (see Harriet Miers, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security), and when I further pointed out that while the Bush-bashing market overflowed, there remained a massive vacuum of critical analysis of Obama, liberal critics sputtered:

So what? Doesn’t every administration have corruption?

When I patiently explained that no other administration in modern American history had set itself up as loftily as the Hope and Change reformers had done, or when I cited endless examples of Obama’s broken promises on everything from lobbyists to transparency to Washington business as usual, liberal critics changed the subject again:

RACIST FASCIST EVIL FOX NEWS RIGHT-WING HATE MONGER!

Two major job-trading scandals plus the start of the Blago trial this past week — on top of a year’s worth of uninhibited White House wheeling and dealing, broken transparency pledges, Justice Department stonewalling and brass knuckle-bullying of political opponents — have finally turned the once-derided thesis of my book “Culture of Corruption” into conventional wisdom.

Obama sold America a Chicago-tainted bill of goods. A nation of slow learners is finally figuring it out.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com

Printing money, spending heavily and buying debt may be the prevalent fiscal policy of the current administration (or the past few, to be fair), but it isn’t especially solvent. One need only look at the situation in Greece for evidence. But as American concerns grow over rising debt and deficits, the question becomes: what to tax and what to cut?

For 30 years, the United States has been figuratively drinking Starbucks and Chardonnay on credit. During the Regan years, we spent more than we had and grew the deficit. This made for historic economic growth, as well as victory in the Cold War, but it also spoiled a populace into thinking we could spend as much as we want, have an abundance of social programs on every conceivable level – as well as a first-rate military – without having to worry about public debt. Those days are over. It’s time to cut back, and judging by the reaction of lawmakers recently, the military is in the sights of more of those in Washington.

According to a recent reports, a group of four lawmakers – Ron Paul (R-Texas), Barney Frank (D-Mass), Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) — called for deep reductions in defense spending. The call came on the heels of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who two weeks ago called for dramatic cuts in the military budget during a speech at the ever-appropriate Eisenhower Library in Kansas.

Some cuts have already come, the long-awaited F-22 Raptor fighter plane for instance, but more could be on the way. The question then becomes can the U.S. afford two wars, growing domestic obligations and remain a strong deterrent against our enemies?

Reagan’s booming economy drove the Russians to bankruptcy. It wasn’t tanks, but IOUs that the Soviets issued in place of bullets that cleared the way for victory in the Cold War. Twenty years later, the American military is fighting two fronts overseas, maintaining security for a good portion of the globe and doing so with a shrinking manufacturing base and economy to support it. In other words, we’re heading in the same direction that ended in disaster for Russia and the Eastern Bloc 20 years ago.

Security costs a lot, especially when one country is providing so much of it. But Washington is going to measure political costs before security costs. Government employees, bureaucrats, unions – all of whom are in bed with the Democratic Party – have been hostile to the any notion of slowing domestic spending. The slightest mention of the word “cut” sends mobs of angry SEIU protesters to rally at homes and parking garages.

Not that military spending shouldn’t come under scrutiny. Currently, military spending averages about $700 billion a year. To put it another way, it costs the same to protect your rights, life and livelihood as it does to bailout a few banks. But that cost is higher on average then it was during the Gulf War. As in all parts of government, there is never too little fat to trim.

With domestic spending exploding, and every incumbent under increased scrutiny, the politically safe option would be to cut the military, for soldiers don’t generally tear up your front yard, and generals don’t have sit-ins outside your office.

The question then becomes how much do you cut and what do you cut from. There is a troop surge currently underway in Afghanistan. There is a fledgling democracy and a quieting of the insurgency in Iraq. But, even as war Iraq grinds to an end, there is Iran and Pakistan to consider, as well as the deteriorating situation in Yemen. Frank has proposed bringing troops home from overseas bases and he has mentioned Okinawa by name, but is that a reasonable course of action with a hostile (and possibly nuclear-capable) North Korea slamming torpedoes into South Korean ships?

The administration, through Gates, is expected to battle Congress, which will likely fight to keep a new engine program alive for the F-35 fighter, as well as the C-17 cargo plane. This fight will take place in the summer months, between budget hawks and those wanting to keep jobs and programs alive in their districts afloat in the midst of a sagging economy. Whether those programs survive the near-term, the big question remains: how does America fund a world-based military in a rapidly-changing global economic environment?

Maybe it’s time to start sharing the load, but Europe is years away from doing so, even if it was politically willing to. While Greece has gone bankrupt because of early retirements and months of vacations, American’s debt has exploded because of “too-big-to-fail” corporations and financial institutions; guaranteed pensions; out of control entitlement programs and our role as world cop. The democratic socialists in Europe detest our military might, while they simultaneously cling to their compassionate approach to domestic spending. But, it’s far easier to run a nanny-state when the global hegemon is keeping thugs out of your backyard.

Gutting the military now wouldn’t be realistic on several levels, but the day is coming. It’s hard to imagine China continuing to buy our debt if we’re increasingly involved in its sphere, especially with North Korea and other terror-outlets in Southeast Asia. It’s also harder to justify military operations when Medicare is eating away 35-percent of the GDP. Though America is far from being an also-ran on the world scene, there isn’t another post-war economic boom on the horizon, maybe not even a run like the country enjoyed during the 80s and 90s. Harder times will make for harder decisions.

With such days on the horizon, let’s hope our military has the chance to accomplish all it can before the time comes when it will be able to do little more than defend America’s shores.

B.J. Bethel is a journalist living in Ohio. He has worked at various daily newspapers as a sports writer, news reporter and editor.

Remember the big stories in the national media when George W. Bush waited four days to tour New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit? Here’s a pop quiz: How long did it take President Obama to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil leak began?

The answer is 13 days. Here is how The Washington Post described that visit:

“He flew in and out of New Orleans on May 2, drove two hours to a Coast Guard station and got a briefing before taking a quick helicopter tour. He did not even see the oil slick.”

Mark Knoller of CBS News reported last week that in the first 39 days after each respective catastrophe, Obama visited the Gulf coast twice; Bush visited New Orleans seven times. But remember, this is not Obama’s Katrina!

Now imagine if President Bush, five weeks into one of the largest oil leaks in U.S. history, and without ever having seen the slick, jetted across the country to headline a $17,600 per-person fund-raiser at the home of an oil-fortune heir. How do you think the national press would have treated that? Bush didn’t do that, which is why you didn’t hear about it. President Obama did — which is why you didn’t hear about it.

The media covered Obama’s trip to San Francisco to raise money for Barbara Boxer. Some news outlets even reported that Obama spoke at a private reception at the home of Democratic Party donor Gordon Getty. But few reported that Getty is the heir to the Getty Oil fortune. For instance, the New York Times reports on Obama’s trip never identified Getty as an oil heir. Do you think that would have been omitted had Bush been Getty’s guest?

What if, hours after the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service left her job over Washington’s mishandling of that giant oil spill, President Bush held a press conference (his first in months) and, when asked about that agency head, could not say whether she had resigned or been fired? What if, hours later, the White House stated that the President knew all along that she had been dismissed, but that story was contradicted by the Cabinet secretary — the one who supposedly did the dismissing — having said that morning during a congressional hearing that she’d resigned voluntarily?

That happened in the Obama administration last week. Where are the outraged cries of incompetence and dishonesty?

Can you imagine the charges of buffoonery that would pour forth from New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, if the George W. Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state law that had been signed into law by one of Bush’s own cabinet secretaries?

Well, last week the Obama administration did exactly that. The Department of Justice asked the court to overturn a 2007 Arizona immigration law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law when she was Arizona governor.

All of these events were reported in the mainstream media. But they were not reported in the same way they would have been had a Republican been president. The point of this criticism is not to say that Bush was great and Obama stinks. Bush was not a great president. The point is to illustrate the double standard most of the media have.

Media bias exhibits itself in the subtle favoring of liberal politicians and ideas. The same rules don’t apply to the left and the right. The left is presumed to have good intentions, the right bad. So when Bush took four days to get to New Orleans after Katrina hit, it was evidence of racism, elitism, a general lack of concern for the little people. But when it took Obama three times as long to visit the Gulf Coast, there was silence.

When a left-wing administration makes mistakes or contradicts itself, that is simply human nature. When a right-of-center administration does, it is incompetence or duplicity. Or both.

At least some on the left are calling out Obama for his inattentiveness to the Gulf oil spill. That’s no substitute for the press setting the national narrative by holding him to the same standards to which it held Bush. But it’s a start.

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. Follow him on twitter @Drewhampshire.

Vice President Joe Biden, wrong on virtually every major foreign policy issue since his election to the Senate in 1972, nailed this one: He warned that actors on the international stage would test the new, inexperienced President.

He knew that President Barack Obama’s enemies would perceive his strength-through-peace (versus peace-through-strength) approach as weakness. They do and are acting accordingly.

Candidate Obama vowed to hold high-level talks with Iran and North Korea without “preconditions.” Obama promised a “reset” of all things President George W. Bush, with no more talk of “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reneged on the promised missile shield defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. He waits for countries like China and Russia, both of which have business interests in Iran, to agree to “tough, crippling” sanctions.

The President dropped the term “war on terror” and refuses to call Islamofascists “Islamofascists.” He apologetically says America is vital in maintaining world peace “whether we like it or not.” He sent a videotaped message to Iran telling of our willingness to re-engage the country — if only it would unclench its fist. It unclenched more time for Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb. The administration was painfully slow to acknowledge that the Times Square truck bomb attempt involved foreign Islamic terrorists.

The administration chastised Israel for settlement construction in an area of east Jerusalem that President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush and even Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat assumed would be part of Israel in any peace agreement. During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s state visit, Obama treated him worse than a White House dinner gate-crasher.

How’s the hope and change working out?

North Korea, in an act of war, sank a South Korean ship. Iran may now have sufficient materiel and technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb. The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah — under the nose of United Nations “peacekeepers” — continues to stock southern Lebanon with weapons that threaten Israel.

Now comes the anti-Israel “humanitarian” flotilla.

After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the terror group Hamas seized power. Israel and Egypt began a naval blockade of ships in and out of Gaza. Though Israel had uprooted every Israeli settler from Gaza, Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, a bombardment that continues today.

Israel already sends humanitarian aid into Gaza and allows others to do so.

Israel even agreed to allow the supposed humanitarian flotilla cargo to enter, provided Israeli security could check it for weapons. And never mind that some of the flotilla’s “humanitarian activists” appear to have ties to terror organizations.

The flotilla’s attempt to run the blockade resulted in nine deaths when the Israeli military boarded ships to inspect the cargo. As Israel’s enemies hoped, Israel stands accused of a “disproportionate” response.

But why the flotilla now?

The most significant intervening event is the election of President Obama. Now Israel’s most important ally considers Israeli intransigence the principal obstacle to peace with the Palestinians in particular and in the Middle East in general. The activists got the message: Israel is on the defensive.

Israel, with good reason, feels alone.

Obama, like Bush in his second term, seems willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran — even as Iran threatens Israel with annihilation. Obama apparently considers a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, even if it ignites a regional nuclear arms race — since Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan fear Iran more than they do Israel.

Give Obama credit for continuing many of Bush’s policies. Gitmo remains open, the administration finally understanding that the prison exists for a reason. He continued rendition, the terror surveillance program and the increased use of drone predators in Pakistan. He used the same “state secrets” argument to fight courtroom disclosure of sources and methods. He increased troop strength in Afghanistan and continues the Bush “clear and hold” strategy for that country and Iraq.

But Jimmy Carter governed as a strength-through-peace president. He pressured the Shah of Iran to release “political prisoners.” The shah was toppled, only to be followed by the repressive and threatening Islamic Republic of Iran. Carter urged Americans to abandon their “inordinate fear of communism.” Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev considered Carter weak and rewarded him by invading Afghanistan. This triggered a chain reaction from which the world continues to suffer. The Arabs and Muslims who fought to expel the Soviet Union then turned on the United States and the West in a grand plan for an Islamic world.

Israel’s response to the flotilla was an act of self-defense. The Western world’s reaction has been shameful. Western countries once again fail to distinguish the arsonist from the firefighter.

In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade — a “quarantine” — on Cuba. What would we have done to a “humanitarian” flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?

Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” is available now. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his Web page at www.WeveGotACountryToSave.com.

Just recently, John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, announced that we may no longer describe our enemy as ‘Jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.

I have news for Mr. Brennan: it is not Americans who invented the word “Jihad”; it is Muslims who have used that word for 1400 years. Brennan is right in that Jihad is a major tenet of Islam, but he is wrong in calling it legitimate because it is a declaration of war and violence against non-Muslim individuals, governments and nations.

The Obama administration refuses to understand that the doctrine of Jihad challenges the sovereignty of any non-Muslim country and denies it exercising its right to remain non-Muslim. But after standing against the Arizona law, the current administration seems to care little about protecting the sovereignty of the United States.

If John Brennan is interested, this is the definition of Jihad given in mainstream Shafii law: “to war against non-Muslims, derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare, to establish the religion” (Shafii law # o9.0 p. 599).

To ensure that all Muslims perform or at least support Jihad, there is also a law that states that not performing Jihad or fleeing from combat with “unbelievers” is considered an enormous crime (Shafii law 377 p. 987). Not only is Jihad the duty of every Muslim, but of every Muslim head of state. Sharia says: “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” (o9.9 p. 603).

This Muslim notion of Jihad is being taught today across the Muslim world and producing thousands of young men and women who are committed to killing us. Jihadi commandments to kill and engage in aggressive wars against non-Muslims are all over Muslim scriptures and preached from mosques across the Middle East and even in the West. Such violent Jihadi commandments have never been amended, annulled or denied by any Muslim group with authority in the Middle East.

Here is another Sharia law: “The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax while being belittled.” (Law o9.8 p. 602).

The following might also be of interest to Mr. Brennan: “When the caliph (Muslim Head of State) appoints a ruler on a region, (his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and deserving recipients.” (Law o25.8 and 9 (8) p. 647).

When it comes to the interpretation of Islam, many Muslim groups in the US say they abide by the interpretations of Al Azhar University in Cairo. Well, Al Azhar University in Cairo approved and signed the above Sharia laws and also teaches that Jihad is a permanent war institution against Jews Christians and pagans.

John Brennan’s statements are, of course, part of the Left’s relentless campaign to dumb down Americans. There is daily massive, merciless pressure on the ordinary American citizen to conform to an unbearable state of giving up his culture, dignity and pride. Those in charge in New York have approved the building of a huge mosque at Ground Zero, which will be financed by the same people who financed the terror attack on 9/11. It will be considered by the Muslim world as yet another holy site for the triumph of Islam. Like the holy mosque built on top of the Jewish second temple, in a few decades Islam will claim this area of New York as Muslim holy grounds. American victims of 9/11 are buried next to a holy mosque of triumph and Muslims will come to visit from all over the world. Who knows, perhaps our great-grand children will have an eternal war with Muslims over ground zero as a disputed area between Americans and Muslims.

To teach Americans another one of its lessons, the Obama administration recently even brought a foreign leader, the President of Mexico, to come to our Congress and teach the American people a lesson about what is right and wrong.

The administration teaches us that we must never feel insulted when it rubs our noses in the ground. You see, a good American must be sensitive to Muslim wishes, but asking Muslims to reciprocate would be insensitive and racist.

Thanks to how the Left has molded our culture, a good American now can no longer be patriotic, but he must respect the patriotism of others. He must be tolerant, but must tolerate the intolerance of others. He must blame himself first, second and third, but never dare blame those who wish to oppress him. A good American must welcome Islamic penetration and the agenda of Jihad and never suspect any ill will from those who call themselves Jihadists and blow themselves up alongside fellow US citizens. He must never demand equal access in Muslim countries. He must resist feelings of pride in his culture, but celebrate the cultures of everyone else, even those who cut the clitorises off of young girls and forcibly cover their entire bodies and faces. He must celebrate the diversity and division of America into little tribes even if some of those tribes are hell-bent on imposing their religion, language and culture by any means necessary. A good American must abandon any reference in public to God, Christ, or Christmas. But he must celebrate other religions, especially Islam, while denying that Islam had anything to do with 9/11.

The present administration and its supporters are following a policy of divide and conquer. They are gambling with our future. They are playing word games, telling Muslims that they are not at war with America, when even the children in the Arab streets know that Islamic Jihad is at war with America.

Mr. Brennan and those who agree with him have ignored 1400 years of Islamic Jihad history. Only those cultures that fought the Jihadists, survived and preserved their language and religion, know what Jihad really is and what its roots are. Wars at the gates of Vienna stopped the Jihadists in their tracks, but with appeasement, political correctness and Muslim immigration, America might wake up one day asking “how did we lose Europe?”

The present administration is selling America cheap, very cheap, for votes, for approval from Saudi Arabia and from radical Islamists. I wish to tell them: You are rewarding the enemies of America who will never love you. Our politicians are at least engaged in gross negligence and at worst playing with fire.

Is this a great country for Islam to conquer or what?

Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.”

The National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Barack Obama administration on May 27 is not so much a look forward as a look back. It is an attempt to return to the optimistic days following the end of the Cold War when it seemed a peaceful new world order was possible. In 1999, President Bill Clinton claimed “perhaps for the first time in history, the world’s leading nations are not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory. The world clearly is coming together.” President Obama says essentially the same thing in the opening paragraph of his cover letter to the NSS when he notes that “globalization”—the buzz word of the post-Cold War era — has “made peace possible among the major powers.” The dangers that remain are of a different sort, “from international terrorism and the spread of deadly technologies, to economic upheaval and a changing climate.”

That the world looked like the classical liberal model expounded by Clinton in 1999 was doubtful even then. A decade later, the cracks are even larger. Five months before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, a Chinese fighter rammed a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, an area Beijing has been trying to claim as sovereign territory. The rise of China and the emergence of other ambitious powers herald not a new world but a new cycle in the old world of international rivalry. The NSS explicitly rejects the “world as it is” in its attempt to fashion “the world we seek.” But the NSS does not lay out a path between worlds; it simply assumes the new world already exists.

There are still a few odds and ends to be cleaned up from the Bush administration, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The NSS pledges “a focus on defeating al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and around the globe” but sees no real dangers after that which would require a military effort. Though the NSS identifies the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and biological) as problems, the two most menacing rogue states, North Korea and Iran, are to be dealt with through diplomacy. As the NSS states on page 23, “If North Korea eliminates its nuclear weapons program, and Iran meets its international obligations on its nuclear program, they will be able to proceed on a path to greater political and economic integration with the international community. If they ignore their international obligations, we will pursue multiple means to increase their isolation and bring them into compliance with international nonproliferation norms.” This is at best a containment policy.

But how can Pyongyang or Tehran be contained, let alone “isolated” when they have friends among the other major powers? The NSS depends on there being a consensus among the powers on issues like non-proliferation within a general spirit of cooperation. That is not how world politics is evolving.

According to the NSS, “The European Union has deepened its integration. Russia has reemerged in the international arena as a strong voice. China and India—the world’s two most populous nations—are becoming more engaged globally. From Latin America to Africa to the Pacific, new and emerging powers hold out opportunities for partnership, even as a handful of states endanger regional and global security by flouting international norms.” Under the Obama policy, “We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence—including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia—so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game.”

The integration of the EU is being called into question by the sovereign debt crisis that has ripped through Greece and has threatened to spread to Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. The single euro currency, once thought to be an alternative to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, is in free fall. Euro skeptics in England, France, Holland and Germany are balking at “saving” the Mediterranean and Eastern members of the bloc.

The NSS singles out Brazil for special praise saying, “We welcome Brazil’s leadership and seek to move beyond dated North-South divisions to pursue progress on bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues.” Yet, Brazil just brokered a deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program meant to shield it from a new round of UN sanctions being pushed by the U.S. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had told President Obama personally at the Nuclear Security Summit that he would not back additional sanctions on Iran, and repeated this stance when meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Brasilia immediately after the two leaders left Washington. The Hu-Lula meeting took place within the larger context of a BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) summit where the emerging powers coordinate policies formulated primarily against the positions of the United States and EU.

South Africa joins the mix in BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China), a coalition at the UN that opposes the American and European demand for mandated limits on green house gas emissions to fight alleged global warming. Supported by Russia and the group of 77 developing nations, BASIC represents the world’s rejection of President Obama’s obsession about climate change that appears repeatedly in the NSS as a priority global threat.

The core value of BASIC and its allies is unrestricted economic growth, which means intensified competition in domestic and world markets. For some time, American officials have made it clear that unless China, India and Brazil provide substantial market access to U.S. exports commensurate with their high economic growth rates, there can be no conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks. These negotiations have been stalled virtually from their inception in 2001 due to a fundamental clash of national interests.

The Obama administration has hailed China and Russia for supporting a draft sanctions proposal against Iran at the UN. Yet, Beijing and Moscow watered down the resolution to prevent it from crippling the Tehran regime. Most importantly, Russia and China will be allowed to continue investing in Iran’s energy sector, which will boost the country’s revenues which the mullah’s use to finance their aggressive foreign policy as well as nuclear development. To improve relations, the Obama administration dropped sanctions against Moscow’s state arms export agency and three Russian entities previously found to have transferred technology or weapons to Iran. The UN sanctions proposal would also allow the Russians to sell S-300 air defense missiles (which have an anti-missile capability) to Tehran. So even if the UN Security Council adopts the resolution, it will not “isolate” Iran from its main international backers.

Nor is international rivalry confined to economics and rogue states. China’s massive military modernization program, led by new weapon systems designed to attack U.S. and allied forces across Asia, is not mentioned in the NSS. To do so would have undermined the fanciful vision of a peaceful, cooperative world. It would also have called into question why the Obama Pentagon is cutting back on the high-end conventional forces, from armored units and air superiority fighters to missile defense and naval shipbuilding, that would be needed to not only counter rising “peer” competitors like China but to defeat major regional powers like North Korea and Iran.

The NSS attempts to conjure up a world in which an NSS is not needed, but the Obama administration does not have the power to change the true, dangerous nature of global politics. What the NSS reveals is the unwillingness of President Obama to deal with the world as it is. Thus, America will remain vulnerable, as its leaders are continually blindsided by the strategies of adversaries they cannot bring themselves to think about.

In Part 1 of this three part series I discussed the Obama administration’slatest scandal, Sestak-gate, a classic quid pro quo for political advantage and its subsequent cover-up.

In summary, the scandal ignited after an interview 3 1/2 months ago when Congressman Joe Sestak explicitly reaffirmed he was offered a “high ranking position” by “someone in the White House” if he would drop out of the primary race against Arlen Specter, the former-Republican Senator whose switch in party affiliation last year presented Democrats with a 60-vote majority and the power to advance the Obama administration’s agenda undeterred.

After Specter’s conversion his popularity among constituents  ”nose-dived,” endangering both his seat and the Obama administration’s filibuster-proof majority. Without the guarantee of a Senate majority after the November elections, the Obama administration faces Congressional gridlock and an inability to continue their ”fundamental transformation” of America. As a result, the White House conspired to ensure Specter retained his seat by offering Congressman Joe Sestak an offer they assumed he couldn’t/wouldn’t refuse. Using the Chicago pay-for-play tactics they attempted to bribe Sestack to drop his bid for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania so Specter would, by default, be the Democrat candidate on the ticket.

After multiple denials of a job offer(s) to Sestak, the Obama administration released a public response to the scandal over Memorial Day weekend in an effort to obfusacte the truth. In their rush they overlooked a mountain of inconsistencies and their legal ramifications, throwing sunlight onto the seamy underbelly of Chicago-style politics and opening the door to calls for a Special Prosecutor.

Click here for print and video support of the summary.

The Inconsistencies

The inconsistencies between the White House and Congressman Sestack’s statements lead to more questions than their “coordinated” statements answer.

The Obama administration is adamant that “White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.” Really? Sestak claims the offer originated from “someone in the White House,” but former President Bill Clinton is not part of the Obama White House. And Sestak has repeated this claim on numerous occasions. (Hattip: The NRSC)

On March 10, 2010, Fox News’ Bret Baier pointedly asked Sestak: “Did the White House offer you a job to not get in the primary?” Sestak answered: “And I answered that yes, and I answered it honestly.”

Again, on March 20, 2010 to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.

“In order to get you out of the Senate race the White House offered you a job. Is that true?” Sestak responded: “I got asked that question as you know a few weeks ago, of something that happened last summer, a direct question. I answered it honestly, and I said yes.

And, again, on April 22, 2010, to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie,

 “Were you offered a job in the administration not to run?” Sestak responded: “The answer, as I was asked this for the first time a month ago even though it happened last July, and I never brought it forward. I answered it honestly, and I’ll do it again. Yes.”

And again, May 23, 2010 on Meet The Press.

“I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier and I felt I should answer it honestly. And that’s all I had to say about it. I was offered a job, and I answered that.” You said, ‘No you won’t take the job.’ Sestack responded, “By then I also said, Look I’m getting into this….” Was it the Secretary of the Navy job?Sestak replied, “Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about.”

And again, on May 24, 2010 to CNN’s John King.

“You said some time ago that when Arlen Specter was still in the race, early in the primary somebody at the White House came to you and said I will offer you a job, will give you some kind of a job if you would get out.” Sestak responded: “Well I was actually asked by a reporter something that a few months ago that had happened almost eight months earlier…  And I answered it honestly… I said – and I did answer it honestly and said yes…”

The White House admits multiple “efforts” were made in “June and July” for “options for Executive Branch service.” When asked how many times the offer was discussed, Sestack claims one 60-second conversation occurred in July.

“No, no just that one phone call.”

So who is telling the truth? How many job offers were made? And how frequently did the Obama administration attempt to subvert a primary election constitutionally determined by the People’s vote and not the Executive branch?

The White House denies the offer was for the position of Secretary Of Navy, attesting that the offer was for an “uncompensated position.” This doesn’t pass the smell test. An unpaid advisory position would not be a “high ranking federal job.” Sestak’s statement does not exclude the possibility that someone in the White House subsequently sweetened the deal with either the Secretary of the Navy job offer. What was the “high ranking federal job” and who would have the power to offer it?

But the White House’s position is, again, in direct conflict with Sestak who, when queried about the Secretary of Navy position on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show, responded thus.

The White House claims the offer was as a seat on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which would “allow him to retain his seat in the House,” yet Byron York reported Friday,

Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:

“The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.”

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. And since the White House intended for Sestak to remain in his House seat, he would not have been eligible for the board after this November’s elections, provided he was re-elected to the House.

So let’s get this straight…Sestak was being asked to give up his $217,000 per year job, to serve on a board whose members are unpaid and on which he could not legally serve, in order to drop his primary bid against the incumbent Senator who switched parties to deliver Obama passage of his health care legislation and a filibuster-proof majority? It sounds like pay for play, the Chicago Way.

How far will Obama and the Chicago Machine at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue go to maintain complete power? Have they committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Part 3 extensively covers the list of potential crimes commited by the Obama administration that establish their pattern of bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to corrupt the American electoral process while reigning at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Chicago Machine moved to Washington and a disturbing pattern of bribery, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to corrupt the American electoral process is now synonymous with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The latest incident is a classic quid pro quo for political advantage and subsequent coordinated cover-up to mitigate collateral damage and obstruct the truth. In this three part series, I will delve into the scandal, the blatant inconsistencies between the “coordinated” statements of involved parties, and the potential crimes commited by the Obama administration in this, and other, pay-for-play schemes.

The Scandal

Set in a motion by a February 18^th interview with Philadelphia news anchor Larry Kane, Congressman Joe Sestak’s allegation ignited a political firestorm.

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate primary against Arlen Specter.
“Yes,” Sestak answered.
“Was it Navy Secretary?”
“No comment,” said Sestak.
According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked: “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”
“Yes.”

After disavowing the offer’s existence for three months, President Obama was forced to publicly comment on the Sestak scandal Thursday, but only after meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton, the sacrificial lamb upon whom the blame would be laid the following day. (How bad can the truth be when the sitting President has to bring in a proven perjurer to be his alibi?)  Mimicking press secretary Robert Gibbs, the Obfuscator-In-Chief blathered to reporters at the White House,

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

In other words, he did not have employment relations with that Congressman.

As with Van Jones‘ resignation in the middle of the night on Labor Day weekend, the Obama administration used the Friday news dump on Memorial Weekend to finally respond to questions about the Sestack deal. White House Attorney Robert Bauer formally issued a legal memorandum stating, in part:

“We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.

“Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false….At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.

“Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

“White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak Declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”

Hmmm, that’s in direct contradiction to Sestak’s original statements. Is it any surprise Sestak clammed up and refused to identify any other details until “the White House released its report on the matter?” Sestak’s silence provided ample room for the White House to manuever multiple alibi scenarios. (How long does it take to compose an alibi?)

This is Sestak’s latest version:

“Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives.

I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.”

Although intimately coordinated with the White House’s formal statement, Sestak is a prime candidate to become the Obama administration’s Deep Throat. Like Obama’s private meeting with Clinton, the clandestine meeting between the Sestak camp and the White House Wednesday was never meant to reach the airwaves. But silence is not Sestak’s finest quality. Whether intentional or not, he has much more to say about the coordinated affair. The Washington Post reports Sestak stated last week,

“They (the White House) got hold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House… about what’s going to occur,” said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother.”

Shades of a Watergate-esque cover-up continue as the complicit media lay the groundwork for plausible deniability. Tweeting a White House source told him Obama was kept in the dark about the bribe attempt, CNN’s John King reports (Hattip: Freeper Kristin)

The Obama administration’s institutionalized corruption led them to first deny, then  ”coordinate” a statement in hopes of whitewashing their latest quid pro quo scandal over a holiday weekend. In their rush they overlooked several contradictions in their “story” and the subsequent legal ramifications.

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 on the inconsistencies created by the White House’s effort to obfuscate the truth, and further details on the pattern of bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy by those working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If anyone had any lingering doubts as to this administration’s position towards Israel — and it would take a narcoleptic not to have figured it out at this point — it was made painfully obvious a few days ago in, of all places, the UN.

On Friday the United Nations adopted a resolution for a nuclear free Middle East, specifically singling out Israel but curiously making no mention of nuclear powers-in-waiting such as Iran.

From Marius Schattner (AFP):

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

[…]

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as “deeply flawed and hypocritical.”

(Full article here.)

That last quote is a masterpiece of understatement. It doesn’t take Count Metternich to read beyond the language and figure out the true intent, which is to further weaken Israel, seriously compromise its greatest and possibly final deterrent, and generally make it more pliable to acceptance of “peace plans” which amount to capitulation and a  slow path to extinction.

The resolution itself is unremarkable. The UN is basically a Third World kleptocracy long since hijacked by a loose coalition of mullahs, commissars and tin pot dictators. There are no surprises when they trash Israel — that’s what they do. Israel for its part is giving the resolution the weight it deserves and has already indicated it won’t participate in the 2012 conference laid out in the resolution.

What is remarkable is the United States supported this resolution.

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as “a resounding slap around the face” which has dealt a very public blow to Israel’s long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

[…]

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing… and for choosing to support it.”

[…]

“In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama’s men… Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against.”

Short of publicly kicking Benjamin Netanyahu in the groin I can’t think of any clearer signal the Obama White House could have sent regarding their attitude towards, and plans for, Israel. In the alternate universe of Obama’s mind Israel is the problem, its national interests nothing more than one more impediment on the road to “peace in the Middle East,” which ultimately equates to Arab hegemony.

Others have stated that for the first time the United States is on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, as this administration continues to embrace its enemies and vilify friends, it’s becoming a habit.

The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said. They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.

"Planning has been reinvigorated in the wake of Times Square," one of the officials said.

At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials. They and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding U.S. military and intelligence activities in Pakistan....

President Obama would have us believe that his administration has been in charge from Day 1, addressing the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  He said at his first solo White House press conference in nearly a year that:

I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed thinking about – the spill.

Apparently, even Obama’s daughter is waiting for action.  According to the President, his daughter Malia knocked on the bathroom door while he was shaving a couple of days ago and asked:

Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?

Of course, as Bill O’Reilly repeatedly points out on The Factor, nobody seriously expects the President of the United States to put on a deep sea diving suit and do a James Bond act to fix the leak.  Obama rightly says that it is British Petroleum that has the knowledge, technical expertise, resources and ultimate responsibility to plug the hole.  And he said that he was wrong to take BP’s assurances at face value.  BP will have to face the consequences of its own decisions to save money at the expense of safety and not adequately plan for the worst case scenario that has ensued.

However, where the  Obama administration has failed miserably is in its own response to the crisis.

Democratic strategist James Carville said it best, speaking from Louisiana:

Man, you got to get down here and take control of this and put somebody in charge of this thing and get this thing moving. We’re about to die down here.

I assume that Obama’s plan to briefly interrupt his holiday weekend trip to Chicago for a photo op in Louisiana is not what Carville has in mind.

The Obama administration failed to mobilize in a timely fashion the equipment and ships requested by BP and Louisiana state officials.  It is allowing its environmental bureaucrats to slow down remedies to disperse the leaked oil on the grounds that an environmental impact study is needed to be done first.  Meanwhile, the spill is already creating the most serious environmental disaster in the nation’s history and anything that can remediate its effects – even with some minor adverse consequences of its own – is better than waiting weeks or months for the completion of an environmental impact study.

More than two weeks after Louisiana’s governor first requested permission to build sand barriers to protect marshes threatened by the oil, Obama finally gave his OK for just half of the 86 miles requested.

During his news conference yesterday, Obama struck back at his critics, saying that they did not know what they were talking about.  He took a swipe at the oil industry and at Sarah Palin’s slogan of “drill-baby-drill.”  Ironically, if the environmentalist crowd had not succeeded in blocking drilling in Alaska and other locations on land, there might not have been the need to drill for oil so far below sea level.  Obama, who had moved to allow expanded drilling just a few weeks before the rig exploded, is now going overboard in the other direction by ordering a suspension of virtually all current and new offshore oil drilling activity until a comprehensive saftey review is completed.  Most oil drilling has been done safely for years; yet one of Obama’s only decisive actions is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Obama also tried to use the failure to plug the hole in the Gulf as another opportunity to plug his cap-and-trade energy bill.  All that will do is increase the cost of energy considerably for every American.  That is certainly not the kind of  hope or change we can believe in.

President Obama’s so proud of his new National Security Strategy that the White House released it on the eve of a holiday weekend — when everybody in Washington’s racing for the beach, the ‘burbs or a bunker.

With good reason.  This isn’t a strategy.  It’s a stump speech.

If you want to know what details of a document really matter to any administration, don’t obsess on the text itself.  Listen to the roll-out speeches by the White House sales reps.

Remarks by terror czar John Brennan and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it painfully clear that it isn’t only our Gulf Coast shoreline that’s threatened by this administration’s ineptitude and genius for self-delusion.

But Hillary only offered the standard boilerplate about the primacy of diplomacy and development in solving security problems.  (Terrific!  Let’s bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and let the State Department and NGOs sort things out…).

But Brennan, in full tin-foil-hat mode, was downright scary.  Speaking on Wednesday, he even praised the administration’s response to the BP oil disaster.  Jeez…sycophancy should have legal limits.

Brennan was prepping the pundits on the terrorism side of the NSS.  Except that it’s not really terrorism, you see.  And it’s certainly not Islamist terrorism or a jihad.  Brennan spent an alarming amount of time on indirect apologies to Muslims.  As in:

“Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

What? Does this administration really believe that it gets to re-define jihad?  Sounds like one of its pet Muslim “experts” worked on the speech.  But trust me: When Osama says al-Qaeda’s waging jihad, Muslims believe him, not White-Bread John Brennan.

And by the way: Jihad in Islam usually means aggressive holy war to kill and subjugate infidels.  Check the Islamic texts (you know, the ones Muslims read).  And there’s no pope in Islam who gets to give claims of jihad a thumbs up or down.  If the local yokels declare a jihad, it’s a jihad, boys and girls.

Don’t facts matter at all to this administration?  I guess the 9/11 terrorists were just purifying themselves and their community.

The speech got worse.  Speaking of the Israel-Palestine situation, Brennan employed coded left-wing language when he said that “legitimate grievances can be resolved peacefully through…dialogue.”

In case you missed it, only the Palestinians have “legitimate grievances.”  Then Brennan invoked Obama’s blame-America Cairo speech as at least the equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount.  Okay, Big John: Where are the results?  Iran?  Hezbollah?  Hamas?  Al-Qaeda?  The Taliban?  Syria?

Of course, he called for “collective action,” another left-wing buzz-phrase.  Well, how’s all that collective action been going for this White House?  Got tough sanctions on Iran yet?  Or on North Korea?  Anybody notice that the Bush administration (boo, hiss, shame!) had more allies fighting beside us in Iraq than Obama has in Afghanistan?

Of course, Brennan, who’s turned into a shameless bootlicker, didn’t miss a chance to hammer Bush-Cheney, the true axis of evil.  As in his claim that his team is “responsibly ending the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Well, the first point’s doubtful, while the last point depends on whether you’re a little-picture or big-picture thinker.  What’s indisputable is that the invasion did lead to the most catastrophic defeat al-Qaeda has yet suffered, when millions of Sunni Muslims turned on the terrorists.  No mention of that, of course.

Things grew even shabbier when Brennan—our top terrorism guy—spoke of “the senseless slaughter of 13 innocent Americans at Ft. Hood” as if they had been killed by space invaders.  No mention of Major Hasan, Anwar al-Alaqi, shouts of “Allah is great!” or jihad.

Tireless—at least behind a microphone–Brennan went back to stressing the importance of “international partnerships.”  Great.  We’re all with you, Big John.  But with who?  The allies Obama has stiffed?  Or was our terror czar speaking of Obama’s unprecedented success in engaging Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and his Venezuelan hug-buddy, Hugo Chavez?

Of course, Breanna didn’t say one word about the terror on our border with Mexico or in our illegal-immigrant-gang-plagued cities.  Nope, our problem’s just with al-Qaeda.  None of whose members are Islamists or jihadists.

Guess I ought to check out the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais and others in line down at the al-Qaeda recruiting office volunteering to purify their neighborhoods.

Our new National Security Strategy isn’t about security for our nation.  It’s about making our enemies feel good about themselves.  Sure, Brennan said we were going to get al-Qaeda.  But he made it clear that neither he nor our president is willing to recognize what al-Qaeda is.

Of course, that probably depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Endless War.”

Joe Klein is taking a break from his usual attacks on Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to go after a former Bush administration official for daring to criticize President Obama.  Posting on “Swampland,” the blog of pro-Obama Time Magazine, Klein couldn’t handle this truthful remark about the Obama administration by Pete Wehner, whom Klein childishly refers to as the “Bush Assistant Commissar for Pretentious Propaganda”:

The Obama presidency is struggling badly right now — and things will, I think, get worse rather than better.

While first conceding at least that Obama’s record is “mixed,” Klein then launches into a full-throated defense of the Obama administration’s economic record and foreign policy – both of which are abject failures.  Lets compare just a couple of Klein’s pro-Obama talking points with the facts, something this quack journalist for Time Magazine seems unable to do:

Klein:  [Obama] has achieved historic success with its economic responses to the Great Recession

Fact:  Unemployment presently stands at 9.9%.  Obama told us before the stimulus bill was passed that unemployment would not rise above 8%.  When George W. Bush left office, unemployment was 7.6%.

Fact: According to the Bank for International Settlements, the United States’ structural deficit (the amount of the deficit adjusted for the conomic cycle) has risen from 3.1% of GDP in 2007 to 9.2% in 2010.  The national debt stood at $10.6 trillon on the day Obama took office.  As of April 30, 2010 the national debt stood at just under $13 trillion.

Klein:  Its foreign policy has largely rectified the bombastic bellicosity of the Bush years

Fact:  Obama has replaced Bush’s supposed “bombastic bellicosity” with bows and apologies to foreign leaders for all of our country’s supposed misdeeds.  He has given Iran a year and a half to continue on its march towards achieving a nuclear arms capability while trying the unconditional negotiations route.  North Korea smells blood in the water and is more beligerent than at any time since the truce that ended the Korea war in 1953. We have had several terrorist incidents on our soil – most of them foiled by sheer luck, the incompetence of the terrorists and vigilant citizens rather than any steps taken by the hapless Department of Homeland Security.  Our relations with Israel, our closest ally in the Mideast, is at an historic low.  Obama embraces the presidents of Brazil and Mexico and they return the favor by publicly badmouthing the U.S.   The list goes on and on.

This does not even take any account of the Obama administration’s inaction in confronting the consequences of the oil spill in the Gulf and its lack of any effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

I think that Pete Wehner,  the” Bush Assistant Commissar for Pretentious Propaganda” according to Joe Klein, has already been proven right.  Things are getting worse with every passing day.

The storyline goes like this: Recent elections find voters in an angry, “anti-incumbent” mood.

Time magazine wrote: “This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new front runner.”

The Associated Press wrote: “It’s an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware. Any doubt about just how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates hand-picked by national Republican and Democratic leaders disappeared late Tuesday.”

No. Voters said: “It’s not the incumbents, stupid. It’s how they voted. It’s what they stand for.” No incumbent who voted against the Bush/Obama bank bailouts, the “stimulus” package and ObamaCare lost his or her job.

Voters hate the bank bailouts. They hate the government takeover of carcompanies. They do not believe that the $800 billion stimulus package stimulated anything but bigger government. They reject ObamaCare and think it’s costly and likely to worsen health care. Incumbents who voted for these things now face the music.

Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief that Mark Critz — Democrat and former staffer of the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. — won the special election to succeed Murtha. But the pro-life, anti-gun control Critz said he would have voted against ObamaCare. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda of higher taxes, more spending and bigger government.

At their convention in Utah earlier this month, Republicans dumped incumbent and TARP supporter Sen. Bob Bennett, who also co-sponsored a health care bill that smelled a lot like ObamaCare. In Arkansas, another TARP supporter, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, must go through a June runoff election against a Democrat who painted her as a buddy to Wall Street banks. Calling Lincoln “Bailout Blanche,” her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, attacked her for taking contributions from Wall Street firms that received bailouts. He called TARP a cozy “Washington and Wall Street” arrangement that allows financial firms to fill “their pockets with insider deals and stick Arkansas families with the bill.”

In March, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, lost her party’s nomination for governor. Her opponent, incumbent Gov. Rick Perry, called her “Kay Bailout” over Hutchinson’s vote for TARP. A Republican libertarian won the GOP primary for Senate in Kentucky.

In Florida, Republicans dumped Gov. Charlie Crist in the primary race for Senate. Crist, in a photo used against him by his opponents, hugged President Barack Obama.

He supported the stimulus package. He also supported ObamaCare, a plan rejected by Florida voters, who, according to a Rasmussen poll, favor its repeal 62 percent to 33 percent. His Tea Party-backed opponent, Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House, portrayed Crist as insufficiently fiscally conservative.

In Arizona, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain finds himself in a primary dogfight against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. McCain did a 180 on “immigration reform” and now supports the new Arizona anti-illegal alien law. McCain famously “temporarily suspended” his presidential campaign during the Wall Street meltdown and voted for the widely unpopular bank bailouts.

The message is clear.

Obama and the Democrats misread the 2008 elections, misunderstood the mood of the people and pursued an agenda that voters neither expected nor wanted. Voters, unlike Democrats and many Republicans, reject the idea that financial firms deserve a taxpayer-paid rescue because they are “too big to fail.”

The No. 1 issue to voters remains the economy. Unemployment sits at nearly 10 percent. Voters think the stimulus either stimulated nothing or had no effect other than spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Two-thirds of those polled, according to the Pew Research Center, do not believe the stimulus created jobs. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans think it did nothing to create jobs. And only a slim majority of Democrats, 51 percent, think the stimulus helped to produce jobs.

On ObamaCare, Democrats assumed that after its passage, voters would gradually come around to supporting it. They haven’t. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters finds that 56 percent want it repealed, versus 39 percent who oppose repeal.

Voters see this administration as a bunch of leftist, redistribute-the-wealth, we-know-better-how-to-spend-your-money-and-run-your-lives-and-manage-your-businesses, smug busybodies. They see an administration that raised the debt and deficit in a year and a half to European-like levels that threaten present and future prosperity. They see an administration that believes fighting global warming takes precedence over jobs and productivity.

Tax revenues have plummeted, while government continues to grow. Banks and other companies that made bad bets or failed to effectively compete are propped up through bailouts that encourage future risky behavior.

People have been out of work for long periods of time. Homeowners are paying on homes worth less than their mortgages. There is a lot of hurt and pain and fear in the streets.

“We Are All Socialists Now,” said Newsweek in a cover story last year. “No,” say the voters. “We are not.”

Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” is available now. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his Web page at www.WeveGotACountryToSave.com.

"Coptic Christians Voicing Frustration With White House As Persecution Widens in Egypt," by Youssef Ibrahim for the New York Sun, May 22 (thanks to George):

The leaders of Coptic Christians, whose community is facing growing persecution in Egypt, say they have been unsuccessful in efforts to gain a hearing from the White House or other parts of the Obama administration.

Heightened persecution of Egypt's 12 million Christians coupled with growing power and prestige of their Coptic Diaspora in America and Australia is leading to new political efforts here. Educated and skilled Egyptian Copts who migrated in large numbers in recent decades are talking to Congress, organizing lobbies, and making other efforts to be heard.

They say they are frustrated by the current administration in Washington, particularly after President Obama's overture to the Muslim world via a speech at Cairo. In the speech Mr. Obama President apologized for America's misdeeds to Muslims, stating that he came "to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." Coptic leaders say that even while reaching out to Muslims the administration has turned a deaf ear to the pleas Arab Christian minority in the very country where he delivered his apology to Muslims.

"The Obama administration's benign neglect of Arab Christians, is putting freedoms and human rights in the whole Middle East at risk," is the way it was put in an interview with the Sun by the president of the U.S. Copts Association, Michael Meunier, who is headquartered in Washington "Friendships with Muslims has been the Obama Administration's opening theme from his first day in office and in that famed Cairo speech in which he extended a hand to all Muslims in partnership."

Mr. Meunier added that that the president's failure to speak as extensively about the persecution of Arab Christians was a departure from American policy and a grave error. "We have no problems with American friendships with Islam and Muslims, but it cannot be accomplished at the expense of our rights as Egyptian Christians and Arab Christians, and as the very lives of our people there are endangered," Mr. Meunier told the Sun.

One area of complaint by the Copt community is a law banning the repair or construction of churches without a "presidential decree." The measure, known as the Hamayuni Law, is based on an 1856 Ottoman decree but was rarely enforced in Egypt under the monarchial dynasty overthrown by army officers in 1952....

Read it all.

So, not only did the Democrats in Congress cheer, applaud and give standing ovations to a foreign leader disparaging America and American citizens from OUR House floor, but now the people they’ve put in charge as law enforcers don’t seem to understand the words ‘law’ nor ‘enforce‘. Or, they just think it doesn’t count if you think something is meany pants.

Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.

That’s right. He openly says that he, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may not enforce the very laws he is to entrusted to uphold. It’s his job to uphold them. But, nope, he thinks the laws are yucky, so he’s going to cross his arms, sit in the corner, pouting, and refuse to do his job. At our expense.

Hey, Morton, I don’t think Obamacare nor laws like it,  are the solution. So, I may “not necessarily process the insurance I’m mandated to purchase.” Is that cool with y’all? The difference is, that I could come up with an alternate workable solution to that boondoggle. What are you or the Obama administration doing about illegal immigration? Besides demagoguing a state, who were forced into trying to fix their immense problem without federal help, I mean.

Senator Sessions responded today and good on him.

Senator Sessions rightly pointed out that the administration looks like it is “nullifying existing law.” And further, that if “[Morton] can’t enforce the law, he shouldn’t have the job. That is the top immigration enforcement position in America, he is required in my view to seek the help he can to enforce the law, and to reject the help of the law officers in Arizona – and all over America for that matter – makes him in my view not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office.”

Precisely. It should be noted, however, that John Morton doesn’t appear to be acting alone.

According to Fox, when reached for comment, DHS responded by acknowledging that what Morton said was true and then added that “[t]he President ordered DOJ to examine the civil rights and other implications of this law. That review will inform the government’s actions going forward.”

Will inform the government’s actions going forward? I suppose we should just be grateful that someone in the administration may now actually read the bill.  Wow. How far the bar has been lowered.  Now, however, it’s time to lower the boom on those who refuse to do their jobs. As taxpayers, we should insist – Morton, You’re Fired.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her work at Snark and Boobs, iOwntheWorld , Right Wing News and Red State.

Hoping to win more hearts and minds in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its NATO allies are planning a commendation to recognize “courageous restraint” among troops in the field. According to a NATO statement, the goal would be to “celebrate the troops who exhibit extraordinary courage and self-control by not using their weapons.”

What an apt metaphor for the Age of Obama. If there is a coherent theme to President Obama’s foreign policy, it seems to be constraining and restraining American power.

Consider the “New START” agreement. From Moscow’s perspective, New START will constrain the U.S. from building and deploying additional missile defenses. New START, according to the Russian interpretation, will “be viable if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.”

Where would the Russians get that idea, if not from the administration? And if this is so, then it means the administration is unable to recognize that missile defense is, by definition, defensive. In other words, the goal of missile defense is to constrain America’s enemies.

Then there’s the related issue of the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which is all about constraining the United States. Among other things, the NPR pledges that the United States:

• Will not conduct nuclear testing, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

• will not develop new nuclear warheads, and

• will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

Obama’s NPR also removes the protection afforded by what Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls “calculated ambiguity.” “If a non-nuclear-weapon state is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and its obligations,” Gates explains, “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” Instead, such an enemy “would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response”—even if that enemy “were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners.”

“Calculated ambiguity” has kept America’s enemies on notice and off balance for decades—and, not coincidentally, has kept America and American forces safe from nuclear, biological or chemical attack. As Eisenhower counseled at the beginning of the nuclear age, quoting Gen. Stonewall Jackson, “Always surprise, mystify and mislead the enemy.”

Obama clearly doesn’t subscribe to that commonsense view. In fact, he recently took a huge step in the opposite direction by revealing the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, the likes of North Korea and Iran play games with the world—and appear to be under no constraints whatsoever.  For instance, in the past 12 months, North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon, test-fired long-range missiles and blown a South Korean ship out of the water, killing 46 sailors.

Likewise, Iran has shown no restraint in response to Washington’s restraint. Last summer, as the Iranian people rose up against a sham election and as Ahmadinejad’s henchmen crushed the popular revolt, the President was virtually silent. The sad irony of the President’s restrained reaction to the Twitter Revolution was that it answered his own rhetorical question of a year before, albeit in a manner his supporters would never have imagined. “Will we stand for the human rights of…the blogger in Iran?” he asked during his 2008 rock-concert speech in Berlin. Last summer provided the answer.

And it gets worse. When evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-fuel plant came to light last autumn, there was no reaction from the White House. In fact, it was French president Nicolas Sarkozy who spoke up: “Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009…What did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

Perhaps nowhere is the policy of restraint and constraint on better display than in Afghanistan itself. German forces, for instance, refer to a seven-page guidebook before engaging the enemy. Until mid-2009, they were even required to shout warnings to enemy forces—in three languages—before opening fire. The joys of coalition warfare.

The president has told us, over and over, that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity.” It was so important, as the New York Times reported, that the president gave his military commander “extraordinary leeway” and “carte blanche” control to choose “a dream team of subordinates.”

But when Gen. McChrystal asked for the resources necessary to win this war of necessity, the president balked. Then, after a lengthy re-review of his own policy, the president concluded that “it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan,” before promising that “after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”

Of course, vital national interests don’t have expiration dates, and letting the Taliban know when the U.S. military will end its offensive won’t make victory any easier to achieve. But victory is probably not the goal in this era of constraint and restraint. As the constrainer-in-chief himself puts it, “I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory.’”

That brings us back to NATO’s “courageous restraint” idea.

The notion that there needs to be a commendation for restraint is based on the false and faulty premise that U.S. forces haven’t used restraint to date. In fact, as Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis told Navy Times, “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians.”

Indeed, the U.S. military is so self-restrained that the world doesn’t even notice. Just think about what happens when the U.S. military makes what we civilians, from 7,000 miles away, call a mistake: It court-martials people, changes target sets, scrubs missions, orders bombing pauses, investigates, apologizes and invests in ever-more precise weapons to prevent mistakes.

The fact is, the American military of today is the most lethal force in history, which makes its self-restraint so impressive. U.S. forces could flatten Kandahar, kill anything that moves in Waziristan, erase all the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and all the terror camps in Syria, eliminate the North Korean and Iranian thugocracies, and turn Mosul into glass—all in less than 24 hours. But they don’t do those things. The reason? Thankfully, the means are as important as the ends to Americans and their military.

This is not an argument for shooting first and asking questions later or for countenancing battlefield brutality. Rather, it’s a reminder that U.S. forces in Afghanistan are already holding their fire enough. They already think twice before squeezing the trigger. We shouldn’t expect them to think three times.

The people who know best—those who have served—worry about the unintended consequences of rewarding and thereby encouraging “courageous restraint.” As Clarence Hill, national commander of the American Legion, observes, “Too much restraint will get our own people killed.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis adds, ominously and presciently, “The creation of such an award will only…put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”

Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security issues.

Find out the roots of Obama's denial and obfuscation in The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America. Pre-order here.

"EDITORIAL: Obama's invisible Islam: Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is," from the Washington Times, May 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

[...] The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The "force protection review" of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan's openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression "radical Islam," the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama's continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/18/obamas-continuing-solicitude-toward-the-faith-of-muhammad-is-inexplicable-and-as-these-acts-of-denial-continue-it-is-becoming-dangerous/feed/ 0