Saudis Infuriated by US/Iran rapproachment - From MEMRI

Introduction  

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's November 3, 2013 visit to Saudi Arabia will take place amidst considerable tension between the two countries. The Arab Spring has given rise to more than a few disagreements between the two countries over the policy of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama vis-à-vis the crises in the Middle East. These disagreements, already severe due to the countries' opposite policies on several issues – specifically the ouster of former president Muhammad Mursi by Defense Minister Gen. 'Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi in Egypt, as well as the suppression of opposition protests in Bahrain – were further exacerbated by the Obama administration’s handling of the Syria crisis and by the administration’s new openness towards Iran.

Saudi Arabia, which advocates the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and even calls for military intervention to bring this about, was taken aback by the agreement signed by Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov on the removal of Syria's chemical weapons. The Saudis contend that the elimination of these weapons, which have killed over 1,000 people, will not save the Syrian people from the tyranny and violence of the a regime that has already caused the deaths of over 100,000 Syrians with conventional weapons. In fact, Saudi Arabia regards the Kerry-Lavrov agreement both as an American capitulation to Russia and as a victory for Assad and his ally, Iran. The kingdom also protested the fact that while Russian President Valdimir Putin coordinated with his allies before presenting the Russian compromise proposal that led to the agreement, the Obama administration agreed to the proposal without consulting Saudi Arabia or its other allies. Moreover, some argued that the agreement was nothing more than an indirect deal between the U.S. and Iran, elevating the latter's status in the region. Saudi Arabia also expressed its displeasure with the U.S. on the international stage by cancelling an October 1, 2013 speech by its representative in the Security Council, and by rejecting, on October 18, the offer of non-permanent membership in the Security Council.

The Saudi kingdom's anger over the U.S. policy and its suspicions regarding the Obama administration’s integrity intensified even further in light of the new U.S. openness towards the Iranian regime. The Saudi press voiced harsh criticism of this development, and articles expressed suspicion and apprehension regarding the U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Many claimed that Iranian President Hassan Rohani's flowery words must not be believed, and that no real change will occur in Iran as long as it is ruled by extremist forces led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Numerous columnists warned that the U.S. might make dangerously substantial concessions to Iran at the expense of the Gulf states' national security. Amid the flood of articles in this vein, there were also a few that attempted to alleviate the fears, claiming that the U.S.-Iran relations would not become strategic relations that could threaten the interests of the Gulf states.

This report reviews the tension between Saudi Arabia and the U.S., as reflected in the Saudi media discourse.         

The Kerry-Lavrov Agreement: The U.S. Surrendered To The Russia-Iran-Syria Axis

The Kerry-Lavrov agreement, signed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov on September 14, 2013 in Geneva, under which Syria must transfer its chemical weapons to internationally-sponsored oversight and destruction, sparked anger in Saudi Arabia, which today heads the anti-Syria Arab front. Under the leadership of Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, it has replaced Qatar and Turkey as the main sponsor of the Syrian National Coalition and has taken an aggressive diplomatic line, including calling for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and even for military intervention to accomplish this. As far as it is concerned, Assad's removal could be a serious blow to Iran's aspirations for hegemony in the region, and would also likely bring Syria back to the Arab fold.

Saudi Arabia is bitterly disappointed at the policy of the Obama administration, which is seeking to avoid a repeat of its Iraq and Afghanistan war scenarios and is instead striving for a diplomatic arrangement to resolve the Syria crisis. The Saudis, however, view the Kerry-Lavrov agreement as an American white flag to Russia, which unreservedly supports the Assad regime, and as victory for his regime and his allies that will keep him in power. The Saudis have argued that the removal of Syria's chemical weapons, which have killed over 1,000 people, is not a solution and does nothing to rescue the Syrian people from the Assad war machine that has taken over 100,000 lives so far.

For some time now, the Saudi media have been criticizing the Obama administration's hesitant approach to the Syria crisis as well as its handling of the crises in Egypt and Bahrain. However, it appears that since September 9, 2013, when the U.S. agreed to consider the Russian proposal that led to the signing of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement a few days later, there has been a Saudi media campaign specifically condemning this administration's policy. Since then, the Saudi government press has published dozens of articles and stories expressing this view, particularly with regard to the Syria crisis, with headlines such as "The Gulf Stands Fast Against Assad – While Obama Muddles"; "Oh Syrians, Don't Wait For Obama's Compassion"; "Obama and His Free World [Stands] Behind [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid Al-Mu'allem"; "The Russian Subterfuge – Over The Syrian Corpses"; "Saving The Syrian People – From Bashar's Chemical Weapons Or From Obama's Hesitation[?]"; and "Saudi Arabia And The U.S. – The Age Of Disagreement."

In its editorial on September 15, the day after the agreement was signed, the Saudi daily Al-Yawm wrote: "It is clear that the Russians have successfully led the Americans into a trap and into a long tunnel of negotiations, talks and accusations – and apparently the Americans [for their part] also want to be fooled by Moscow again and again. Their Geneva agreement does not deviate from Washington's [current] tradition of hesitation and of refraining from taking serious and assertive stands to stop the plan of mass destruction in Syria and to save the Syrian people from the daily surfeit of death."

A few days later, Tariq Alhomayed, former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote in a similar vein: "What the American administration is doing today is to firmly establish Obama's image as hesitant in [his] foreign policy, particularly with regard to this region, and also to firmly establish Iran's image as cunning..."

The UN focuses on chemical weapons as conventional weapons explode nearby (Al-Hayat, London, October 9, 2013)

Along with the Saudi fear that the Kerry-Lavrov agreement will keep Assad in power, the agreement was perceived as reinforcing the pro-Iran Shi'ite camp in the region – which serves Iran's regional hegemonic aspirations. In the Saudi view, an Assad victory will necessarily mean a victory for his ally Iran – which the Saudis say is seeking to establish a "Shi'ite crescent" in the region. This fear of the "Shi'ite crescent" is what is driving the Saudis' aggressive support for the Syrian opposition.

In his June 15 column in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, Jamal Khashoggi, a senior journalist and former editor of the Saudi daily Al-Watan, painted a frightening picture of what the Middle East might look like if Assad and his allies were to be victorious in Syria. He said that if this happens, the "Shi'ite crescent" will become "an ambitious political axis extending from Tehran to Beirut, via Baghdad and Damascus." Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, he said, "will realize his dream of delivering a sermon from the pulpit the Ummayad Mosque [in Damascus]," and a big ceremony will be held in the newly restored Damascus Palace “to mark the signing of a joint defense pact between the leaders of Iran, Iraq and Syria" under Khamenei's aegis. Saudi Arabia, he said, will be concerned about the growing Iranian activity in its vicinity: it will fear for the fate of Bahrain and of Yemen. He continued, "The plans for Gulf unity will vanish, and some of the Gulf states will even begin making efforts to appease Tehran in order to preserve the little sovereignty they will have left."

Khashoggi concluded by stating: "A nightmare, wouldn't you say? Therefore I believe that Saudi Arabia in particular will in no way allow an Iranian victory in Syria. The Iranian presence there has been massive ever since the signing of the pact between [the late president] Hafez Al-Assad and the Islamic Revolution, immediately following the triumph [of the latter] 40 years ago. However, [while] the might of the Syrian regime [under Hafez Al-Assad] allowed a modicum of [Syrian] balance and independence, his son [Bashar], who owes a debt of gratitude to the Iranians and Hizbullah for the fact that he's still alive and rules over even a devastated country, has become a subject of Tehran and is no [longer] an equal partner [to it]. This is the moment where the Iranian presence in Syria and Lebanon has become a clear threat to both Saudi and Turkish national security."

The U.S.-Russia agreement consolidates Assad's leadership (Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, October 9, 2013) 

The Obama Administration Is Jacking Up Iran's Status At The Expense Of Its Own Allies

 The U.S.'s acceptance of the Russian compromise proposal came as a complete surprise – and a great disappointment – to the Saudis. Articles in the Saudi media complained that while Russia had consulted with its allies prior to the move, the U.S. had not done the same with its own allies. Columnist ‘Ali Sa'd Al-Moussa wrote: "I couldn't believe what I saw yesterday morning, [namely] the comedy of turnarounds in international politics with regard to the crisis in Syria and to its regime." Yousuf Al-Kuwailit, editor-in-chief of the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, wrote that the U.S.-Russia agreement had "without a doubt" been signed "behind the backs of most of the Arab countries."

Many writers argued that Obama's disregard of his Arab allies reflected his administration's declared policy of focusing on Asia and ignoring the Middle East. They said that, not only had the U.S. failed to consult with its allies, it had actually coordinated the move with its rival Iran, which used the Syrian crisis as a card to jack up its own status in the region.

Describing the insult to the Saudis, prominent Al-Hayat commentator Raghida Dergham wrote: "The Russian player is taking on the mantle of leadership and is fully coordinating with its Iranian ally in Syria. And Russia is taking the utmost care to prove the firmness and cohesiveness of its partnerships and alliances, so as to represent a model and an example opposite to the partnerships and alliances of the United States with Arab countries, characterized by its abandoning allies without warning and evading its pledges… This is why Russian President Vladimir Putin is guarding a place for Iran in any grand bargain [to resolve the Syrian crisis] that might be forthcoming. (He has even discussed the Small Bargain [to eliminate Assad’s chemical arsenal] with Iran, so as not to seem to be neglecting it).

 "President Barack Obama does not do the same [as Russia] with his allies in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. He surprises and does not discuss. He backs down without warning. This is why he will take no care to guard a place for the GCC in the Grand Bargain, because this will simply not occur to him at the strategic level. Indeed, he has in the past displayed striking behavior [towards] his Arab Gulf allies when he completely ignored the pivotal role played by Saudi Arabia in the map of the region. Barack Obama does not think in terms of axes, especially as he has resolved to turn eastwards, far from the Middle East. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is building a strategy to restore his country's international influence by adopting a policy of axes, from the BRICS axis, which includes Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, to the Axis of Defiance, which includes Russia, China, and Iran, alongside the regime in Damascus and Hizbullah."

In an Al-Hayat article titled "Saudi Arabia and the U.S. – The Age Of Disagreement," political commentator Khaled Al-Dakhil wrote that the U.S.-Russia agreement on Syria was in effect an agreement with Iran. He said: "Saudi Arabia is not denying the need to reach an understanding with Iran, but it thinks that such an understanding must come after a solution to the Syria crisis, not before. Such a solution will not give Tehran cards it does not have, and will also allow Syria to return to the Arab fold and to emerge from its crisis. The Obama administration's policy comes as no surprise, and is in keeping with the [administration's] statements vis-à-vis the Middle East. [Indeed], along with its desire for dialogue with Iran, this administration is focusing on Asia."  

Saudi Arabia protested Iran's involvement in resolving the Syrian crisis, because it sees Iran, along with Hizbullah, as accomplices in Assad's crimes and as part of the problem in Syria – and therefore considers it unfit to be part of its solution. Some writers also argued that the idea of involving Iran in solving the Syrian problem is not new, but came in late August, during a visit to Iran by U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. They said that Feltman's Iran visit, which focused on regional issues such as Syria, Egypt, and Palestine, was more of a visit by a U.S. diplomat than one by a U.N. official, and that it had a role in paving the way for the Iran-U.S. rapprochement.

Even after the signing of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement, Saudi Arabia continues to oppose any Iranian involvement in resolving the Syrian crisis. As part of this, it rejects Iran’s participation in the Geneva II Middle East Peace Conference on Syria, an idea that is being championed by U.N. Special Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi. Addressing the possibility that Iran could be involved in the Geneva II talks, Saudi Ambassador to the U.N. 'Abdallah Al-Mu’allami told the daily Al-Hayat: "Iran's support for the regime and for the [regime's] armed forces prevents it from taking an active role in creating peace and a new Syria." This Saudi pressure on the international community using the card of its influence with the Syrian National Coalition, which the Saudis support, has brought about accusations that Saudi Arabia is behind this coalition's refusal to participate in the Geneva II conference.

The purge of our military command structure continues....

This strange chain of firings from the Military is so bizarre and so unheard of that even Dianne Sawyer of ABC news reached out to cover it when the 9th, yes 9th, Military Commanding Officer was relieved of duty in less than a year. This doesn’t include the long list last year, this is just the nine individuals this year alone.

General Carter Hamm, United States Army-Served as head of the United States African Command. Was in charge of the US African command during the fateful night of September 11, 2012 when the lives of four American citizens was taken in the Embassy in Benghazi . Hamm was extremely critical  of our Commander and Chief and stated he lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night. Hamm “resigned and retired” on April of 2013.
Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette/ United States Navy-Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. His most recent activity served as Deputy Commander of the US Naval Forces, US Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of September 11, 2012. He testified before the hearing committee and said that there may not have been time to get the flight crews there but left the door open on if told when the events took place if that he could have had the aircraft launched upon cross-examination by Rep. Tray Gowdey. Recently fired from the Administrative post and relieved of Duty by the Obama Administration for “utterance of a racial slur”.
Major General Ralph Baker, United States Army- Major General Baker served as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar , Djibouti , Africa . Was also involved in some aspect with the incident September 11, 2012, being under the African Command. Had said he believed attack helicopters could have made it in time. Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian (no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges filed with JAG)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army-General Roberts took command of  Fort Jackson in 2011. Was considered a rising star in his field. He served in Iraq during his service as the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and was the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox , KY. Relieved of Duty and Fired for Adultery. While this is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant, United States Marine Corps-Director of Strategic Planning and Policy of  for the United States Pacific Command and Commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion , Afghanistan . Highly decorated soldier with two Naval and Marine Commendations and two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals. He also has an Air Medal with a gold star. He served honorably and distinctively. He had asked about supplies to his command. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection.

Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus, United States Marine Corps- Regional Commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (a forward or frontal division) in Afghanistan. Also Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merritt w/Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. Major General C.M.M.Gurganus had questioned the use of Afghanistan patrols along side American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines. Was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection.

Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army-Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY.   He had graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to the Department of Defense.  Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, United States Navy-Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals, ribbons and decorations in his illustrious career. He was removed from service and fired from the military for the charge of using counterfeit poker chips (not making that up).
Last on the list, Major General Michael Carry, United States Air Force-Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was Fired October 11, 2013, for “Personal Misbehavior” is what was told to ABC News. He and Giardina were both the two top Commanders over the United States Nuclear Arsenal before their dismissal within 48 hours of each other.

As ABC News reports, this is an extremely alarming rate and one of the biggest and fastest purges of military personnel ever recorded.  It apparently is such a shock at the rate even for a long time veteran of reporting the news as Dianne Sawyer, because at one point she gets heated saying two Commanders of the Nuclear Command.

You don’t put people who are not very intelligent and without a squeaky clean record over that area of the Military.  It is enough to make the hardest and staunchest of supporters as the ABC news crew to pause and ask themselves, “what step is Obama planning?”

What's REALLY behind the government non shutdown?

Some say it is the Affordable Care Act (which, despite Jimmy Kimmel's man on the street interviews IS Obamacare, or more accurately, what was originally a housing act presented in the House, hijacked by Harry Reid to avoid the Constitutional limitation on revenue bills needing to originate from the House), but there is a larger picture here.  Obama is the most ideologically driven Progressive since Woodrow Wilson.  As a Political philosophy, Progressivism is in direct opposition to the American "Enlightenment" philosophy.  i.e. the Natural rights of man, vs rights as determined by a convention of men.

As such, each action that Obama takes, as it fulfills NOT an issue driven agenda, but a philosophical agenda, further alienates the public. 

It was this alienation - in particular the Progressive belief that ALL division, be it racial, ethnic, tribal, religious (in particular) and national are part of the historical past and have no place in the modern world, that has driven the birther movement.

But, it is this same alienation, i.e. the "Change" that he preached about so vehemently during his 2008 campaign, that has finally pushed a majority of the country to recognize that there is something happen that they can't live with.

Resistance will not, as some believe, lessen.  It may end on THIS particular issue, but you can expect this kind of resistance to build with each confrontation for the next 3 years.

Scalia's brilliant dissent and description of judicial overreach

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former.

We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives.

They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “true”“Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?

The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a would “become only secondary to the President’s.”

But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers.

They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers…

Anatomy of a Choke

Let me be clear.  I love Phil Mickelson.

I make no bones about the fact that he is one of, if not my favorite professional athlete. 

Here's why.  One of the things my years in professional sports did for me was to make me never condemn an athlete or overly praise them for any one days worth of interaction with the public.  They have bad days like we all do,, so a story from someone about any particularly athlete "blowing them off" really doesn't mean anything to me.  Perhaps their son or daughter is sick, or they just argued with their wife, or whatever.

However, when I was young, I regularly attended the Westchester Classic, which was played right down the street from me at the Westchester Country Club.  I was dismayed by the seeming contempt ALL the golfers, with few exceptions, seemed to have for their fans.

Than, several years ago I was a security supervisor at the US Open at Winged Foot, also right down the street from me.

If anything, things had gotten worse.  The golfers would walk the so called gauntlet of fans, either ignoring them, or randomly grabbing a program or ball, etc WHILE they kept walking, signing on the run literally trying to escape the unwashed masses.

There was one exception.  Phil Mickelson.  EVERY day of the Open, he stood and signed EVERY autograph, particularly EVERY child's request.
But here's the amazing part.  If you're a golf fan, you'll remember the Winged Foot Open as the one that he REALLY choked away.

He came to the 18th hole leading.  All he needed to do was lay up and get an easy par.  Instead, he took out his driver, and put his drive into the corporate village and blew the Open.  The coronation was already happening and it was pulled away.

When he reached the 18th green and finished, I walked him into the scorers room to sign his scorecard.

He sat there, with his wife, sobbing quietly together for almost 30 minutes.

He then composed himself, walked out the door and directly to the hundreds of young fans lining up to see him, well after the tournament crowd had left.  He said to them all "I have to go do some press but I'll be right back and get everyone".

He turned around and we walked him to the mandatory interview in the press area and then, just as he said, he came back, and signed autographs until the last child was done.

To this day, I've never seen, nor heard, of anything like this.  The worst moment of his professional career and all he thought about was the fans.

And I have no doubt he did the same yesterday.

Ah, yesterday.

Before the round, he was lighthearted and excited.  "This will be fun" he told the NBC sportscaster at the end of the 3rd round.

But then, in the middle of the final round, it began to rain.  Now, it was raining for everyone, and if the rain was going to slow down the course and make scores lower, it would benefit Mickelson and his playing partner, Hunter Mahan, more than anyone else as they'd have more holes and greens slowed by the rain.

Instead, Mickelson, on the tee, turned to his caddy, and in a question picked up by the mics, asked him "does anyone have a lightning report".

I don't know if the broadcasters didn't want to comment, didn't pick up on the meaning or didn't want to speak ill, but it was clear what was about to happen.

But suddenly, "fun" turned into needless worry about something that a) was out of his control and b) had there been lightening, the USGA automatically would have suspended play.

And THAT is what a choke is.  It is when you allow your mind to wander from your task and get distracted.

And not surprisingly, Mickelson took a one shot lead and turned it into a one shot deficit in the next 3 holes.

Oh well, as I always tell people, the reason that Tiger Woods is not CLOSE to the player Jack Nicklaus was, is because, yes, Jack won 18 majors, but he finished 2d, TWENTY times.  That's right, 20.  Which means he put himself into position to win, essentially for 9 1/2 straight years, of EVERY major he played in.

And Mickelson, with 6 seconds in the US Open, has now put himself into position to win more times than anyone else in his era.  More than Tiger, Ernie Els, or anyone else.

Why are all the scandals popping up now?

The Obama administration, under any honest evaluation has had more than it's fair share of "scandals".  From the "no lobbyists" claim and the immediate appointment of health care lobbyist Tom Daschle, and the farcical spectacle of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failing to pay his taxes, the Susan Powers description during the campaign of Hillary Clinton as a "monster" or Robert Malley secretly negotiating with Hamas while Obama was still a candidate, straight through to Fast and Furious, Van Jones, and various other open antisemites or communists being appointed to significant positions in the administration and finally to the recent scandals, including the IRS targeting Tea Party, Patriot and (surprise) pro Israel groups, "Benghazigate"  (which is far worse than the mass discussion would indicate) and the AP wiretapping scandals.

So why is it only the last three that seems to have finally taken hold in the "mainstream" media?

Since the days of William Randolph Hearst creating the Chicago Examiner for the express purpose of promoting the Democrat machine in the Windy City and Walter Lippman inventing modern political propaganda for Woodrow Wilson, the press has had, shall we say, a rather cozy relationship with the Democrat, or more specifically, the Progressive, Party.

But that relationship has been built on a particular understanding.  That there would be no direct lies TO THEM.  That a wink and a nudge would indicate that some spin was going on, but that the questions shouldn't be too tough or too probing about Democrat foibles.  So, nothing about JFK dating an East German spy, but a deep expose about Richard Nixon's dog.  (Not defending Nixon in any way!).  No probing investigations of Billy Carter being a paid Lobbyist for Mohamar Ghadaffi, but Dan Rather inventing documents to discredit George W Bush's National Guard service.

So what happened in DC during the last week to ten days?

2 significant things.  First, White House Spokesman stood at the podium and said "the only change to the Benghazi talking points" given to Ambassador Susan Rice were "cosmetic", changing the word "embassy" to "consulate".

This was a blatant lie.  A violation of the wink and nudge agreement that had so long existed.  A lie directly to the White House Press Corps that still thinks of themselves as the scions of Woodward and Bernstein, holding truth to power (well at least Republican power). 

Next, and perhaps even worse, in the eyes of the press, was the subpoena of Associated Press records and the bugging of the cloak room.  The AP is, after all, ALL of the press.  This was a direct attack on them, and an even more egregious attack on this silent agreement. 

At this point, it was clear that there would no be a waterfall of reports and so, miraculously, 8 months after the election, reports actually began to be seen on the major networks about the Benghazi "whistle-blowers" and absolute disgust about the IRS scandal.

How far the press will take this new attitude I don't know, but welcome back, 4th estate.  A critical press is essential to the functioning of the Republic and you are all needed.

Charging Document in Boston Bombing

http://7thamendmentadvocate.org/blog/criminal%20complaint%20130421%201847.pdf

Questions that MUST be answered concerning the Boston suspects and the plot

In the excitement of the apprehension of "Suspect 2" in the Boston Marathon bombing, several critical issues have already begun to be forgotten.
First, is, of course, what of the Saudi National, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi?  Initial reports had him as a "Person of interest" usually a police euphemism for a suspect, that is used so that someone can be questioned without an arrest or a Miranda warning.

The authorities in Boston were concerned enough to effect a search warrant on his home.

Some reports claim that the search was conducted "by consent", i.e. the authorities, whether federal, local or state, did not have to go in front of a judge and show probable cause.

Reports from Boston, including photos, show authorities removing several boxes of materials as well as computers.

Shortly thereafter, it was reported by Steve Emerson, and than seconded by various sources including yahoo news, The Blaze, and others, that Al-Harbi had had his visa revoked and was being deported on "National Security grounds".

1)So, who is Al-Harbi?  The family name is associated with a veritable who's who of Al-Qaeda operatives.
2)Is he being deported?  Congressional sources, at least half a dozen offices, confirm the original report that he was being deported or at least that the original deportation order did exist.

During the late night of Thursday, shortly after initial reports of the fatal shooting of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier the Boston Police Scanner clearly identified the two suspects pictured in the photographs and videos that the FBI had released just hours earlier.

However, the ID's were of two entirely different individuals, than the brothers finally identified.  Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Tripathi's names were clearly sent out over the scanner and the twitterverse and web aggregaters were on fire.  Pictures of Tripathi were everywhere as he is a Brown University student who mysteriously disappeared.  This identification of the suspects went on until approximately 4 am on Friday morning.

At that time, Pete Williams of NBC reported that his sources said that the suspects were NOT the two previously identified but were two individuals who had been here "at least a year", and had military backgrounds and training.

Shortly thereafter, the names of the brothers, Tsarnaev, was reported by Williams and then all sources.

So,
3) How was the official police reports over the Boston Police radio so wrong?
4) Where did the reports of Military training and short term residence in the US come from?

Next, not surprisingly, the two were quickly located in Watertown and it's environs.  Many police officers encountered them and, of course, killed the older brother in the firefight shortly thereafter.

While not as important and curious as the above questions -
5) how did a wounded, bleeding 19 year old, escape from a huge police contingent who he had been in a gun battle with and even more,
6) how did he manage to evade THOUSANDS of police and FBI agents for the next 13 or so hours?

Next, it is well known that the Chechnyan conflict is another site of Al Qaeda rebels.
In fact, famously, three of the 9/11 attackers had traveled to Al Qaeda training sites specifically to prepare to fight in Chechnya against the Russians, only to be told by Bin Laden and his leadership, that they had other plans for them.

7) What is the relationship, if any, between Al Harbi and the Tsarnaev brothers?


Finally, only a fool could believe that the production of the sheer number of IED's that these two were in possession of, including throwing home made grenades at the police during the car chase on Thursday night/Friday morning, went unnoticed by EVERYONE in their lives.

8) WHo, if any, was their recruiter, trainer?
9) Which family members were aware, as much of the family lived together in an apartment complex?
10) How is their father involved as the older brother traveled to visit him and seems to have become radicalized at that point (not that I necessarily believe that.  clearly he had turned before that)

It was revealed today that the FBI had been contacted by a foreign government, presumably the Russions, asking to investigate the older brother.

11) How did THEY get information on someone who had been in the United States for several YEARS at that point - and enough information to make a formal request of the US Government to investigate him?
12) How could the FBI possibly have "cleared" him?

Finally,

13) What happened to the three people reported by all sources to be "in custody" from U Mass Dartmouth on Friday night?  and..
14) Are there others there?
15) Where and how did two supposedly broke immigrants, one a student, another with a wife who supported him, get the money to purchase a veritable arsenal of weapons to engage in two separate firefights with police?
16) Where did they get all of these weapons?

To support "gay marriage" or not to support it, that is the question.

Or is it?  As with most issues on the current docket of the US popular scene, no one is asking the right questions OR dealing honestly with the issue.

It's simple, marriage is, was and always has been a religious institution.

In 20th century US history, another Progressive idea, the "state" decided to take over marriage as a way of regulating commerce.

This is part of what led to increased divorce rates, but it also had specific benefits b/c of the financial interests that again, the Progressives had built into the "institution of marriage".

So, for the last 120 years or so, marriage is TWO things.  A religious ceremony/rite, and a civil contract - a binding financial document, no different than any other.

Religious questions are ones that NO government has the right to interfere with, so, it's pretty simple, if your religious institution supports gay marriage, you can marry in your church/synagogue or whatever other house of worship you choose (in my case, as a conservative jew, The Jewish Theological Seminary has largely punted, leaving it up to the individual congregataions, however they DO ordain gay rabbis; reform judaism supports them, orthodox, not).

In the United States, Contracts have ALWAYS been state documents unless of course, it's a contract with the federal government.  Even contracts that cross state lines are considered to be written in the place of business, or are required to state which court will have jurisdiction.

The Federal court system only interferes as much as the contract may interfere with interstate commerce.  But federal courts virtually NEVER get involved with personal contracts.

So, again, the only question is Does YOUR state support gay marriage?

Contracts have ALWAYS received reciprocity among the states so recognition should not be a problem, either.

Had the Federal government not grown so enormously in the last century, the issue of benefits for the federal employees who want to marry and are gay, would not be such a big issue.

However, the same rules apply. 

The best example of this is that the difference in ages that states allow children/young adults to marry.  Here in NY, the age of consent is considered to be 17.  That varies state to state.

Some states require blood tests, others do not.  Again. ALL of these issues are respected across state lines.

The same should apply here.

Simple, no mess, no federal issue.

When is a visit to Israel, not a visit to Israel?

President Obama, 5 years into his Presidency is finally making his way to Israel, our leading ally in the region, if not the world.

After all this time, there are so many things to see, to do it seems reasonable to ask what his itinerary might include.

He will speak to the Israeli Knesset, the seat of Israel's government and home to many newly elected MK's?  No.

Clearly, he will visit Technion, the Israeli Institute of technical education and research, responsible for so many of the world's advances?  No

He'll visit Haifa, the Northern Israeli city, with 50% Arab and Jewish population a beacon of how democracy in Israel works, home to huge chemical industries and the target of most of the missile attacks during the Lebanon war?  Oh, not he.

Of course then, he'll surely visit the embattled city of Sderot in the South, recipient of more missile attacks than any other?  No

Well then, Ashkelon, the beautiful beach resort and one of Israel's major cities, the new target of Palestinian missiles?  No.

Well, of course, you say, he will bask in the almost 3 millenium old site of the world's oldest religion, the Western wall, the most important site in Judaism?

He'll tour the new excavations down the length of the wall and see the incredible Roman cisterns, or even stand at the site that is considered closest to the "Mishkan" the Ark of the Covenant?

No and No.

Well, Ir David, then, the City of David, just down the hill from the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount, where massive new discoveries have confirmed much of the biblical accounts?  Or even wade through Ezekiel's tunnel, the irrigation tunnel leading out of the ancient city of Jerusalem, which ends in a biblical age inscription describing it?

No, and of course, no.

Well then, certainly, as a Christian, visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City, which had been turned into a goat manger by the Jordanians and has been lovingly restored first by the Israeli Antiquities Authority and later by Christian bodies?  No

What of the newly excavated "mikvah" sites used by Biblical Jews next to the old marketplace where Jesus famously turned over the tables of the money changers, just up the road from the Western and Southern walls of the Temple Mount?  No

Ok then, well he IS only going to be there for 48 hours, and in Jerusalem, so he will go to the site of the Last Supper, along the walls of the Old City, where ancient "graffiti" confirms Jewish Presence in the area?  Negative!

Ah, you say, it's not a tourist trip!  Business, all business!!  So he will visit the sites of Iron Dome outposts, since US Dollars (approved of course, before his Presidency) did so much to change the strategy of the last conflict with the residents of Gaza?  No (although the Israelis WILL be shipping an Iron Dome Battery to Ben Gurion Airport so he can see one as he lands).

Well, I suppose it would be foolish to even mention going to say, Mitzpe Ramon, where the Jewish National Fund has started another new water project to "Green" the desert?  Silly me, you say.

So, where, exactly is Obama going and what is he doing?

Well, his one speech will be in the Jerusalem Convention Center.  Clear across town.  And his one major site visit?  The Church of the Nativity, under the control of the Palestinian Authority, in Bethlehem, where the Arab residents of Samaria have successfully made the city "Judenrein" and driven most Christian residents out and where the Church itself was taken over by terrorists just a few years ago.

Of, course, he will be visiting Yad Vashem, which serves to confirm his personal, and the Arab, narrative that Israel is a creation of the Holocaust, and not the natural result of thousands of years of Jewish History, or even a fulfillment of an early 20th Century promise by the British.

When is a visit to Israel not a visit to Israel?  When you're President Obama and EVERYTHING is about changing the narrative to suit your vision, never the truth.

The law of (un)Intended Consequences

The nightmare has just begun.

Here is the current stack of new regulations for Obamacare 2 years BEFORE it takes effect. It stands at 20,000 pages as of last week.



The title is because, like all the programs of the Progressives, the purpose of the bill was NOT healthcare, but rather the continued centralization of power in one person's hands, the President's.

And who enforces these regulations? The IRS of course.

Redefining "Egregious"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The American War On Israel Has Begun

Some may wonder what the real significance of July 4th, or Independence day is to the world, let alone the United States. The 18th century was known as the Age of Revolutions, and for good reason. It was ended, really, with the Russian Revolution of 1917, but there were revolutions throughout the Western World in the century starting in 1775, indicating the ascendancy of the believers in Natural Law and the ascension of the promoters of this humanistic view, the “philosophes”. For the first time in history, there was talk among intellectuals of “human rights”. Not the way we know them now, but that mankind had certain rights which could not be proscribed by legislatures, let alone kings. More directly the entire concept of “divine rule” of a monarch was thrown into dispute and the idea that G*d had granted to man certain rights and that there were also natural laws or “laws of nature” that had to be obeyed were new and revolutionary. These ideas had been fomenting and had been written about all over the world. They can be seen in the writings of Locke and Rousseau. Jefferson himself had written down many of the same ideas in his Constitution of the state of Virginia and Adams had copied them for Massachusetts. They stood, and stand, in stark contrast to the competing ideology that began to develop at the same time, that there was NO divinity, no divine rights, but rather, only rights granted by the state. That the state, i.e. government, was the natural course of events. This can be seen from More’s Utopia, through the works of Hegel, Marx and Bernstein and finally to our American Progressives. This movement has been represented by Utopianism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Fabian Socialism, Keynesian economics and of course, American Progressivism. What really separates the American Revolution, form the other enlightenment movements and figures was the writing of Thomas Jefferson and the birth of this new nation founded not as an evolution of these ideas, but rather borne of them whole. The Declaration of Independence, heavily edited by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and truncated by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, is considered by most historians to be the pre-eminent document of the “Age of Enlightenment”. It is brilliant in it’s simplicity and it’s execution. “We hold these truths to be self evident…” No need for discussion, all intelligent gentleman now understand that these truths are, and of right , ought to be, shared by all. “…that all men are created equal” No longer were there serfs and a monarch, but rather gentleman, all of whom had a right to express their opinions. “…that they are endowed by their creator with rights…” Rights are divinely granted but of this earth. Below are the words that this country was founded upon. Go to UShistory.org to also read Jefferson’s original version, his draft. You will see how the beauty was crafted, and the parts that, had they been allowed to remain, would have changed history. Most important among these edits was the dis inclusion (the editing out by vote of the Continental Congress) of the following passages dealing with slavery. In order to ensure a unanimous vote, the bloc of Southern States demanded it’s removal: he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold this execrable commerce ^ and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die (Ironic that I wrote this 4 years ago for the first time. I think Michelle Bachmann ought to point this out to George Stephanapolous). Read it, and appreciate it again, and the men and women who have died to protect these words and what they mean. Now the text of the Declaration: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Been a while, so.... random thoughts

Some thoughts that have been swimming around: The New York Times had a front page story with one ENTIRE full page (more than the Bin Laden Raid got) inside on Ann Romney's love of the sport of "Dressage". I wrote to the Times and thanked them for turning the awesome power of their full investigative team on such a critical issue - as opposed to, say, why Michelle Obama had her law license taken away by the Illinois Courts. You can see just how wide the disparity is between Progressives and normal folks in the so called debate over JP Morgan losing $2 Billion on their internal trading last year. Lunatics like me think taking a multi billion loss is a pretty good lesson for any firm about taking excessive risk, particularly as it was with their own money. Likely, that lesson will cause them to change policies and it has already cost several people, including one of the (formerly) most respected Chief Investment strategists on Wall Street, their jobs. The Progressives think this should mean more regulation, so that the firm COULD NOT lose that money. In other words, they should be able to be as risky as they want, but with no risk. Huh? How stupid does Obama think the American Public is? (Wait, don't answer that. Since he thinks he's Plato's philosopher king, we know the answer to that). He criticizes Bain Capital, Romney's firm (and there ARE legit criticism's) at the same time one of his chief fundraisers is a partner in the firm!!!! Not to mention several of his advisers. When Undercover Boss was on network TV, I watched a few times and was frustrated b/c the boss' never seemed to apply the lessons learned universally across the whole company. Rather, dthey focused on the great human interest stories of the various employees they met. It is now on repeat on TLC, I believe, and watching more of them, the one thing that screams through is how shockingly out of touch these guys are. For example, the CEO of Waste Mgmt sets productivity requirements for his garbage truck drivers and doesn't know that his female drivers will have to pee in a cup b/c there are no bathrooms in a garbage truck and can't make special stops under the new guidelines. Nor does he realize that having supervisors following the drivers at a distance, in pickup trucks and not interacting with them at all, will come off as "spying" on them. Or that putting an across the board wage freeze without explaining why might come across as unfair. All of these guys are portrayed as brain dead. Doesn't ANYONE work themselves up from the bottom anymore? Ryder Hejdal, a Canadian, won the Giro D'Italia today. Rarely has there been a more popular winner. It must be the Canada thing, but congrats to a genuinely nice guy. Finally, and most importantly, more than 104,000 Americans are buried in cemeteries in Western Europe, having given their lives to save the French, Belgians, English, Italians, Spanish, etc. Wonder what Western Europe thinks today?

Osawatomie, oh Osawatomie

By now you've probably heard about Obama's speech in Osawatomie Kansas, the other day.

Perhaps you've even heard about comparisons, fully intentional, to Theodore Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" speech.

Some of you more informed readers may have heard, or know, that the New Nationalism speech was the speech that Teddy gave to announce his break from the Republican Party, and the formation of the Progressive Party, that great stain on American History.

If you are truly an historian, you'll also know that the uniform understanding of Roosevelt's New Nationalism program was that it was an American Socialism.

And if you are exceptionally well informed, you may have even read some pundits referring to the editorial that was printed in the NY Times at that time describing Roosevelt's plans as "Super Socialism", and not favorably.

But let me give you some more information. In fact, here is how the NY Times editorial titled "Roosevelt's Super Socialism" concludes that day (September 30, 1913)

"Mr. Roosevelt's reconstitution of society would leave it inert by destroying individual initiative, hope, and ambition, which are the foundations of progress. It is a sterile system, yet being sterile, why has he constructed it? Because he knew that with his great skill, he could make this utopian dream attractive to that very considerable part of society which is the material with which agitators work- the discontented, the unsuccessful, the envious. And upon a Progressive Party thus assembled and fortified with delusions, he would rise again to power. It is as the basis of his ambition that he has formulated his plan. The fatal defect of it is that the American People are far too intelligent, they have too much common sense to be deluded by the shallow sophistries of the Roosevelt socialism. But the Colonel had to do something. His party is going to pieces."

Reread that paragraph. Does it sound like Obama and his ever decreasing poll numbers? Does it sound like the cynical way that the Obamites have tried to use the Occupy Wall Street movement?

Most interesting, does Obama think that Americans are too ignorant of their own history to know that he is now openly declaring himself a socialist in the later TR tradition?

What is fascinating about Obama is that even among the most egocentric, arrogant individuals in American society, those that run for or are elected President, he stands out.

Has there ever been a President who has compared himself so regularly to previous Presidents with delusions of grandeur? Wilson, Teddy AND Franklin Roosevelt, and most offensively, Lincoln?

Frankly, I don't know which I find more disgusting, Obama's now unabashed (although to me it was always so) embracing of socialism, or his assumption that we are all too stupid to see what he is doing.

Might we say now, once and for all, that Emperor Obama has no clothes?

Must see videos

http://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk

Obama's only policy

By Caroline Glick

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has explained repeatedly over the years that Israel has no Palestinian partner to negotiate with. So news reports this week that Netanyahu agreed that the 1949 armistice lines, (commonly misrepresented as the 1967 borders), will be mentioned in terms of reference for future negotiations with the Palestinian Authority seemed to come out of nowhere.

Israel has no one to negotiate with because the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist. This much was made clear yet again last month when senior PA "negotiator" Nabil Sha'ath said in an interview with Arabic News Broadcast, "The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this."

Given the Palestinians' position it is obvious that Netanyahu is right. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Israel and the PA will reach any peace deal in the foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Hamas terror group controls Gaza and will likely win any new Palestinian elections just as it won the last elections, and the entire exercise in finding the right formula for restarting negotiations is exposed as a complete farce..

So why is Israel engaging in these discussions?

The only logical answer is to placate US President Barack Obama.

For the past several months, most observers have been operating under the assumption that Obama will use the US's veto at the UN Security Council to defeat the Palestinians' bid next month to receive UN membership as independent Palestine. But the fact of the matter is that no senior administration official has stated unequivocally, on record that the US will veto a UN Security Council resolution recommending UN membership for Palestine.

Given US congressional and public support for Israel, it is likely that at the end of the day, Obama will veto such a resolution. But the fact that the President has abstained to date from stating openly that he will veto it makes clear that Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands.

These demands include abandoning Israel's position that it must retain defensible borders in any peace deal with the Palestinians. Since defensible borders require Israel to retain control over the Jordan Valley and the Samarian hills, there is no way to accept the 1949 armistice lines as a basis for negotiations without surrendering defensible borders.

SAY WHAT you will about Obama's policy, at least it's a policy. Obama uses US power and leverage against Israel in order to force Israel to bow to his will.

What makes Obama's Israel policy notable is not simply that it involves betraying the US's most steadfast ally in the Middle East. After all, since taking office Obama has made a habit of betraying US allies.

Obama's Israel policy is notable because it is a policy. Obama has a clear, consistent goal of cutting Israel down to size. Since assuming office, Obama has taken concrete steps to achieve this aim.

And those steps have achieved results. Obama forced Netanyahu to make Palestinian statehood an Israeli policy goal. He coerced Netanyahu into temporarily abrogating Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. And now he is forcing Netanyahu to pretend the 1949 armistice lines are something Israel can accept.

Obama has not adopted a similarly clear, consistent policy towards any other nation in the region. In Egypt, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Libya, and beyond, Obama has opted for attitude over policy. He has postured, preened, protested and pronounced on all the issues of the day.

But he has not made policy. And as a consequence, for better or for worse, he has transformed the US from a regional leader into a regional follower while empowering actors whose aims are not consonant with US interests.

SYRIA IS case and point. President Bashar Assad is the Iranian mullahs' lap dog. He is also a major sponsor of terrorism. In the decade since he succeeded his father, Assad Jr. has trained terrorists who have killed US forces in Iraq. He has provided a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists. He has strengthened Syrian ties to Hezbollah. He has hosted Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terror factions.. He has proliferated nuclear weapons. He reputedly ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Since March, Assad has been waging war against his fellow Syrians. By the end of this week, with his invasion of Hama, the civilian death toll will certainly top two thousand.

And how has Obama responded? He upgraded his protestations of displeasure with Assad from "unacceptable" to "appalling."

In the face of Assad's invasion of Hama, rather than construct a policy for overthrowing this murderous US enemy, the Obama administration has constructed excuses for doing nothing. Administration officials, including Obama's ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford, are claiming that the US has little leverage over Assad.

But this is ridiculous. Many in Congress and beyond are demanding that Obama withdraw Ford from Damascus. Some are calling for sanctions against Syria's energy sector. These steps may or may not be effective. Openly supporting, financing and arming Assad's political opponents would certainly be effective.

Many claim that the most powerful group opposing Assad is the Muslim Brotherhood. And there is probably some truth to that. At a minimum, the Brotherhood's strength has been tremendously augmented in recent months by Turkey.

Some have applauded the fact that Turkey has filled the leadership vacuum left by the Obama administration. They argue that Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan can be trusted to ensure that Syria doesn't descend into a civil war.

What these observers fail to recognize is that Erdogan's interests in a post-Assad Syria have little in common with US interests. Erdogan will seek to ensure the continued disenfranchisement of Syria's Kurdish minority. And he will work towards the Islamification of Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today there is a coalition of Syrian opposition figures that include all ethnic groups in Syria. Their representatives have been banging the doors of the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. Yet the same Western leaders who were so eager to recognize the Libyan opposition despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the opposition tent have refused to publicly embrace Syrian regime opponents that seek a democratic, federal Syria that will live at peace with Israel and embrace liberal policies.

This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a private meeting with these brave democrats. Why didn't she hold a public meeting? Why hasn't Obama welcomed them to the White House?

By refusing to embrace liberal, multi-ethnic regime opponents, the administration is all but ensuring the success of the Turkish bid to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power if Assad is overthrown.

But then, embracing pro-Western Syrians would involve taking a stand and, in so doing, adopting a policy. And that is something the posturing president will not do. Obama is much happier pretending that empty statements from the UN Security Council amount to US "victories."

If he aims any lower his head will hit the floor.

OBAMA'S PREFERENCE for posture over policy is nothing new. It has been his standard operating procedure throughout the region. When the Iranian people rose up against their regime in June 2009 in the Green Revolution, Obama stood on the sidelines. As is his habit, he acted as though the job of the US president is to opine rather than lead. Then he sniffed that it wasn't nice at all that the regime was mowing down pro-democracy protesters in the streets of Teheran and beyond.

And ever since, Obama has remained on the sidelines as the mullahs took over Lebanon, build operational bases in Latin America, sprint to the nuclear finishing line, and consolidate their power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Wednesday the show trial began for longtime US ally former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his sons. During last winter's popular uprising in Egypt, Obama's foes attacked him for refusing to abandon Mubarak immediately.

The reasons for maintaining US support for Mubarak were obvious: Mubarak had been the foundation of the US alliance structure with the Sunni Arab world for three decades. He had kept the peace with Israel. And his likely successor was the Muslim Brotherhood.

But Obama didn't respond to his critics with a defense of a coherent policy. Because his early refusal to betray Mubarak was not a policy. It was an attitude of cool detachment.

When Obama saw that it was becoming politically costly to maintain his attitude of detachment, he replaced it with a new one of righteous rage. And so he withdrew US support for Mubarak without ever thinking through the consequences of his actions. And now it isn't just Mubarak and his sons humiliated in a cage. It is their legacy of alliance with America.

Recognizing that Obama refuses to adopt or implement any policies on his own, Congress has tried to fill the gap. The House Foreign Affairs Committee recently passed a budget that would make US aid to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the PA contingent on certification that no terrorist or extremist organization holds governmental power in these areas. Clinton issued a rapid rebuke of the House's budget and insisted it was unacceptable.

And this makes sense. Making US assistance to foreign countries contingent on assurances that the money won't fund US enemies would be a policy. And Obama doesn't make policy - except when it comes attacking to Israel.

In an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, Muammar Qaddafi's son Seif al-Islam Qaddafi said he and his father are negotiating a deal that would combine their forces with Islamist forces and reestablish order in the country. To a degree, the US's inability to overthrow Qaddafi - even by supporting an opposition coalition that includes al Qaeda - is the clearest proof that Obama has substituted attitude for policy everywhere except Israel.

Acting under a UN Security Council resolution and armed with a self-righteous doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" Obama went to war against Qaddafi five months ago. But once the hard reality of war invaded his happy visions of Lone Rangers riding in on white stallions, Obama lost interest in Libya. He kept US forces in the battle, but gave them no clear goals to achieve. And so no goals have been achieved.

Meanwhile, Qaddafi's son feels free to meet the New York Times and mock America just by continuing to breathe in and out before the cameras as he sports a new Islamic beard and worry beads.

If nothing else, the waves of chaos, war and revolution sweeping through Arab lands make clear that the Arab conflict with Israel is but a sideshow in the Arab experience of tyranny, fanaticism, hope and betrayal. So it says a lot about Obama, that eight months after the first rebellion broke in Tunisia, his sole Middle East policy involves attacking Israel.

Why do people complain about the media?

There is a fine line between a "conspiracy" and people with like ideas around the world, all following those ideas and defending them to their end.

We see that here in the US, with the seemingly coordinated "we need to spend more" or "Obama's policies prevented us from an even worse recession or depression".

These are simply the intellectual refusals of many supposedly smart people from giving up on the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes.

You've probably heard the term "Keynesian" economics thrown around recently. Keynes died in 1946 and the irony is that his theories were written in response to the Great Depression AROUND THE WORLD, NOT here in the US.

He basically said that the government needs to "prime the pump" when the private sector slows down. That spending is spending no matter where it comes from, even if it's imaginary money, printed by the government to inflate it's way out of trouble.

However, Keynes had no idea that his ideas would be taken to such absurd lengths - although he did claim, to some extent, that the war spending of WWII proved his theories.

By the time of his death, just after the war, he was already warning about the ridiculous lengths that his disciples were taking his theories.

The most well known of his disciples right now is Paul Krugman of the New York Times.

But most US Presidents of the 20th century have followed a basically Keynesian model.

The ultimate example of the Progressive media's being in the bag for Keynes, came just recently in Israel.

Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Finance Minister, and the overseer of the latest phase of Israel's "Economic miracle" (Israel is one of the few economies in the world that has fought the worldwide slump and whose economy continues to grow and expand robustly, largely due to incredible innovation) was getting ready for an interview with Israel's Channel 2 news Anchor Yonit Levy.

This is actually how the interview started. Oozing professional probity, Levy said, "I assume you came here armed with wonderful data about the drop in unemployment and rising economic growth, but I want to ask you, Mr. Steinitz if for all your data you've forgotten the people, you've forgotten an entire class of working people who can't live?"

"So, despite all facts to the opposite, I'm telling you things are not good." That is the essence of what she said.

You see it here now every day, and will see it even more in the coming days.

With the downgrade of the US credit rating by Standard and Poor's, you will hear the media say it really doesn't matter.

Of course, it matters. But worse, perhaps than the downgrade, which is epic, huge, an historical earthquake of biblical proportions, is that ALL the ratings agencies still have the US on negative watch, which means a 75% chance of further downgrade.

You have also seen this recently with the coordinated calling of the Tea Party "Terrorists".

There should be riots on the streets over this obscenity. Those that murder and blow up, mutilate, massacre, innocents in the streets are "miltiants" or "freedom fighters", but those that want less US debt are "terrorists"???????!!!!!!!!!!

When is a cut, not a cut?

I figured I had about 20 thousand dollars in "discretionary" spending last year. You know, for things like new computers, car repairs, vacations, enough food to make me obese, things like that.

So this year, I "budgeted" 21thousand 6 hundred dollars. That's an 8% annual growth rate.

But I had a chat with my accountant, and he reminded me that actually, I only earned about 12 thousand dollars LAST year in discretionary income.

That other 8 thousand? I put it on my credit card. BIG problem at 5% interest.

So, I promised him. I swear. I will cut my spending this year. I realize it's a big problem.

So, I figure, I'm going to "only" spend 20 thousand 4 hundred dollars this year. That's right. I am cutting 11% of my spending.

Wait, you ask. If you haven't spent it, and it's only a projection, and you're still going to spend more than you earned, and you're going to owe a lot more at the end of this year, than last year, HOW EXACTLY IS THAT A CUT?

Now you got it.

"Hoarders" has got it all wrong!

Have you seen any of those "hoarding" shows on A and E or the Discovery?

You know, the ones where someone who would be described colloquially as nutso, but who suffers from severe obsessive compulsive disorder has so much sh*t that there's no place to walk?

And yet, what do they all have in common? Even the ones who say, "I've got a problem. I'm going to lose my family", when it comes time to throw things away, they just can't. Everything is too valuable, or might have use sometime in the future.

Sound like anyone you know?

It seems to me, our government should be the star of the next 10 years of "hoarders" with each episode highliting another obscene federal program that is actually just covering up a pile of roaches, or a dead cat, or some rats, that have made a home in the hoarders pile. Let's start with the bridge to nowhere, turn right to the cowboy poetry festival, and then to some serious stuff like Obama-no care, and the Department of Education.