Obama's Failure on Iran

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasing clear that that none of the steps that the Western allies are taking is likely to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Recently, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton called the prospects for diplomacy “very doubtful”. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that military action will do nothing more than delay the Iranians. And, last week, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told the Washington Post that the strategy of backing the Iranian opposition would take too long and might produce a government with the same nuclear ambitions.

Russia and China will not agree to a sanctions regime that will have any material adverse impact on the Mullahs currently running Iran. There is no hint that either Russia or China will honor a gasoline embargo, stop arms sales or end investments inside of Iran. The selling out of our Polish and Czech allies to Russia regarding our “change of heart” with respect to missile defense with bring us no benefit.

Authoritarian regimes will often allow the suffering of their people for what the rules believe is the greater good. That was the case during Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq. The Iranian mullahs, I am sure, will behave in the same way.

Following the talks in Geneva between the Western allies and Iran, the Iranian’s again agreed to international inspections of some of its nuclear facilities and to expatriate some of uranium that it has already enriched (However, the Associated Press has reported that a member of the Iranian delegation to the Geneva conference claims that Iran had not agreed to expatriate uranium. It is, after all, hard to believe that a regime run dictators would immediately contradict an agreement with its perceived enemies.) However, what has been lost is that the Iranians continue on with their uranium enrichment. Despite continuous international calls for them to cease this operation, the uranium enrichment continues and there is no reason to believe that it will stop.

As the “international community” talks about the details of the agreed to inspections and the uranium shipments, the clock continues to tick. Mullahs with operational nuclear weapons becomes ever closer to reality. And, these agreements give Russia and China further excuses for opposing strong action to stop the nuclear program. Had Iran been defiant, it would have been harder, but not hard enough, for these two permanent members of the Security Council to oppose new sanctions or military intervention.

President Obama has said that his administration will pursue diplomacy until the end of the year (remember, the clock continues to tick) and then , if Iran has not relinquished its nuclear ambitions, it will seek sanctions. Well, what happens is it’s New Year’s Eve and the centrifuges are still spinning and the President of the United States then requests “strong” sanctions from the UN Security Counsel. The Chinese and the Russians then veto these “strong” sanctions. The answer to the question is that the entire policy of the Obama Administration is finally revealed to be the charade that it is. In the meantime, more uranium is enriched and more ballistic missiles are made.

It has been said that the President feels that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Mullahs is a foregone conclusion and, once that is the case, he will implement a plan of containment, just like we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. What Mr. Obama fails to realize is that containment worked against the Communists because they, much like us, had a desire to live. Remember, the ruling class in the Communist countries lived very will and they had no interest in dying for the cause.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Islamists that rule Iran. They are religious zealots who are actively waiting for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. They do not value the lives of their own countrymen, let alone the lives of the infidel. When you have an enemy that does not value life, they have nothing to lose by not remaining contained.

Mr. Obama should learn one of the key lessons of the 20th century – that you should take dictators at their word. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that he wants to blow Israel off the map, he should be believed. There is nothing in his background that should make President Obama think that he doesn’t mean it. Mr. Obama should recognize the true urgency of the situation and take whatever steps are necessary to end the Iranian nuclear program once and for all.

Extending Our Nuclear Umbrella

On her recent trip to Thailand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made several statements that taken together should concern every citizen of the Western World. First, she said, “We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the US extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it is unlikely Iran will be any stronger or safer.” She then went on to say that, “The Iranians won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have nuclear weapons.” emphasis added.

The Secretary of State is apparently saying that because it is a foregone conclusion that the rogue Iranian regime will obtain nuclear weapons, the United States must extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel and the other “friendly” Persian Gulf Arab states. If this is true, we are all in grave danger. The United States must take all actions necessary to prevent Iran from developing (or obtaining) nuclear weapons.

Mrs. Clinton’s (and the Obama Administration’s) belief that the extension of our nuclear umbrella will somehow calm the fears of those in the Middle East is incorrect. And, unfortunately, her assumption that the extension of our nuclear umbrella to that region will deter Iran’s use of nuclear weapons is fatally flawed. The reason our extension of our nuclear umbrella to our Western European allies during the Cold War was successful was because the Soviets could be deterred by the certain knowledge that we had the power and the willingness to destroy them, if necessary (the exact term was mutually assured destruction or “MAD”). As Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev told his Chinese counter part, Mao Zedong, “The US may be a paper tiger as you call it, but that paper tiger has nuclear teeth.”

The Islamists who run Iran do not possess the rationality of the former Soviet leaders. They believe that they are fulfilling a Koranic prophecy and are being dictated to by Allah. They do not care if Iran is destroyed in an Israeli or US retaliatory strike, just so long as Israel is destroyed too.

The fundamental flaw in the Obama Administration’s thinking toward Iran comes from the President himself. President Obama does not understand the nature of the adversary that we face. By stating in his Cairo speech in June that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, Mr. Obama conceded that the Iranians have the right to go nuclear. This is despite the fact that Iran is the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism.

For some reason, the President of the United States (and, by extension, his entire administration) feels the need to coddle the Islamic extremists who currently control Iran. Whether it is continuing the folly of stating that he wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or refusing to speak out in support of those protesting the results of the Iranian presidential election for fear of meddling or refusing to allow his Secretary of State to say that the Iranian government is an illegitimate regime, the President is showing our enemies that the United States will not act to protect its own security, let alone that of its allies.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton are putting the Israelis in a position where they will have to act alone. Since Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that he intends to wipe Israel off the map, the Israeli government cannot sit back and allow Iran to develop the weapons that can destroy their entire population.

The security of the entire Western World is at stake. The President and the Secretary of State should have a better understanding of our enemies before they extend our nuclear umbrella. If they don’t, that umbrella has far too many holes for it to make any difference.

Foreign Policy for Dummies

In general, perception is reality. This is particularly true in the realm of foreign policy. The President of the United States largely conducts foreign policy on his own. Therefore, the perception that is created is solely his. Unfortunately for President Barack Obama, the perception of him in this realm is that of weakness.

Much like one of his processors, Jimmy Carter, President Obama is faced with major foreign policy crises. And, it seems, that the President is reacting in a manner that Mr. Carter approves of.

On Mr. Obama’s watch, North Korea has detonated nuclear weapons, launched ballistic missiles and is attempting to export these technologies to Myanmar. In response, the President runs to the United Nations and says that none of this will stand. That’s all well and good, but there is no follow up. As I’ve said before, the President is really telling Kim Jong-Il, “Stop or I’ll say Stop again!” Or maybe it’s really, “If you disobey this strongly worded letter, I’ll send an new stronger worded letter!” In any event, Mr. Obama looks helpless.

The one substantive measure that the President has taken in response to North Korea is to reduce the number of missile interceptors from the missile defense budget. Even if the reduced number of interceptors makes no difference to the effectiveness of the system, the timing of this cutback could not be worse. It sends the wrong message to the generals in Pyongyang (and Tehran, as well).

Mr. Obama also looked hapless in the aftermath of the Iranian presidential election. His early statements discounting the policy differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi, while probably technically accurate, were beside the point. The Western allies were presented with an opportunity to make life difficult for a totalitarian regime that presents the greatest threat to them and in response, the leader of the free world says that he doesn’t want to be seen as meddling in Iran’s internal matters (of which the mullahs accused him of doing anyway).

President Obama should be meddling in Iran’s internal matters. He should be publicly speaking out in favor of the protesters. He should be standing with those who want to free themselves from the shackles of a police state. But, instead, the President of the United States is waiting for the opportunity to meet with a fellow head of state who has repeatedly called for the annihilation of a fellow UN member state.

The President’s lack of action and public support for the protesters sends a signal to those who live under tyranny all over the globe - “If you attempt to stand up to your oppressors, the United States will stand by and not meddle.”

In addition, President Obama’s floundering may force the Israelis to act. No Israeli government stand idly by as Iran finalizes it acquisition of a nuclear bomb. At some point, Prime Minister Netanyahu will be forced to take military action against this threat. The shame is that strong action by Mr. Obama could result in regime change, thus avoiding the need for Israeli military action.

Mr. Obama’s failure to confront the dictators in North Korea and Iran are just the two most recent additions to a litany of actions that signal weakness to our enemies. As the sole actor on the foreign policy stage, I hate to see what this President has in store for an encore.

The Silence Is Deafening

A week has passed since the so called Iranian Presidential election and President Obama has once again showed weakness to radical Muslims. As opposed to making public announcements in support of the those protesting the Iranian regime, Mr. Obama has chosen to basically remain silent. He gives some ridiculous excuse to the effect that he does not want to give the mullahs the excuse to say that the United States in meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. The President then issues a written statement saying that he is modestly encouraged by the Iranian spiritual council’s supposed investigation into the allegations of election fraud. The written statement goes on to say, “You’ve seen in Iran, some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understand the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.”

Then, on Friday, during Friday prayers, the Iranian “Supreme Leader”, Ali Khamenei, thanks the President of the United States for not meddling in Iranian internal affairs by issuing a warning to the protesters to stop immediately or they will feel the full weight of the police state pressing down upon them. Khamenei also blames the United States and the United Kingdom for causing the protests (really, he blamed the US and the UK for meddling in Iranian internal affairs). Khamenei also got in a few shots at the “dirty Zionists”. I wonder if that is the US or the UK, but it is probably both.

The notion that the President of the United States would even refer to a third world dictator such as Ali Khamenei as “Supreme Leader” is a sign of weakness in and of itself. Instead of attempting to help the citizens of a totalitarian dictatorship overthrow their overlords, President Obama sticks to diplomatic niceties and coddles the man who is the single biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism. Evidently, this is part of Mr. Obama’s mutual respect for the Muslim world (never mind the thousands of Americans who have died in the past twenty years attempting to free Muslims from other dictators such as Ali Khamenei).

The United States and our allies have been afforded a chance. The fall of the Islamic republic in Iran may also bring about an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The fact the President Obama has done virtually nothing to assist an indigenous rebellion in Iran is both astounding and perplexing. Through no use of our military, the President could be taking aggressive action to bring down a regime that possesses what is potentially the single greatest threat to our national security and the security of our allies. Mr. Obama should make it clear that the United States stands with the Iranian protesters, much like President Reagan did for the members of Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s. Instead, we get double speak about not meddling and politically correct references to third world tyrants.

The Iranian regime may be on the verge of losing credibility with its own people. There are reports of Iranian security forces refusing to engage their fellow citizens. Plus, the pictures of the secret police clubbing peaceful protests generally does not play will in the world wide media. However, the longer Mr. Obama remains silent, the greater the chance that the current regime will be able to re-establish its credibility with other nations. Mr. Obama should also be using the videos and reports from the streets of Tehran to convince our European allies to impose stricter sanctions. The French and the German’s should be reminded by these videos exactly what the current Iranian theocracy is about.

We may very well be at a major turning point in human history. If this regime that has caused so many problems in the world does fall, the underwriting of worldwide Islamic terrorism may be significantly reduced and nuclear proliferation to a rouge regime may be avoided. President Obama must seize the moment and take strong and decisive action. Unfortunately, so far, he seems content to let actions unfold without him. This is hardly the sign of a strong leader. I guess the change that we can believe in will come from those risking their lives on the streets of Tehran.

In Iran, 'Dissent'. In the USA, 'Rage'.

Sometimes, the hypocrisy is so blatant, so pronounced, very little commentary or “set up” is required.

When U.S. citizens last year were concerned that a junior Senator from Illinois with a thin voting record, and an inclination to befriend social radicals, was gaining momentum in the Presidential race, it was denounced as “hateful” rage among hotheads. But when voters in Iran take to the streets to protest the suspect “re-election” of their notoriously dictatorial President, it is embraced by Obama as "the ability of people to peacefully dissent.”

Compare and contrast. Talk among yourselves.

President Barack Hussein Obama on Iranians reacting to recent presidential election results, June 15, 2009:
“The democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected.”

Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich, NY Times, June 13, 2009:
“… There have been indications that (American citizens’) rage could spiral out of control. This was evident during the (2008) campaign, when hotheads greeted Obama’s name with “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” at G.O.P. rallies. At first the (John) McCain-(Sarah) Palin campaign fed the anger with accusations that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.”

Won't You Please Come To Tehran?

Keep these pictures in mind next time someone complains about "stolen elections" here in the U.S. We sure aren't perfect but we're a hell of a lot better than this.

Real Theft

Actual stolen election.

I've been waiting eight and a half years to put up this post.

BTW, wear green this week.

The Iranian "Election" - An Aftermath

As if there was any question, the aftermath of Friday’s Iranian presidential showed the Iranian regime to be the police state that it truly is. We must always remember the site of Iranian security forces beating their fellow citizens who had taken to the streets to protest the results of the fake presidential election. Of course, the beatings were followed up by the arrests of protesters and journalists. When the opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi had his press conference canceled by the Mullahs, some of the journalists who were in attendance where themselves beaten and arrested.

Also, the Iranian government has blocked cell phone service and access to anti-government websites. In addition, they have order the shut down of opposition publications. These are hardly the actions of a democratic government.

Shame on the Obama Administration for pretending, in the lead up to the so-called election, that it was, in fact, a free and fair election. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to even appear on the presidential ballot, the candidates had to be approved by the Mullahs who screened all candidates for their Islamic credentials. There was in no sense free access to the ballots.

International observers were denied entry to monitor the election. It’s funny how the United Nations wanted to monitor our presidential election and made quite a scene about that. Why, then, didn’t the UN make a fuss about not being allowed to monitor this election? It seems to me that it’s just more pacification of dictators!

Then, the results themselves were a farce. Incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was said to have received twice as many votes as Mousavi. This included Ahmadinejad winning Mousavi’s home town by a wider margin than that. The odds of that actually occurring are beyond calculation.

Having played into the hands of the religious zealots who run Iran in the period before the election, President Obama now has a chance to try to influence the aftermath of the elections in a way that will benefit US national interests. First, the President must make a public statement that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the legitimate leader of Iran. Next, Mr. Obama should spend money to encourage the indigenous Iranian opposition. They should be funded in a way that will get them to continue to take to the streets in protest of their totalitarian government. Their actions should be encouraged by high ranking US government officials.

Mr. Obama should order the use our technology to open blocked communication channels. Anti-regime websites should be reopened with our help. We should try to stop the blocking of cell phone channels.

Secretary of State Clinton should publicly call Mr. Mousavi to make sure that he is not under house arrest. During this conversation, Mrs. Clinton must clearly state that the United States will demand that international observers be sent in to audit the election results in order to obtain evidence of the fraud that was the election.

President Obama has backed himself into a corner by stating numerous times that he will meet with Ahmadinejad. With whatever legitimacy Mr. Ahmadinejad had as the leader of Iran now completely gone, the President can no longer continue to offer this. Doing so would not only make Mr. Obama continue to look weak, but it would also be completely demoralizing to the opposition forces that are our best hope of changing the totalitarian regime that rules Iran.

President Obama now has an opportunity to try to peacefully end the regime that poses a great threat to our national security. Let’s hope that he seizes this opportunity. The world may be safer for it.

Israel, Obama and Iran

On his recent unannounced trip to Israel, CIA Director Leon Panetta apparently told the new Israeli government that it must not attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems resigned to a nuclear armed Iran. The thought that Iran will behave itself if the Israelis stand down is beyond ridiculous. It endangers every man and woman in the Western World.

President Obama’s December deadline for talks with Iran aimed at stopping its nuclear program cannot possibly work. It is diplomacy without the threat of any credible consequence. Much like with North Korea, it’s “Stop or I’ll say ‘stop’ again!” Third world dictators are notorious for not stopping rogue behavior without the threat of military force. So far, nothing that the Iranian’s have done seems to indicate that they are succumbing to international diplomatic pressure.

Based upon Washington’s total unwillingness to act to stop Iran, the danger to Israel is great. Linking the settling of the Palestinian problem to the termination of the Iranian nuclear program is naive (and, quite frankly, Jimmy Carter like). If Iran is able to deploy a nuclear weapon, it will use it to destroy the Jewish State. Maybe not by direct action by the Iranian military, but by having one of its surrogates do their dirty work. In either event, the outcome to the Israelis is unacceptable.

Unlike during the Cold War, the notion of mutually assured destruction will not work against religious zealots. The mullahs believe that the outcome is preordained so, therefore, they have nothing to lose by launching the first strike. I saw Benjamin Netanyahu speak many years ago and he made this point back then. Back in the days of the USSR, the ruling class had a vested interest in preserving the status quo for themselves and their families. Hence, the notion of MADD worked to keep the Soviets in check. For the Islamists, the killing of the infidels is the end game in and of itself. As such, the threat of an all out retaliation is useless.

Considering President Obama’s lack of commitment to the security of Israel, it is odd that so many American Jews voted for him in the 2008 election. When you contrast the current administration’s sentiments towards Israel with that of its predecessor, every American who believes that a free and strong Israel is critical to our own national security should be giving thanks to George W. Bush.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Netanyahu has reserved for Israel the right to act independently of the United States in regard to Israeli security. In the not very distant future, Mr. Netanyahu will have to decide for himself and his people whether to allow a nuclear armed Iran. I am hopefully that he will come to the conclusion that such a situation is unacceptable and that Israel must act to defend herself. The consequence will be severe, but they will be less than that of a nuclear detonation in the middle of Tel Aviv.

We must remember that Iran has no incentive to stop its aberrant behavior. They are the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. The successful termination of the Iranian nuclear should be one of the major objectives of the Global War on Terror. The Iranian regime is inseparable from many of the world’s major terrorist organizations. Therefore, the Obama Administration has a vested interest in acting to stop the Mullahs. Let’s hope that they will. If not, the Israelis are our last, best hope!

The New Piracy

Congratulations to the Navy Seals and their skilled snipers for doing what should always be done to dangerous terrorists.

We are incredibly fortunate that the strength and courage of the American military is still a force for good in the world, even at a time when the Obama Administration is hell bent on shrinking America’s global stature.

I can’t imagine the backache Barack Hussein will have after the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. By my count, there will be 33 heads of state before whom to bow later this week.

While I applaud Obama’s apparent zero-tolerance policy regarding brazen Somali Pirates, here at home we’re no less under siege. We have entered the age of The New Piracy We Can’t Believe In.

The traditional definition of piracy is an act committed by a non-state actor but the Somalis have made that obsolete, as no one believes they are true pirates, acting alone or without training. Here in the U.S., there are multitudes of state actors littering the looting and pillaging landscape:

Tax pirates on Capitol Hill and inside the White House.

Salary/bonus pirates on Congressional subcommittees.

Free-market pirates, most of them holed up in Larry Summers’ office at the White House.

Education pirates, a.k.a., lawmakers who’d rather stay cozy with teachers’ unions than open doors to educational opportunities in abysmal urban school systems.

First Amendment pirates, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, who still think folks don’t get the twisted irony of something called “The Fairness Doctrine” that targets Conservative talk radio.

Family pirates, judges mostly, popping up in state after state, zealously targeting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman with bench rulings that legalize gay unions. The pirates are still nursing rum hangovers in Iowa and Vermont.

Peace pirates, empowered by the President, who apparently believes that a little love sent Iran’s way will pay big diplomatic dividends down the road. Where’s the harm in a little unabashed uranium enrichment by Iranian “technicians”?

(Iran’s a small nation, like North Korea, remember? The junior Senator from Illinois said so last year when seeking the Piracy, ah, Presidency. They’re just a bunch of happy-go-lucky Johnny Depps, charming the ladies and dabbling in petty crimes).

Finally, we learned just today about the Freedom Pirates lurking inside the Department of Homeland Security. Seems they’ve issued an “assessment” that warns “rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.”

The report compares present trends to a climate that spawned the various anti-government military militias of the 1990s (translation: during the last reign by a liberal Democrat President). There is no mention of what if any activities these extremists were suspected of in the past decade, as if there were no hidden factions that loathed George Bush. They existed, but they would mainly fall under the heading, “leftwing extremists”, and would thus have been of little concern to the DHS and beyond the scope, as they say, of this report.

The DHS further advises that, while there are righties who are “hate-oriented” (the militia types), the feds are also keeping an eye on “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” Imagine that? A failure to embrace big, smothering government control of … um … well … everything.

Let us not misunderstand the underlying message of this “assessment” (which is being discussed across the land tonight) and the intent of its publication. American citizens who are not pro-Obama are members of society who pose a “threat”. The DHS knows this because of its analysis of “rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet”. (Such as the post you are reading here).

You are not a Conservative if you oppose Obama’s radical vision, his Socialist agenda, or his apologies for America when he stands on foreign soil. You are not a Patriot if you believe in the Constitution as our enduring foundation, or if you would fight to preserve the First and Second Amendments.

What are you? You are a Rightwing Extremist Threat. It says so in the DHS “assessment”. It says “the historic election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes” are stirring the right. It says our chatter focuses on “the perceived loss of U.S. jobs” (yes, it actually says “perceived”). It says the winds of extremism are blowing because you are “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of (social) issues.”

Oh, and this. You are on the DHS radar because your “rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature.” Shall we assume that a leftwing extremist bemoans the expansion of U.S. stature?

I think we know the answer. We hear it every time the White House teleprompter rolls.

Monday is Patriots’ Day. But at the DHS, every day since Jan. 20, 2009, has been Rightwing Extremist Alert Day. Get used to it.

The Awakening

Reporting from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington:

The "leader board" after Day 1 of CPAC 2009 on Thursday is populated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a young patriot the nation will embrace in years to come, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who is a riveting speaker, the wry and authoritative John Bolton, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, an advocate of fair election practices stemming from the fury in Ohio on Election Night 2000, and beyond.

There is a sense of urgency and a tug of destiny among these patriotic conservatives. In these horrific times, optimism is bubbling. The Obama opportunists underestimate these tremors of unrest at their peril.

To open CPAC, American Conservative Union president David Keene noted record attendance, now north of 8,500. The attendees I've met personally are here from Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Utah, to name a few. At the first CPAC in 1973, 125 registrants, mostly from "inside the Beltway", gathered to hear the keynote speaker -- a former Governor named Ronald Reagan.

This week's swarm of enthusiastic attendees is half comprised of engaging, optimistic college students. Very encouraging, to say the least. Today's CPAC also attracts 90 co-sponsoring organizations.

Highlights on Day 1 from the historic Omni Shoreham Hotel:

Paul Ryan, 38, is a gifted and forceful speaker, both eloquent and entertaining. His home run line today was that "without enduring (Conservative) principals, we get change but no direction."

Ryan urged Conservatives not to "erect roadblocks" merely to deter the Obama administration but to "create roadmaps" that can lead our nation away from the Marxist threat we face in 2009.

Learn more about Ryan's vision at AmericanRoadmap.org.

No one was on top of his game more than the former U.S. representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, who used his dry one-liners and searing criticism -- both of Presidents Bush and Obama -- to inspire repeated applause and cheers from audience of more than 8,000 attendees.

"The (global) challenges we face may be more than this (Obama) administration can handle," Bolton said. "But the good news is, if (Conservatives) get our acts together, he is a one-termer!"

Bolton wasn't through. "On foreign policy, I don't think President Obama thinks it's a priority. ... (But) a threat to the safety of any American is a threat to our nation. A President who doesn't understand that has a lot to learn."

Turning to Iran, Bolton acknowledged that there are unfortunate parallels between Bush and Obama on the refusal of the United States to confront Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.

Iran's determination to develop weapons of mass destruction is not motivated "by an abstract interest in astrophysics," he said. Bolton fears future military responses to Iran will be left to Israel because "you can count on (the Obama administration) NOT to use force against Iran."

Ohio's Blackwell appeared on a panel entitled, "Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System". If the public tuned into even half of what has been done and is on tap to hijack the integrity of free elections, there would be revolt that would cross party lines.

Putting aside spending he proposes, President B. Hussein Obama is leading "the greatest realignment of political power ... ever witnessed," pointing to liberal agendas on six fronts: "card check" intrusions on union workers; censorship of talk radio and other mediums; blanket amnesty proposals for 12 million+ illegal immigrants; universal same-day voter registration; the packing of federal courts with liberal activist judges at the appellate level; and the hijacking of the U.S. Census.

"Taken collectively, you can begin to see the game plan," Blackwell said. "It is a battle of the nature of the relationship to our government as individuals, and the nature of our culture. This is a battle cry."

Indiana's charismatic Congressman Pence crystallized the undeterred resolve of the thousands who converged on the largest CPAC in history.

"We are on the brink of a great American awakening," Pence said. "And it will be Conservatives who will lead it. Beginning right here (in 2009)."