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.

The UN Address

President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly continues to provide us with insight as to his view of the world and America’s position in that world. Unfortunately, this view of the world does not appreciate the greatness of the United States or its proper place in the history of mankind.

Mr. Obama said that “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.” If you take the President at his world, this means that America and the values of her people are no better than such nations as Saudi Ruled Arabia (which subjugates women to the point where they cannot drive or be out in public unaccompanied by a male member of their family) or Somalia (where gangs controlled by warlords rule the population with fear and summary executions).

This is not the first time that President Obama fails to understand the concept of American Exceptionalism. During his first trip to Europe, when asked if he believed in American Exceptionalism, Mr. Obama said he did, just like an Englishman believed in the exceptionalism of the United Kingdom. What a far cry from President Reagan’s belief of American as the last, best hope of mankind on earth.

The President then continued by saying that “The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of the long-gone Cold War.” Of course, the United Nations is an odd venue to make this statement considering that it, in and of itself, has deep roots in the Cold War. Also, I’m sure that our European allies were thrilled to hear that NATO, as an alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War, makes no sense. I wonder how that statement played in Taipei, considering our treaty obligations to the Republic of China are an alignment of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War. Maybe we should rethink our alliances with South Korea and Japan – both of which are alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War.

Evidently, Mr. Obama fails to realize that our alliances during the Cold War were not simply for convenience. Rather, they were, for the most part, alliances of free nations made to oppose an ideology who’s basic premise was worldwide revolution in order to enslave people for the benefit of the state.

President Obama also made the statement that “…the interests of nations and people are shared.” This may or may not be true. Clearly, the mullahs running Iran believe that possessing nuclear weapons is in their interests. However, the Israelis do not believe, and rightfully so, that having nuclear armed mullahs is in their interests. Also, Poland and the Czech Republic believed that a ballistic missile shield was in their best interest. The Russians felt differently so the Obama Administration appeased the Russians and cancelled the missile shield. How exactly do you reconcile the fact that the interests of these four nations are shared?

Evidently, the President of the United States does not understand the first rule of international relations – sovereign nations act in their own self interests. Every American should find it troubling that the person constitutionally in charge of our foreign policy is so naive as not to understand this basic principal.

Meanwhile, as President Obama continues his worldwide apology tour, the Iranians continue to work on their nuclear bomb. At the same time that the President talks about reaching out to the “moderate” Taliban, he won’t commit more troops to Afghanistan so that we can win that war. Mr. Obama pulls the rug out from under our NATO allies on missile defense while the Russians oppose sanctions against Iran. For all of his talk about a new way of dealing with other nations, President Obama has nothing to show for it. Remember, he couldn’t even get our closest ally, the United Kingdom, to keep the murderer of over 300 Americans incarcerated. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will realize that talk is cheap, before it’s too late.

Citius. Altius. Obamus?

As dignitaries and the less dignified descended on Copenhagen for Friday's gut wrenching 2016 Olympics vote, word spread like wildfire this morning across the ancient Danish capital.

The Red Coats are coming! The Red Coats are coming! It is official: the red state loathing, ideologically red-leaning Socialists/Marxists from America's occupied White House, POTUS Barack Hussein Obama and the First Leftist Michelle Hussein Obama, are joining Chicago's delegation for the pivotal final pitch in Denmark. And, of course, the Presidential Teleprompter will have a seat on Air Force One, and a cozy blanket..

Remember the 2008 Presidential campaign, when the First Leftist rarely had been proud of her country? That was then. This is a new campaign season and Michelle Hussein is really, really proud of her hometown of Chicago, a candidate to host the 2016 Olympic Games. What's not to love about the Windy City? In the Obamas' Chicago you can reside in a $1 million-plus South Side home underwritten by a convicted influence peddler and money launderer. You can attend a church for 20 years that is built on a firm foundation of Black Nationalism (anti-white racism) without explanation, and still become a President of the U.S. who accuses all dissenters of being ... tell 'em, Barry ... RACISTS!

Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen -- the Salty Old Queen of the Sea long before anyone had heard of Barney Frank -- the breathless countdown is on.

For the next few days, the Olympic ideal is cast aside for politics, campaigning and silent smearing of opponents. Copenhagen is regarded as Europe's cleanest metropolis, but after Friday it will be littered by the broken dreams of supporters of the three candidate cities deemed unworthy to become stewards of the International Olympic Committee's most precious asset, the Games. It might even be littered by alcohol soaked human beings staggering into the night, distraught in the aftermath of Friday's balloting among the roughly 100 IOC voters. From the final four -- Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janiero and Tokyo -- only one is chosen.

Writes one Olympic blogger waiting for Obama's arrival: "The anticipation simply gets to build with delicious intensity all this week."

Since approximately five minutes after the voters of the United States selected an unproven, unknown junior Senator from Illinois to become their President, speculation has run rampant as to whether B. Hussein would become the first American President to help with an Olympic pitch. Obama refused to commit until Monday. He has been too busy trampling on the Constitution, hiring radical policy czars and violating the law.

Wonder if he'll manage to muster the support of French IOC voters in Copenhagen after failing to turn France's Nicolas Sarkozy into a hope-n-changer last week at the United Nations? Sarkozy, the French President, was disturbed by Obama's empty rhetoric, the very same rhetoric that turns so-called journalists from CBS and NBC into puddles of mush.

"We live in a real world not a virtual world," he told the 15-member Security Council. "And the real world expects us to take decisions. President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite."

Wonder if Obama will narrate as IOC voters are shown images of Derrion Albert, 18, a Chicago high school honors student beaten to death last week -- as a bystander videotaped it -- by three teenagers using two-by-fours as their weapon of choice.

Wonder if Obama will assure IOC voters that best-in-class health care awaits them when they visit Chicago, even as he uses every resource at his disposal to destroy the world's greatest medical system? Wonder if he'll mention that 56% percent of voters in the latest Rasmussen poll oppose his scheme to radically dismantle America's revered private health care infrastructure?

Wonder of he'll reference the sudden indifference of the U.S. toward escalating violence and Taliban-led terrorist insurgence across Afghanistan?

Byron York on Fox News Special Report observed: "(Obama) has spent more time with David Letterman than talking with (head of U.S. Afghan forces) General McChrystal."

And, finally, who can help but wonder if Barack Hussein Obama will attend the 2016 Games should they be hosted by Chicago? By then, he will have been a private citizen for more than three years.

Oops....

Obama ally Gov. Deval Patrick may have gotten a bit more than he bargained for when he brought to bear the full weight of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts upon Hyatt for firing 100 housekeepers. See, Hyatt is mostly owned by Chicago's Pritzker family, and Penny Pritzker chaired Obama's campaign finance committee. Unknown is whether the hotels in question are company owned, franchises or a blend.

If I'm Rahm Emanuel, I'm thinking that when Obama and Patrick were on the phone discussing how to change the rules after the game has started, Patrick could have done Obama a favor and brought this up.

Oh well, Robert Byrd is pretty sick. Maybe they'll get another chance at this.

The Rock Star and a Hard Place

I heard a Chicago television reporter this week refer to U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama as an “international rock star”. This was not overheard at a Starbuck’s. She said it live, on the air.

Her gushing characterization came during a segment explaining why leaders of Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games are hanging on a thread of hope. They are said to be hoping Obama, for whom Chicago is an adopted hometown, will travel to Copenhagen ahead of the International Olympic Committee’s decisive 2016 vote on Oct. 2. So far, he hasn’t decided what to do. The IOC must choose between four cities — Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janiero and Tokyo — then sit back and pray they’ve done the right thing seven years from now.

Chicago’s campaign team and, by extension, the public continue to view Obama as an earthly God who can enter a room and change the course of history by reading scripted words. Essentially, they are employing the logic of a crack cocaine addict. Just one more fix, man, and we can make the world right. If Obama shows up in Denmark, it’s game, set, match for Mayor Richard Daley’s All-Star Team. Never mind that Chicago’s bid is technically sound — in some areas superior — and is led by a widely regarded business icon, Patrick Ryan, and a famous mayor (Daley).

This Obama obsession prevails even though the former junior Senator from Illinois has not managed to end Washington gridlock or turn a massive U.S. economic tanker clear of jagged shores. He keeps reading the scripted words and rolling out his transformational agendas but the only tangible result is that more than 50% of the nation disapproves of his job performance.

The accidental President (by virtue of being an accidental Illinois Senator) is emerging, not as a Great Messiah, but as the reckless force behind an economic tsunami that threatens the influence and reputation of the United States. That’s why I am dumbfounded by those who insist Obama is Chicago’s trump card in its pursuit of the 2016 Games.

To believe he can be a game changer just by showing up is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the IOC’s membership, and there has been precious little reporting by Chicago mainstream media that answers the question, “Who are these guys?”

The membership of the IOC is more than 54 percent European, along with roughly 22 percent North and Latin Americans (including just two U.S. members) and 19 percent Asians.

The people who decide where the Olympic Games go are a conflicted lot, to say the least. Many are U.S.-educated professionals who returned to Socialist, even Communist, homelands, using their intellect, family names and political savvy to secure lives of wealth and influence. The most powerful patriarch within the global Olympic movement is Spain’s Juan Antonio Samaranch, IOC Honorary President for Life. He once was an operative in the brutal monarchy of Gen. Francisco Franco (and son Juan Jr. is now an IOC member/voter). The current President of the IOC, Jacques Rogge, is a surgeon from Belgium, a heavily unionized nation under a constitutional monarchy.

Additionally, more than a few IOC voters from Africa, Asia and Latin America have risen through the ranks of deeply rooted, tyrannical/dictatorial political systems, enriching themselves in societies where the world’s material and monetary spoils are not accessible to the masses, and where sports administrators wield great power.

Loyalties among IOC members are wildly fractured, which often causes balloting for Olympic host cities to be skewed by block voting and side deals having nothing to do with the merits of the candidates, or their elected political celebrities. If you don’t believe it, research the circumstances under which Lillehammer (Norway) won host city rights to the 1994 Olympic Winter Games, or Sochi (Russia) the 2014 Winter Games.

While the American Entitlement Class remains drunk on Obama Kool-Aid, cheering as Newsweek declares we’re “all Socialists now”, do not be too sure that IOC members will be enamored of a United States flirting with hope and transformational change.

The dirty little secret among IOC voters is that the privately financed, Capitalism fueled 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games saved the Olympic movement from financial collapse. Does anyone think IOC members voted to put the 1996 Games in Atlanta because they were turned on by the Coca-Cola museum, CNN Center or obsolete Fulton County Stadium? The Games were here in 1996 for the same reason they were in Salt Lake City in 2002. Free market capitalism and multinational U.S. corporations with deep pockets (not to mention General Electric’s National Broadcasting Company and the hundreds of million of dollars it has paid for U.S. broadcast rights) work wonders on the IOC’s bottom line. Plus, when the Games are here, IOC members have an excuse to squeeze in a visit to the Mayo Clinic, or Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, or Cedars Sinai Medical Center, or any number of other beacons of America’s envied private health care system.

So, then, can anyone truly articulate the upside to a live Barack Obama pitch in Copenhagen? By 2016, this nation might well be a severely diminished Obamerica. Will it still be the go-to venue for the Olympic Games? Will these United States that IOC members rely on to prop up their increasingly irrelevant global sports event still be an economic superpower with world-class military and security personnel to protect the athletes and visiting dignitaries?

If Chicago really believes it needs an international rock star to prevail in next month’s voting maybe it should think about finding one that has memorized the words and sings from the heart.

The Gateway to the Ultimate Prize

Unfortunately, today the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has engaged in behavior that endangers all American citizens. He has appointed a special prosecutor that will investigate CIA interrogators who questioned some of the most dangerous individuals on the planet in an effort to protect all of us. Even CIA Director Leon Panetta is opposed to this and has reportedly said that he will resign as a result.

There have already been investigations of those who allegedly abused the terrorist detainees. These investigations resulted in exactly one prosecution and subsequent conviction (a CIA contractor abused a terrorist with a flashlight).

By allowing this to happen, President Obama has started down the path of investigating the Bush Administration for its conduct of the War on Terror (which according to the Obama Administration does not exist). This is the gateway to prosecution of the Bush Administration officials who drafted the memos on enhanced interrogation techniques. However, I do not think that the witch hunt will stop there. The ultimate prize for the far left of the Democratic Party is the prosecution of Vice President Cheney. That is, in large part, what this is all about. I also would hate to think that this action is being taken by the Administration in an effort to take away the focus away from their failing health care plan.

So, what we have here in the criminalization of policy between succeeding administrations. Every American should think long and hard as to whether this is what they want. This type of behavior is more suited to banana republics where the current government sets up “truth commissions” to criminalize the policies of its predecessor.

The consequences to our peaceful transfer of power between administrations will be undermined. It will prevent the current occupant of the Oval Office, whomever he happens to be, from receiving frank and open advice from his advisers and attorneys. Staff members will not be willing to engage in a free exchange of ideas with administration colleagues if they believe that they will be subject to criminal prosecution for their analyses at some indeterminate time in the future. Mr. Obama has left open the possibility of criminal prosecution because one lawyer has a different legal analysis than another.

Next, it becomes difficult to recruit qualified people to work in the government. Why would anyone want to give up a lucrative career in the private sector to enter public service if the results of that work culminate in a jail sentence? The relatively small salary of a public official, combined with an overly intrusive vetting process already make a career in a Presidential administration less than ideal. The threat of criminal prosecution may be the final straw that prevents qualified individuals from serving their nation.

Also, Mr. Obama’s statement opens the possibility of the criminalization of policy differences between Administrations. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush was presented with circumstances that are different than those currently facing President Obama. President Bush made the decision to allow for enhanced interrogations based upon the world as it existed at that time. Mr. Bush put in place policies that some may find objectionable. President Obama, as Mr. Bush’s successor, is free to make the determination that Mr. Bush’s policies were incorrect, inappropriate and/or no longer necessary. However, criminalizing the policy decisions of his predecessor establishes an incredibly poor precedent for all of Mr. Obama’s successors.

In addition, it has a chilling effect on those heroic Americans who are currently serving in uniform or working in the intelligence community. How motivated will they be to pursue their craft in attempting to obtain information from terrorists in their custody that is vital to our national security? Based these investigations, it is very possible that critical information that could save the lives of thousands of US citizens will never be obtained so as to stop a terrorist attack.

The President is once again showing us that he is not up to the task of being Commander-in-Chief. He is continuing to show our enemies that he is weak. It is particularly troubling that at the exact same time that Mr. Obama is begging our allies to take the terrorists that are currently (and thankfully) detained at Guantanamo Bay, he is now looking to incarcerate brave American citizens who answered their country’s call to service. What message does that send to those who would do us harm?

The Teleprompter Presidency

The number of people who claim to have witnessed historic moments is always inflated, but I was seated shoulder to shoulder recently with someone who actually had a very good seat in Chicago's Grant Park last November on the night Barack Hussein Obama claimed victory in the race for the White House.

To my left, as we shivered inside an enormous, mega-air conditioned ballroom at McCormick Place on Wednesday was none other than one of Obama's former teleprompter operators from Campaign 2008. Youthful guy. Maybe mid-30s. Pleasant. And extremely competent.

Of course, never lacking sarcastic jabs, I wanted so badly to point a finger into his shoulder blade and shout, "Oh, so youuuu'rrrreee the one!"

Alas, we didn't talk politics. We were working a live event, he as the prompter guy, I as the script writer in the wings, waiting for someone to request a late edit. One of us is a skilled technician, the other determines the tone and tenor of the content. The relationship is entirely symbiotic.

Before the event started, he happened to share a photo, summoned from a laptop, with another member of the crew. And there it was, Obama standing amid a crowd of handlers, backstage at a campaign stop, while hovering over his beloved prompter operator.

Putting aside the chilling reality that Obama used well-crafted words loaded into prompters (by writers sensitive to radical left wing messages softened by clever tone and tenor) to mislead 53% of the voting populace as it sloshed back gallon upon gallon of Hope-n-Change Kool-Aid, I was fascinated by Prompter Guy's observations from deep inside Obama 2008.

Basically, he told his fellow union member (all of these event production people tend to be, perhaps under coercion, union labor) that prompter gigs have exposed him to numerous powerful and famous speakers. Prompter Guy said Obama easily is one of the five most intellectually gifted people he has encountered in his lifetime. He explained that the former junior Senator has a capacity to grasp complex subjects very quickly and thoroughly.

I was not surprised, frankly. Some of the most diabolical people across human history have been born with, and have brashly abused, gifted intellects. I won't name any examples because, well, you know, that's hate speech.

But this point is extremely important. This intellectual superiority, this coolness, a certain other worldliness, takes us precisely to what concerns so many millions of Americans who will never come within 100 miles of the man. Essentially, B. Hussein Obama was born to be the Socialist's President. He is the ideal conduit because he has been a willing vessel his whole life, filled from his most formative days with contempt for free market capitalism, individual self-reliance, Constitutional sanctity, and the exceptionalism that defines this country to its core. And he is a genius when it comes to repackaging Socialism as something everyone can embrace, making it sound like ... change, hope, a better America. Roll it up, Mr. Prompter.

Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing in The Wall Street Journal, just flat out said it. While Obama comprehends the complex social constructs of Socialism, and is stringently adherent to the raw brutality of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", Rabinowitz observes that "despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country's heart and character."

And former President Bush strategist Karl Rove echoed a similar sentiment today in a Journal opinion column. "What worked in the Obama campaign," he writes, making reference to those glorious days when rhetoric rolled on the prompter screen and out of Obama's well trained mouth, "will often backfire on the Obama presidency. But old habits are hard to leave on the trail."

They are especially hard to foresake when there are always willing accomplices who will sit in the chilly shadows, producing the words and rolling them up on the magic prompter.

Let's Be the Strong Horse

Evidently, the United States is no longer engaged in (i) a War on Terror, (ii) a War Against Islamic Extremists, (iii) fighting jihadists, or (iv) a global war. Last Thursday, President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, took all of these terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Brennan said that, “The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism’”. The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said that the administration is using is that the U.S is “at war with al Qaeda.” The President himself has not used the term “War on Terror” in public since January 23. Evidently, the Obama Administration does not believe that other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, are worth fighting.

Apparently, therefore, it’s okay with Mr. Obama if black market cigarette smuggling continues in North Carolina and the proceeds are used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah cells that may be operating in the United States. It is bad enough that these two Iranian controlled and funded terrorist organizations actively engage in armed conflict on a daily basis against one of our closest allies, Israel, but the fact that the President does not feel that they pose an enormous threat to the security of the American people is beyond troubling.

Mr. Brennan continued with his politically correct nonsense by saying that it is wrongheaded to continue to claim that we are fighting “jihadists” because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” In Western parlance, the term “jihad” had universally meant holy war. It wasn’t until the politically correct victimization crowd, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), claimed otherwise. (Let’s not forget that CAIR itself is a group that supports terrorism. It was formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and it was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.)

Mr. Brennan said that he and the President lamented “inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness” surrounding the national security debate and said that Mr. Obama has views that are “nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.” This, of course, is just further proof that President Obama does not understand the nature of the threat that we face from Islamic extremists, regardless of the organization that they belong to. There is no nuance needed in the goal of defeating those who would try to kill us or subjugate in an effort to restore the caliphate.

As Osama bin-Laden said, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." Therefore, it would seem to make sense for the members of the Obama Administration to spend time acting like we are, in fact, the strong horse, as opposed to talking about nuance and political correctness. (I must give the President for the continued use of the Predator drones in Pakistan. This program, started by the Bush Administration, has been very successful. So much so that some on the left want it to stop. Hopefully, this helps send that message to the terrorists that you can run, but you can’t hind.)

The goal of US foreign policy should be the security of the American people. It should not be to try to have the United States be liked around the world. As a matter of fact, sometimes, it is better to be feared than liked. I don’t think that the President knows what it means to be the strong horse. Unfortunately, that endangers us 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.

A Case of Presidential Intimidation

During an interview on the Today Show, President Obama disclosed that he had an unusual meeting. He met with the director of the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”), Doug Elmendorf (who, by the way, was appointed by the Democratic leadership in Congress). This meeting comes on the heels of a recent report that said that the President’s health care proposal would not result in any cost savings and other reports that say that the Congressional healthcare proposals would be in excess of one trillion dollars.

The CBO was created by Congress as a means to provide oversight over the executive branch and the executive branch’s use of the budget. The CBO is responsible for producing for Congress an annual economic forecast, reviewing the President’s annual budget submission, and scoring all spending legislation. The CBO, therefore, exists to be independent from the executive branch.

Why, then, would the President of the United States feel the need to meet with the director of the Congressional Budget Office? Maybe it was a blatant, inappropriate, and unprecedented attempt to bully what is supposedly an independent and nonpartisan body that does not report to the executive branch of government with the intent that it become submissive to the Obama Administration. There has been no prior report of a sitting American President meeting with an incumbent CBO director.

If President Obama needed clarification on CBO scoring, he should have worked through Congress to get it. Alternatively, he could have asked his Office of Management and Budget for an analysis of the CBO scoring (in fact, the current OMB director is the immediate past director of CBO). The demanding of a face to face meeting with the CBO director is inappropriate at best and outright intimidation at worst. The President’s actions compromise the entire process of legislative oversight and threaten the independence of the CBO from the current Administration. You would think that an independent CBO is essential for Congress, at least if it is interested in independent analysis.

In giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt, I would like to think that this meeting was called out of ignorance of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, it appears more like an attempt to browbeat the Congressional Budget Office into a more sympathetic scoring of his ambitious, and misguided, agenda. Congress has an obligation to all of us to quickly and forcefully to remind the President about the boundaries of executive power.

Down in the Polls

With President Obama's popularity slipping on an almost daily basis, these new poll numbers should be of concern to him. I don't believe that potential match ups three and a half years in advance have any predictive value for an election, but rather, they do tend to show the current popularity of those mentioned in the poll. The fact that the incumbent President of the United States is tied with the last election's Republican runner-up does not bode well for Mr. Obama's agressive agenda durning the two remaining weeks prior to the congressional summer recess. Of course, we here at RSP think that is a good thing.

Hail to The Confiscator

Of course, Barack Hussein Obama was giddy in the clubhouse at last night's All Star Game. The Jock Sniffer in Chief must have sensed the potential tsunami of tax revenue in the presence of all those rich Major League professionals. Those guys, and non All Stars alike, ultimately are paying for Obamacare. As reported Monday by Reuters:

WASHINGTON - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said. The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.

But what I can not understand is all of the fawning by these players or, for that matter, millions of their fellow Americans, over this Radical Socialist POTUS amid mounting evidence that Obama's agenda specifically seeks to confiscate billions of dollars from productive citizens, be they pro athletes, business owners, educated professionals in fields such as law and finance, or others justly compensated based on exemplary performance.

If you want a sense of where household earning power is headed, watch replays of that limp-wristed first pitch Obama tossed from the pitcher's mound at Busch Stadium. It was delivered on a strictly downward trajectory. In addition to the new looming surtax, a higher ceiling on income tax rates is forthcoming as well as the return of the crippling 55% death tax.

In fact, the pitch looked a lot like some of the softball questions Obama entertained during an interview by Fox Sports' Joe Buck when he joined Buck and commentator Tim McCarver in the booth Tuesday night.

Buck opined that the poor sleep deprived POTUS must have been happy to attend a baseball game, recounting Obama's recent trip to Russia, Italy and Africa. Had Buck been able to reel in his tongue from the floor, he might have chosen a different line of questioning for the peculiar looking world leader, he of the White Sox jacket (on a 79-degree night), blue jeans and sneakers.

Buck: "You've just come back from Russia, where you made dangerous concessions on missile defense, and from the G8 in Rome, where you met with the Pontiff, and later checked out the backside of a 16-year-old Brazilian girl while photographers feasted, before going to Africa because, well, Michelle and the girls thought it would be fun".

White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle, in a later on-camera chat, lamented he had not had a chance to pose for a photo with the former Chicago street organizer and occasional Illinois Senator. "That's OK," Buehrle said. "He has a lot more important things to do."

Obama could not agree with you more, young man. It is very important that he and his Socialist disciples get their hands on an additional 5.4% of your $14,000,000 salary, just as soon as possible.

With BHO in the house, Buehrle needed a bodyguard and a safe, not a camera.

Knowing When to Meddle

Within hours of the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, President Obama denounced the actions by the Honduran military. It is curious that the President of the United States was worried about meddling in the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian Presidential election, but felt no such angst in regard to the removal of a close Communist ally of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez.

It is important to know that the actions of the Honduran military were not that of a coup d’état. Mr. Zelaya’s removal was the result of a direct order of the Honduran Supreme Court. It was also approved by both the nation’s Attorney General and its Congress. In fact, the Honduran Congress had declared their President unfit for office. And, President Zelaya was not replaced by a general as the head of a military junta, but rather the head of the Honduran Congress (who happens to be a member of Mr. Zelaya’s political party). Upon assuming office, the new President immediately called for new national elections.

What would force the other branches of government in Honduras to act in such a manner so as to remove their President? How about the fact that President Zelaya had tried to follow in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps by overturning Honduras’ constitution by staging an illegal referendum that was the prelude to eliminating term limits on his office. Evidently, Mr. Zelaya was envious of dictators all over the globe who are given the title of “President for Life”. When the Army Chief of Staff refused to cooperate in this illegal act, Zelaya fired him. The Supreme Court declared the firing illegal. It is fair to say that the actions of the Honduran military, Attorney General and Congress all acted to save Honduran democracy and not to subvert it.

As is its modus operandi, the United Nations called for the reinstatement of this leftist dictator. Not to be outdone by the UN, the Organization of American States threatened to suspend Honduras’ membership unless Zelaya was reinstated. This isn’t surprising in light of the fact that the OAS had tried to readmit Cuba after a 47 year suspension. There are no finer dictators in the Western hemisphere than the Castro brothers!

Why would President Obama choose to support a Communist strongman, while at the exact same time standing idly by while grassroots democratic protesters are being slaughtered in the streets by Islamists in a police state? I wish I knew the answer. But it certainly calls into question the much discussed “competence” that Mr. Obama’s supporters were yelling about during the 2008 presidential election. It’s just another case of this administration demonstrating weakness on the world stage. As I’ve said many times before, the perception of American weakness in the eyes of our enemies presents a danger to every one of us. There is truth to the adage “Peace through strength”. Despite President Obama’s denial last week, it did win the Cold War for the United States.

It’s bad enough that Mr. Obama doesn’t know when taking sides constitutes irresponsible meddling. What’s even more troubling is that when he does choose sides, he choose the wrong one.

How Uncynical of You

Thoughts on the rhetoric of the smartest, least cynical, least partisan head of state in the history of the Republic, maybe even in the history of self-determination. From his speech to the AMA (emphasis mine):

Let me also say that -- let me also address a illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth.

When elected officials speak in public they speak for the Government of the United States. They are perfectly free to ignore or disagree with critics all they want, but claiming oppositional views are illegitimate is actual squelching of dissent, which the left prattled on about from exactly 1/18/01 until noon, 1/20/09 (yes, W. did it all the time, too. When he did it the left went bat shit. Now, silence).

Moreover, he positions his as the honest view, and explicitly states the opposition is lying, i.e. saying something they know to be factually incorrect. Since PBO hasn't documented an actual health care plan how could criticism be factually wrong (in his defense, putting a plan in writing is pointless. It's not like Congress actually, you know, reads this stuff)? Critics are expressing an opinion, which by definition can't be a lie. What's more, the criticism is entirely valid. Government funded programs routinely expand beyond their original scope and intent. It's the politician's natural path: if a plan works, it should be larger. If a plan doesn't work, it's because it wasn't large enough.

So, in addition to Obama just being logically wrong, the critics he tries to delegitimize and accuses of lying have a perfectly valid justification for their views. Yeah, it's one paragraph in one speech. But hardly the work of post-partisan, non-cynic.

Socialized Medicine

President Obama is attempting to push us to one of the ultimate dreams of the left – socialized medicine. He even claims that he can pay for it. That would be quite an accomplishment considering that the Congressional Budge Office has estimated the cost over the next ten years to be $1.6 trillion. Of course, this doesn’t include the inevitable cost overruns that occur every time the government proposes a new program. For example, when Medicare was introduced in 1965, the estimated cost in 1990, as adjusted for inflation, was $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion. Not exactly within the margin of error.

Every one an a while, Congress attempts to rein in the costs of Medicare by reducing the payments to doctors and other health care providers. This creates an incentive on the part of these providers to schedule unnecessary tests or to send patients from specialist to specialist in order to increase revenue. This also forces these providers to charge more from private insurance companies in order to offset the low rates of Medicare.

This causes damage to the entire society. Those covered by Medicare are hurt because the medical profession is less efficient. Those not covered by Medicare are hurt because they are charged more to offset the lower rates paid by Medicare.

The American norm of having employers pay for their employees’ health insurance is a relic of the 1940s when the federal government imposed wage controls. In order to attract employees, businesses were forced to offer non-cash benefits, such as health insurance. The government allowed the businesses to deduct these insurance payments without a corresponding inclusion of these payments in the taxable income of the employees. This, of course, distorted the traditional fee for service system. It also created the incentive to get medical care through employers rather than each person obtaining it on his own. As RSP founder and managing editor, The Daily Pander, points out, employer provide health insurance has really become employer provided pre-paid health care. The insurance component, as traditionally defined, has been lost.

Think about government provided health care as a large buffet in Las Vegas. You pay a relative small fee compared to the amount that you are allowed to consume. Sure, if everyone eats a lot, the cost will increase, but it will be defused over all of the customers at some point in the future. It has no effect on the cost that you are going to pay now. Therefore, you are incentivized to consume as much as you possibly can. Once small passing twinge in your chest, go see a cardiologist. Your nose is running, you’ve got to the infectious disease specialist. There is no incentive to compare costs among providers.

In order to control costs, the government will impose rationing. This has happened in both Canada and the United Kingdom. In Canada, the rates of death from colon cancer is 25% greater than in the US. In the UK, Her Majesty’s government recently announced that they will not make state of the art breast cancer drugs available to those women suffering from that disease because of the cost.

Government imposed rationing sacrifices quality and innovation. It also imposes long wait times. There is no way to control costs without long lines and a lack of incentive to innovate. Can anyone name the last major medical breakthrough or new drug that occurred in either Canada or England?

If our medical system is so bad, why to foreigners come here for treatment that is unavailable in their home countries. Canada can ration its health care in large part because we act as their safety net. Remember all of the royals that have come to the US for treatment when they are sick – Jordanian and Saudi kings ring a bell?

President Obama’s plan will eliminate all that is best with our health care system. We must ask ourselves if this is worth covering the relatively few who are truly uninsured. I think not.

The Inconvenient Oath

We know Barack Hussein Obama stumbled over the Presidential Oath on Inauguration Day last January, but who among us (other than George Soros and Rahm Emanuel) could have known the depths of his simmering contempt for the Office he swore to “faithfully execute” or the Constitution he swore to “preserve, protect and defend”?

More apparent with each passing day is that Obama spent most of his adult life resenting American prosperity at home and influence abroad, and now, the Oath be damned, is moving at warp speed to exact his revenge. He has awaited this opportunity for a very long time.

Why do Obama and his compliant comrades on Capitol Hill desire to move so fast, to pass bill upon bill before they’ve been contemplated and debated, let alone read? It is a question more people are asking. The only logical answer is that he (and they) knows the Socialist Liberals can’t possibly get away with this tyrannical agenda forever.

The trends Obama’s Mission Irresponsible are establishing, while reversible, will not be easily undone. And behind his thin veil of sincerity, he knows it.

The “Cap and Trade” Climate legislation is a massive scam based on faulty premises about so-called global warming and rooted in a massive generational wealth shift, from the productive to the “entitled”. The heavy hand this bill would impose if it became law is almost incomprehensible (except to those indoctrinated in the Obama Wealth Redistribution Society).

History might indeed prove that Obama’s only rival in the realm of wealth confiscation is the soon to be imprisoned Bernie Madoff. The Heritage Foundation’s respected Center for Data Analysis has run the numbers on Cap and “Tax”, and they are about as appealing as Madoff’s prison sentence of 150 years.

While Obama’s Teleprompter insists the bill delivers reduced dependence on foreign oil, combats the consequences of “climate change”, promotes profitable “clean energy” and creates jobs, the reality is quite the opposite.

The Cap and Trade tsunami will cripple the American economy and leave every walk of life vulnerable to passing some bogus environmental worthiness test, lest it be a target for increased taxation. The Heritage center projects unfathomable increases, including 90% spikes in residential electric bills, 74% jumps in gasoline prices and GDP reduction of around $9.6 trillion by 2035.

Obama is probably smart enough to know that government-run energy and health care programs are destined to fail, which is why he supports them. He has lusted for a lifetime for an America gripped by chaos, taken down a notch, and ridiculed by the world.

On the foreign policy front, the same twisted logic prevails. Obama stands back, tongue tied, as a dictator terrorizes the people of Iran, but then quickly and bluntly admonishes Honduras for sending its president into exile though he boldly ignored the nation’s constitution in order to extend and strengthen his power.

Obama has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the Honduran military for unseating the renegade President Mel Zelaya, yet Clinton has been all but silent on the fraudulent Iranian election and the violence that has followed in response to uprisings in the streets.

The most unsettling part of the recent developments on Capitol Hill and in far-away lands is that we can’t know for sure which scenario Obama envisions for his own future. When America has finally awakened, will he be the equivalent of arrogant dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, backed by powerful forces in the shadows and restored to his reign against the will of a population grieving the random deaths of its sons and daughters in the streets, or will Obama be a Zelaya who has no use for his own Constitution even if it thrusts the nation into political instability, pitting the military against the corridors of the political status quo?

This weekend, I would advise contemplating America’s Independence Day solemnly and celebrating it respectfully.

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.

Dead Horse Beating Time

My new favorite phrase is "saved or created." From now on, if I do poorly at something I'll just argue things would have been much worse if I'd done nothing at all. The unfalsifiability is bulletproof. Rarely have three words simultaneously been entirely empty of substantive meaning and a political masterstroke. "Whip Inflation Now," "Just Say No," and "vast right-wing conspiracy" are each, at best, second-rate by comparison. If the press wasn't broadly in love with PBO (which, for all our sakes, is starting to turn) this phrase would receive the sneering disdain it deserves.

On the off chance you've wondered how the administration intends to calculate SoC jobs, here's a little hint: the way that generates the highest number. Here's the money quote for non-WSJ subscribers (emphasis mine):

All we're asking them to do is a simple headcount; tell us how many people you hired," said Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the office (OMB), in an interview. Recipients won't be asked to grapple with complicated estimates, he added. Instead, they may use their best guess whether a job would have been created or saved in the absence of a recovery plan, and to not count it if they are uncertain.

You just can't make up this stuff, unless of course you work for OMB, in which case it's your job to make up stuff. I wish I'd seen this coming. Oh, wait. . . .I did.

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.

The Love Affair Continues

If you needed more proof that the mainstream media is in the bag for President Obama, be sure to watch ABC on June 24. As Drudge is reporting, we certainly would not want to give equal time to opposing points of view!