Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

1. President Barack Obama produced the theme of U.S. engagement with Iran and proposed a world free of all nuclear weapons as a goal.

 

2. The United States had tried to engage with Iran but that country refused. Nominally this can be attributed to being busy with stealing an election and repressing the opposition but it would have happened any way.

 

3. Iran is now governed by its most radical government since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini twenty years ago. Extremist and adventurist, anti-American and antisemitic, this is a government bent on getting nuclear weapons (at least as leverage, not necessarily to use), destroying U.S. influence in the region, and wiping Israel off the map.

 

4. Seeing that engagement wasn’t working, the U.S. government made a plan to bring together key countries and raise the level of sanctions in late September, just two weeks from the time the Iranian letter was received. The key G20 meeting was set for September 24-25.

 

5. Seeking to stall such measures in order to consolidate the regime, which is relatively weak given domestic opposition, the Tehran regime at the last minute sent an insulting note to the United States trying to change the subject. Rather than focus on the nuclear weapons’ drive, they called for changing the UN to empower non-Western states (an old regime theme) and rid the world of all nuclear weapons. In other words: Iran will be the champion of the Third World in getting rid of great power vetoes at the UN and keep on developing nuclear weapons until the United States gets rid of all those it has.

 

Remarkably, Obama accepted the Iranian offer. By allowing the Iranian regime to stall for time it has apparently moved a long way toward acceding to Iran’s having nuclear weapons, and not just the weapons but weapons in the hands of the country’s most extreme faction.

 

A big price will be paid in future for this mistake. Read article.

 

Jennifer Rubin, Commentary Magazine.com

 

Cliff May, in a must-read column, wades into the debate among conservatives on the Afghanistan war. He explains that fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists means that we must fight them where we find them:

 

I would stress this: Afghanistan is not a war. It is one battle in what — I’m not the first to deduce — is going to be a long war, a global conflict to defend America and the West against an insidiously dangerous enemy that has emerged from within the Islamic world.

 

It is a war over ideas as much as it is a war over land. In fact, as real estate, Afghanistan is of minimal value. But what happens there will help determine how we — and our enemies and the millions of people around the world who have not taken sides — understand what this struggle is about and who is likely to prevail.

 

It was consequential that American forces and our Iraqi allies defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq (and if democracy promotion is not your top priority, don’t fret that the government there is flawed). It will be useful for us to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan (and don’t expect to leave behind a Costa Rica of the Hindu Kush; just leave behind local forces trained to defend themselves). It is imperative, too, that we exert maximum pressure on the Islamist regime in Tehran that has been waging war against us for 30 years, and is today supporting terrorists from Afghanistan to Iraq to Gaza to Argentina.

 

Moreover, it’s always a good idea to show religious fanatics they have it all wrong:

 

What’s more, in a war against religious fanatics — the Taliban is not, as NBC’s David Gregory recently said, a “nationalist movement” — no editorial, no speech, no talking point demonstrates the absence of divine endorsement quite so convincingly as defeat on the battlefield.

 

May is rightly concerned, as are the opponents of the war in Afghanistan, that the president doesn’t quite have his heart in this. Where are the impassioned speeches (even one) before Congress and the American people?

 

I see nothing admirable in telling those who are oppressed, imprisoned, and enslaved by despots and the likes of the Taliban that America really has other priorities. If we continue down that road, we will find the U.S. not only diminished in the eyes of the world but situated in a far less free and, therefore, less secure world.

Still, May is right to be worried. If the president doesn’t understand all this and is not willing to risk some political capital then America certainly can’t prevail. We can do without many things, but a commander in chief committed to victory isn’t one of them. Read article.

 

John Hannah, Washington Institute,org

 

A minor miracle has already happened -- if only the administration would see it. The rise (and persistence) of a mass protest movement that has rocked the Iranian regime to its core, and is genuinely threatening its collapse, was forecast by almost no one, and certainly not the CIA. That movement's survival, strengthening, and eventual success has, in fact, today become the most viable option available for satisfactorily resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis short of war.

 

It's impossible not to suspect that the administration has viewed Iran's post-election turmoil as more an unwelcome complication than potential godsend. Its silence in the face of the stolen elections, the brutal crackdown, the rape and torture of detainees, and Stalinist show trials has been deafening. Its claim that speaking out more forcefully would be exploited by the regime as evidence of U.S. interference rings hollow in light of the fact that virtually not a day has passed since June 12 that the regime has not trumpeted that exact charge.

 

The fact is that the administration neither saw the protests coming, nor believed they would continue for more than a few days at most. All its energies -- indeed, its entire strategy with respect to Iran--has been premised on getting the current regime into talks and negotiating some sort of deal, not responding to a mass movement demanding democracy, human rights and "Death to the Dictator." Central to that strategy has been the president's effort -- beginning the day of his inauguration--to reassure Iran's ruling theocrats and thugs of America's benign intentions toward their long-term survival and well-being. It's that effort, of course, that the administration no doubt worries might be jeopardized were it to stand up and rally the world on behalf of Iran's embattled democratic opposition.

 

One can only hope that the President is still capable of modifying his approach before the boom is lowered on Mousavi and Karroubi. It's possible, of course, that Iran's opposition is sufficiently institutionalized that it can survive their silencing. It's even possible that their arrest itself could prove the final spark that triggers the regime's denouement. But the history of headless revolutions is not a particularly promising one.

 

After this week's office raids, an Iranian human rights activist was quoted as saying that "The only thing that might stop [the regime from arresting Mousavi and Karroubi] is if they feel they cannot get away with it." Working with its allies, the United States needs to make clear now that the Islamic Republic will not get away cost-free if it moves against the opposition's top leaders. There's no guarantee that will successfully deter a frightened dictatorship that now clearly sees its possible demise on the horizon. But it's the right thing to do. It's also the smart thing -- if only the administration will see it. Read article.

 

Aaron Klein, WND.com

 

President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

 

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

 

Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

 

In the book Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."

 

Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S. Read article.

Berit Kjos, NWV.com

 

"The bourgeois family will vanish.... Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate...? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention...." Marx and Engels, "Communist Manifesto"

 

"John Dewey wrote... that the Bolsheviks were engaged in 'a most interesting sociological experiment...' using progressive educational ideas and practices to 'counteract and transform... the influence of home and Church.'" Dr. Dennis Cuddy

 

"Years before he had inflicted... dialectical materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished—the ‘ruthless destruction of everything existing.’ That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality... and everything that made Western civilization…. The seemingly modest instrument was the [Frankfurt] Institute of Social Research... dedicated to neo-Marxism.' ... The greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University."

 

Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn't notice the slow-rising heat.

 

Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back Teddy Roosevelt's days, who would have guessed that a major goal of Dewey's "progressive education" was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of "spiritual" solidarity? Read article.

 

Jeff Poor, Business and Media.org

 

About a year ago, then-Senator and Democratic nominee Barack Obama managed to seize control of the issue of taxes from the Republican Party by promising lower taxes for “95 percent of Americans.”

 

But today it’s a drastically different situation. Obama’s $787-billion stimulus has been passed into law and the administration is taking on higher deficits, which will only increase if a Democrat health care reform bill passes. It looks as though the president’s hand will be forced and he will have to raise taxes. That’s begs question – where were the media on this a year ago?

 

CNBC’s Erin Burnett asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at a CNBC made-for-television town hall on Sept. 10 if taxes would be raised. Geithner dodged the question, but Burnett interpreted the dodge to mean yes, as she explained on NBC’s Sept. 13 “Meet the Press.”

 

“He, he tried to not answer the question, and in doing so I think he actually did,” Burnett explained. “What he did was come out and say, ‘We cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans in the stimulus bill, and the burden of tax increases, if they come, should be on the remainder’ – i.e., the top 5 percent. It is clear taxes are going up, and I think the question is when?” Read article.

 

Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker.com

 

Welcome to the post-racial presidency of Barack Obama, in which it has suddenly become a racial issue when American citizens dare to criticize the president. Now, this is so silly, so asinine that it boggles the mind of any rational person. If there is one thing even more American than apple pie, it is the rhetorical slicing and dicing of our presidents. This stems from the egalitarian nature of our Constitution and our forceful, revolutionary rebuke of royalty. Rhetorically eviscerating presidents as the servants of the people they are constitutionally mandated to be is as much an American pastime as baseball. 

 

Yet, over the past week we've seen a veritable parade of racist accusations from liberal pundits, liberal TV folks, Democratic congressmen and now a former president. 

 

Of course, the former president is none other than the hopelessly doddering Jimmy Carter, whose book on Israeli Apartheid (Puh-lease.) just made Osama Bin Laden's must-read book list, so perhaps we can just throw that one out. 

 

Still, something's very much afoot. It's as though a plug had been pulled on the swamp somewhere and all the gators are jamming to get out on the airwaves with their vicious bites aiming for any white dissenter that can be found. 

 

Maureen Dowd penned a bitter screed over the weekend aimed at Joe Wilson. Ms. Dowd seemed to hear Mr. Wilson say the word, "Boy" at the end of his "You lie" sentiment. Odd that no one else, not even the recording equipment heard it.

 

The TV celebs were taking silly pot shots with crass innuendo. Bill Stupid-is-as-stupid-does Maher, in an attempt to parody Drudge's "racism," came up with some fake headlines that mimicked the first lady "hoe'n in the garden," and similar lovelies. How do these degenerates stay on TV?

 

Politico reported that many Democratic congressmen and women could see the blatant racism rearing its ugly head in dissent from the president's policies. 

 

Tuesday, a Congressman from my home state of Georgia, Rep. Hank Johnson said that if the House didn't censure Joe Wilson, then folks would "put on the white hoods and roam the countryside." Congressman Johnson seems to have forgotten that most of the KKK men, to whom he is referring, were Democrats, the architects and masters of real Southern Apartheid, Jim Crow. Heck, Senator Byrd is still there and he was one. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: