Eliot A. Cohen, Online WSJ.com

 

Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark—an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.

 

Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

 

Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.

 

Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact. Read article.

Dr. Tim Ball, CFP.com

 

Because companions are chosen it’s difficult for the chooser to ignore or deny responsibility for them and their actions. This is especially true for political companions, which is why rigorous vetting processes are in place. Guilt by association may be unfair but it’s the reality. Van Jones, Obama’s appointment as Special Advisor for Green Jobs admitted as much when he resigned. “I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past.”

 

How he or Obama thought his record would remain undisclosed indicates arrogance and effrontery. Van Jones confirms this by blaming others for his record; “On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me.” No, your words and record destroyed you. He said, “I have been inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum - urging me to “stay and fight.” Then why didn’t he? More exposure was too dangerous. Better to lose the battle and win the war. A diversionary resignation allowed quiet re-assignment to continue promoting green jobs. As he said, “I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead.” And that is the much bigger concern – not gone, but forgotten.

 

Obama had to know the risk in appointing a controversial person. He apparently decided Van Jones offered an attractive double punch to save the earth and rescue working class Americans as his book The Green Collar Economy explained. Few would question the motives of someone fighting to save the planet and produce jobs for African Americans? Van Jones perpetuated the view that environment and climate change are ideal vehicles for advancing total government control. In 1993 former Senator Timothy Wirth, now Director of the UN Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Read article.

 

The Foundry, Heritage.org

 

As if we needed another example of why the U.N. and its affiliated organizations have earned a reputation for poor accountability, opacity, and mismanagement, along comes a scandal from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WMO is a U.N. specialized agency based in Geneva. The U.S. is a member of the WMO and gave the organization $1.9 million in 2008 and 2009. The FY 2010 budget request for the WMO is $2.2 million.

 

A couple of years ago, WMO internal auditor Maria do Rosario Veiga was fired after refusing to discontinue investigations an embezzlement scheme where WMO officials stole $3.5 million and used the money to buy votes to secure the election of Michel Jarraud to be Secretary General of the organization. Despite demands from U.S. Congressmen, no investigation into her dismissal was conducted.

 

She appealed to the International Labor Office Administrative Tribunal which reviewed her case and found that she was wrongly dismissed. FOX News has the conclusion to the story, “Nearly four years after her dismissal, Veiga, a Portuguese national, has been awarded what is believed to be one of the largest amounts ever paid by the International Labor Office Administrative Tribunal. The ILOAT awarded Veiga $476,098 for defamation, harassment and wrongful termination while carrying out her recognized audit duties.”

 

As one of the largest contributors to the WMO, the U.S. is a double loser here. Read article.

 

Humberto Fontova, American Thinker.com

 

Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi got many New York doors slammed in their face this week. The Helmsley Hotels hurriedly hung "No Vacancy!" signs and Gotham Hall canceled Ahmadinejad's reservation for the site as a speech and banquet hall. Gadhafi was finally reduced to sleeping on the couch of the Libyan UN ambassador's Manhattan apartment. Then 11 members of the General Assembly stormed out during Ahmadinejad's UN speech.

 

Fidel Castro's sides must be hurting as he ponders the scene. Perhaps he's offering them advice: "My poor bumbling amigos, Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi, you boys need some 'learnin, some polish. So pull up a chair.

 

"I'll have you know when I visited New York in 1995 for the UN's 50th Anniversary bash, not only did I get the loudest and longest ovation from the General Assembly, but Time magazine hailed me as "The Toast of Manhattan!" and Newsweek as "The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!" In the same week's issues!

 

"When my dearly departed little poodle, Che Guevara, visited the UN in 1964, loudly boasted of our mass executions, and denounced the U.S. as ‘the perpetrator of exploitation and oppression against the peoples of the world and against a large part of its own population!' and as ‘a carnivorous animal feeding on the helpless!' the ovation was not quite as long or loud as the ones I got, mind you, but plenty loud and long enough. That night Che was the guest of honor at ‘Bobo' Rockefeller's Manhattan suite, where cocktail guests from Norman Mailer to Eugene McCarthy lined up for his autograph.

 

"And remember what my dearly departed little poodle had admitted just two years earlier: ‘If the Missiles had remained, we would have shot them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City' (Che Guevara to Sam Russel of the London Daily Worker in November 1962.) Indeed, during that New York visit, my little poodle Che also met with the Black Liberation Front, whom we were funding to blow up the Statue of Liberty during that time. Read article.

 

Tom Barrett, Conservative Truth.org

 

Here is a partial list of the serious mistakes that Obama has made while he ignored his Constitutional responsibilities:

 

He has reversed years of State Department negotiations and billions spent in planning our missile defense shield that would have protected us against the very real threat of Iranian nuclear missiles. In doing so, he made us look weak and foolish in the eyes of the world, because he caved in to Russia, a weak nation that is still led by Communists. And he betrayed Czechoslovakia and Poland, two brave former slaves of Russia that stood with us and allowed us to base our missile defenses in their countries in spite of Russia’s threats.

 

When he took office we were in a recession that was on the mend. Many top economists said that the best thing he could do would be to leave it alone. Instead, he spent so much money on a “stimulus” that has not stimulated anything, that this year our deficit will be FIVE TIMES bigger than any the nation has ever seen, And that doesn’t include the costs of his Cap & Tax Energy Bill, which he claims will not raise taxes, but which in fact will cost every American family $3,900 a year in increased energy costs. Nor does it include the Trillions of dollars he wants to spend on Obamacare, a system of socialized care that the majority of Americans – Republicans AND Democrats – emphatically DO NOT WANT.

 

He promised that within months of printing trillions of dollars backed by absolutely nothing, he would stimulate the economy so much that he would bring the unemployment rate from 9% down to 8%. Eight months later, it is at almost 10% and rising. And if you count the “underemployed” (those who are looking for full-time jobs, but are currently working 20 hours a week or less), the REAL unemployment rate is well above 16%. Obama has had the gall to brag about employment rates increasing “in certain sectors.” Lie! The only area where employment has gone up has been in government jobs, which produce nothing and add to our tax burden. Read article.

 

Ed Lasky, American Thinker.com

 

Hillary Clinton has become almost a sad figure, an outsider to a White House dominated by insiders, a cabinet secretary in the era of czars. Now, it seems that Hillary's own history is repeating itself.

 

Barack Obama, as more and more people are noticing, has an aversion to ever admitting he was wrong -- or anything less than brilliant. (Maybe that is why he refuses to release his college and law school transcripts).

 

Over several months, the administration has led the diplomatic equivalent of a jihad against Israel. In addition to giving a virtual pass on Iran's nuclear program, the Obama team has focused on trying to abrogate and deny the validity of a series of agreements made with the Israelis over the years regarding the settlements ringing Jerusalem and dotting the West Bank. Obama has made clear his view of these settlements, and demanded Israel halt even natural growth (that would accommodate babies, for example, but would not expand the footprint) as a quid pro quo to his pressuring Iran.

 

The end result has been a disaster for diplomacy.

 

The result: stalemate.

 

So how to repair the damage and burnish the image of Obama as the man who never makes mistakes? What to do? Make Hillary accept the blame. She will do so to ingratiate herself with Obama and be accepted as a team player. Hillary has eaten crow. It was not the first time, and it will not be the last time. Read article.

 

Mary Anastasia O’Grady, WSJ.com

 

Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president's proclamations.

 

Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.

 

Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

 

Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation's founding. Many readers have written that they are "ashamed" of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, "How can I help Honduras?" A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?

 

In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy. Read article.

 

Editorial, Washington Post.com

 

The Obama administration announced last week that it did not need and would not seek new legislation to govern indefinite detention of some terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In so doing, the administration has chosen the politically expedient and intellectually dishonest route.

 

Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. At Guantanamo, this is expected to affect 50 or so prisoners who, the administration has determined, can be tried neither in federal court nor before a military commission but are too dangerous to release.

 

The White House and its allies knowingly engage in a distortion. The question isn't whether the president may indefinitely hold some detainees -- the courts have ruled that he can under certain circumstances -- but what process should be available to those subject to such detention. This is the debate that Mr. Obama now lacks the courage to engage. administration announced last week that it did not need and would not seek new legislation to govern indefinite detention of some terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In so doing, the administration has chosen the politically expedient and intellectually dishonest route.

 

Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. At Guantanamo, this is expected to affect 50 or so prisoners who, the administration has determined, can be tried neither in federal court nor before a military commission but are too dangerous to release.

 

The White House and its allies knowingly engage in a distortion. The question isn't whether the president may indefinitely hold some detainees -- the courts have ruled that he can under certain circumstances -- but what process should be available to those subject to such detention. This is the debate that Mr. Obama now lacks the courage to engage.administration announced last week that it did not need and would not seek new legislation to govern indefinite detention of some terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In so doing, the administration has chosen the politically expedient and intellectually dishonest route.

 

Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. At Guantanamo, this is expected to affect 50 or so prisoners who, the administration has determined, can be tried neither in federal court nor before a military commission but are too dangerous to release.

 

The White House and its allies knowingly engage in a distortion. The question isn't whether the president may indefinitely hold some detainees -- the courts have ruled that he can under certain circumstances -- but what process should be available to those subject to such detention. This is the debate that Mr. Obama now lacks the courage to engage. Read article.

 

Brian Birdnow, Townhall.com

 

The national debate on health care took an ominous turn last week as a number of high profile Democrats beginning with former President Jimmy Carter argued that critics of the Obama Administration have latched on to this debate as a way of voicing their latent racism and anti-Black bigotry. The worst chief executive of the twentieth century dismissed tea party protestors as sore losers who cannot accept the painful reality that an African-American man is now the President of the United States.

 

The fact of the matter is that since 1980 Jimmy Carter has been unable to accept the painful reality that someone other than himself has been the President of the United States, but that is the subject of an entirely different column. Carter’s “racism” salvo has ignited a broadside of covering fire from fellow Democrats and mainstream media allies who now solemnly pontificate about the racism of the anti-Obama protests.

 

In reality, this ludicrous racism charge shows that the protestors and, by extension, the Republican Party are winning the argument and is a sign of growing desperation on the Democratic side as they see a policy debate begin to slip from their grasp. The Republicans, emboldened by the protests, have shown a surprising vigor and are shaking off some of their post-election lethargy and behaving like a political party once again. Still, the road just ahead for the GOP is fraught with peril. Read article.

 

Matthew Eisley, News Observer.com

 

When U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie!" at President Barack Obama a couple of weeks ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's dark eyes shot daggers. Her scornful message: How dare you?!

 

And that, not Wilson's outburst or the veracity of his accusation, is our problem.

 

Politicians in Washington, as in Raleigh, like to think they're better than you or me. They demand regal deference -- and we comply cravenly.

 

Worse, we embrace a double standard. Seconds before Wilson's spasm, Obama himself had said of an unwelcome criticism of his program, "It is a lie, plain and simple." The response? Applause.

 

We've got our undue deference backward. Our governors owe all their power to the consent of the governed. (That's us, folks.) So says our defiant Declaration of Independence.

 

The president isn't a king, or even our boss. He (or she) is our temporary hired help. We the people are the boss. We are the sovereign.

 

Yet many presidents bristle at being questioned by anyone -- and we acquiesce. The U.S. House forbids its members to call any president a liar, a hypocrite or "intellectually dishonest," even when true. Even the supposedly hard-bitten Washington press corps often turns meek in the face of presidential pique. Read article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ha! If France does so it will be the end of Obama’s whole strategy against Iran. For Tehran, it will be a straight, largely untroubled stroll to nuclear weapons, unless derailed by an Israeli attack. “I think this is a bit dangerous,” Kouchner said about the proposed sanctions. Would that be more dangerous than Iran getting nuclear weapons? But Kouchner didn't make clear to whom or in what way it's dangerous. He did say, however, that it would mostly harm “poor people” in Iran.

 

“I think this is a bit dangerous,” Kouchner said about the proposed sanctions. Would that be more dangerous than Iran getting nuclear weapons? But Kouchner didn't make clear to whom or in what way it's dangerous. He did say, however, that it would mostly harm “poor people” in Iran. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: