President gives queen an iPod

< Back to Front Page Text size +

President gives queen an iPod

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor April 1, 2009 02:56 PM

For a White House that is meticulous about every small detail, President Obama might want to seek more help in the gift-giving department.

Maybe something more personal than consumer electronics would be nice.

Today, he gave Queen Elizabeth II an iPod. The BBC reports: “President Obama has given the Queen an iPod during their private meeting at Buckingham Palace. It contains footage of her state visit to the US in May 2007. The Queen has given the president a silver framed photograph of herself and her husband. The official picture is what she gives all visiting dignitaries.”

Last month, when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Washington, Obama gave him a parting gift of 25 DVDs of classic American movies.

That got the cackles up of the British press, which noted that Brown offered the president a more thought-out present: an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet

Obama’s Muslim connection

Obama’s Muslim connection

Obama’s Muslim Outreach

Ted Belman  Bio
Email Article

 By Ted Belman  Tuesday, March 31, 2009

One year ago I wrote about Obama’s Muslim connection. No matter how strong this connection was, the main stream media and ultimately Jewish Americans ignored it.

“The person who made me proudest of all,” Obama wrote, “was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol.”

On February 27th, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”

Although Obama played the Christian card while campaigning, he is playing the Muslim card now in such a blatant fashion that even I am astounded.

Here is his record to date after inauguration,

  • Obama’s first call was to Mahmoud Abbas who is not even a head of state. Obama was delivering a message to Israel and the world.
  • Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Networks In it her stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. not your enemy”

    “And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,”


  • on Febuary 10th, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
  • In February, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
  • On March 19th Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year but sold them out by referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.
  • Obama is reaching out to the Taliban to cut a deal.
  • Obama is looking to hire a select group of Muslims for the White House
  • Obama has been reaching out to Syria for some time now but in the last two months he has matched words with deeds, He has lifted sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with Assad hereby bringing him in from the cold. He wants to see if Syria is serious about peace, which means breaking from Iran, in which case he will force Israel to give up the Golan.
  • Obama has also been calling Erdogan and Gull in Turkey looking to imrpove relations with Turkey. He praised Erdogan for his efforts at peace making between Syria and Israel and wants him to continue. He is looking to Turkey to help with Iran and Afghanistan and to permit US forces to exit Iraq throught Turkey.

Essentially this outreach is intended to upgrade the US relationship with the Muslim world which will necessitate downgrading the relationship with Israel.

For decades now this is what the State Department has wanted but couldn’t say so publicly. As I pointed out in Give the Palestinians what they want or else, there is a coordinated attack under way to bring about the downgrading of the US/Israel relationship.

In the last few weeks, I posted many articles which made this point. Here are two.

The West is tiring of Israel

‘I have every reason to believe, based on what I’ve seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own… or worse.’ When asked what could be worse than losing the support of the United States, he stated: ‘when our administration provides more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel’s defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation.’

CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years

The CIA report predicts “an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region.”

These are only a few of the articles published since Obama’s inauguration which provide the handwriting on the wall. The core issue that the West is now recognizing is, that given the enmity of the Arabs to the state of Israel, the Sate of Israel is doomed and shouldn’t be supported by the US to her detriment.

Debka reported this week,Obama set to betray Israel, big time

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that the Obama administration is on the threshold of a major rapprochement with Tehran, a reversal of US policy dramatic enough to block out international sanctions. Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear program, including military elements and enriched uranium stocks, up to the point of actually assembling a weapon. [..]

The US president is willing to ditch Israel as a friend. This will be brought home to Jerusalem when he makes his big speech on April 7 appealing for a grand US-Muslim global reconciliation. The US president is preparing to tie a Palestinian-Israeli settlement – on Washington’s terms – to such unrelated issues as Afghanistan and Pakistan as the currency for purchasing Muslim and Arab backing for accommodations of these outstanding terrorist fronts.

To lend wings to Obama’s outreach to the Muslims, White House circles Monday, March 30, leaked word that his team took a hand in persuading Israel to accept a ceasefire which cut short its anti-Hamas operation in Gaza in January. The radical Islamist terrorists had to be spared from total defeat by Israel and their leaders from capture otherwise Assad, as their backer, would be restrained from resuming peace talks with Israel for some time.

The ceasefire gave Assad enough political room to continue the negotiations without losing credibility in the Arab world.

Its not going to get better.

PM: We may be forced to attack Iran

PM: We may be forced to attack Iran

Apr. 1, 2009 Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The primary imperative for the United States and President Barack Obama is to put an end to Iran’s nuclear race, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said before his swearing-in Tuesday, adding that if the US failed to do so Israel might be forced to resort to a military strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear installations.

“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told The Atlantic. The Iranian drive for a nuclear weapon was a “hinge of history,” he said, emphasizing that all of “Western civilization” was responsible for preventing an Iranian bomb.

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Netanyahu said of the Iranian regime. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

Netanyahu suggested that Israeli preemptive strikes against perceived threats were the result of the Jewish people learning from a long history of grappling against those who threatened their collective existence. He cited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated calls to “wipe Israel off the map,” as well as a recent remark by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to the effect that Israel was a “cancerous tumor.”

However, despite Iran’s singling-out of Israel, he said, the rest of the world would be well advised to take the threat emanating from Teheran seriously. He voiced support for Obama’s strategy of engaging Iran in dialogue, as long as the negotiations worked swiftly to convince Iran to relinquish its nuclear program.

“How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, although he was not optimistic regarding the chances that dialogue could persuade Iran to reconsider its interests. Nevertheless, he said, economic sanctions could still make a difference. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means,” he said.

Iran’s leadership, Netanyahu added, was not immune to pressure, but fanatic elements made it extremely dangerous to risk relying on economic sanctions alone.

“Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous,” he said. “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”

Netanyahu cited Teheran’s tactics during its protracted war with Iraq in the 1980s as evidence of irrational behavior on the part of Iran. “[They] wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash,” he said. “It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”

Beware the cult of Obama

Beware the cult of Obama

By Gene Healy
Examiner Columnist | 3/31/09 1:03 PM 

You’ve met them. They may be friends of yours, or family members. You may even be one of them (in which case you’ll hate this column). I’m referring to those who’ve heard the Call of Obama.
Tucker Carlson compares it to a dog whistle: Inaudible to most, but irresistible to those who can hear it.
Obama “walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” George Clooney gushed to Charlie Rose.
“I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make [Obama’s] pathway clear,” Halle Berry recently told the Philadelphia Daily News, “I’ll do whatever he says.” (Does Michelle know about this?) 
Hollywood stars aren’t known for their political wisdom. More disturbing is how starstruck the mainstream media has become. Hardball host Chris Matthews isn’t the only one who gets a “thrill” up his leg at the very thought of our new president.
Last summer, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that “Many spiritually advanced people I know &hellip identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who &hellip can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”
The Politico recently ran a 900-word article entitled “The Power of Obama’s Hand,” reverentially describing how the president “uses touch to control and console simultaneously,” laying hands on supporters and opponents alike.
And in February, author Judith Warner used her New York Times blog to confess that “The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs.”
Instead of keeping that information to herself, Warner “launched an email inquiry,” which revealed that “many women—not too surprisingly—were dreaming about sex with the president.” Those of us who like to point out that the Emperor has no clothes now have to worry that when we do, we may give rise to a new round of lurid cougar fantasies.
Conservatives like to think they’re above this sort of thing. Their attitude is summed up by the subtitle of Jerome Corsi’s recent bestseller: Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.
But any conservative who thinks cultishness is exclusively a leftist phenomenon ought to take a good long look in the mirror. Because many of those who decry the “cult of Obama” are the same people who made a flight-suited action figure hero out of such common clay as George W. Bush.
Peggy Noonan called Bush’s post-9/11 address to Congress “a God-touched moment and a God-touched speech.” Fred Barnes wrote that “the stage was set for Bush to be God’s agent of wrath.” National Review Online ran ads for the Bush “Top Gun” action figure, and an article about how wonderful it was to have a presidential superhero to complement your GI Joe collection.
On Hardball, after the “Mission Accomplished” speech, G. Gordon Liddy got graphic enough to embarrass Judith Warner: “Here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness…. and it makes the best of his manly characteristic&hellip. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America!”
Presidential cultishness can be found all across the political spectrum. It’s a pathology that needs to be rooted out, because when we swoon over the man who holds the office, we risk making the presidency far more powerful than it was ever intended to be.
William Hazlitt, the 19th-century English essayist, argued that man was by nature “a worshipper of idols and a lover of kings.” As savages, Hazlitt wrote, we fashioned “gods of wood and stone and brass,” but now, thinking ourselves above superstition, “we make kings of common men, and are proud of our own handiwork.”
But America’s very existence repudiates the idea that we’re hard-wired for leader-worship. We became a nation by throwing off a king, and our Founders gave us a Constitution that’s based on the notion that all men are flawed and none should be trusted with too much power.
Americans, of all people, should recognize how bizarre and dangerous it is to fawn over professional politicians. 
Examiner columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.



Government Claims Power to Ban Books and Speech

Government Claims Power to Ban Books and Speech

By Ken Klukowski

On Mar. 24, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest installment in an ongoing series of challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold. This case has far-reaching implications for the future of campaign activities, and draws an important line between the right of citizens to speak out and the power of government to imprison them if they do.


The group Citizens United produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during her failed presidential campaign. (Citizens United also made a similar film about Barack Obama, though this lawsuit focused on the Clinton movie.) But when the group sought to market the movie through Video On Demand, the FEC blocked it. The FEC cited BCRA, which makes it a federal felony to fund any TV or radio broadcast that names a candidate for federal office in the thirty days prior to a primary election or sixty days prior to a general election, called the “blackout” periods.


The Obama Justice Department defended the FEC’s action with a team from the department’s elite Solicitor General’s Office. But that team was outmatched by the lawyer representing Citizens United, renowned former Solicitor General Ted Olson.


Far more important than the specific facts in this case was the enormous scope of power that the Obama Administration was claiming under BCRA, an array so broad that the justices balked at the government’s answers to their questions. The Obama Administration claimed that BCRA allows the federal government to ban a 600-page book if it mentions a candidate’s name only once, a 90-minute movie if it mentions a candidate’s name once, or even a toy action figure of a candidate. If the organization uses a single dime of its general funds to produce, promote or distribute any such materials during the “blackout” periods, it becomes a federal crime.


The key justices in this case seemed astonished at the broad powers the Obama Administration was claiming under BCRA, and seem poised to rule 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. This would continue a steady trend over the past couple years, with moderate Justice Kennedy siding with the four conservative justices on issues of political speech. This will be the third BCRA suit in as many years, and should be decided by the same split as they others.


The issue in these cases is the freedom of individuals to act together to speak out on public matters. As Ted Olson explained in his opening statement, “Participation in the political process is the First Amendment’s most fundamental guarantee. Yet that freedom is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive, and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented.”


One of the essential ingredients of a free society is the right to speak out for or against candidates running for office. Those who seek or hold power are held accountable through the ballot box, and freely sharing information and opinions about these candidates, their actions and their policies is the best safeguard to keep them honest and enable citizens to make an informed decision when they vote.


Citizens United v. FEC perfectly reflects these concerns. As Olson emphasized in his closing statements, BCRA includes draconian penalties for alleged violations. Selling a banned movie, book or even toy action figure is a felony under this law, punishable by five years in federal prison. If someone can only speak out about political candidates by facing such a possibility, Olson concluded, “He won’t dare take the chance.”


Such laws have a chilling effect on political speech that violates the core purpose of the First Amendment. That such a law could ever be enacted in this country is itself a fact that should raise concerns. And in a couple months, it looks like the Supreme Court will rectify part of this disturbing reality.


Regardless of political affiliation, all those who support a free and open society should hope that more cases like this one come down the pike soon, until all of these unconstitutional burdens are struck down.


Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

Page Printed from: at April 01, 2009 – 09:52:27 AM EDT