How Obama’s party works

How Obama’s party works

Phil Boehmke

Many of us, myself included are incredulous that our elected officials could have defied the will of the people and passed such a fundamentally un-American piece of legislation as ObamaCare. Clearly the American people have been betrayed by Mr. Obama and his party. The question here is how could a majority of our representatives conspire to abandon their constituents, violate their oath of office, debase the rule of law, surrender even the pretense of ethical conduct and sacrifice the future of our republic?

Perhaps a long forgotten book entitled The Whole Of Their Lives by Benjamin Gitlow can offer us a clue. From 1917 until his disillusionment during the Stalin regime Benjamin Gitlow was a leading light of the Communist Party in America. Gitlow gave us a first hand account of communism in America and much more importantly he provided us with remarkable insight into the communist psyche.

Human conduct, the comrades were told, must not be based on ethical or religious abstractions but on concrete tangible objectives. The leaders kept pounding into the heads of their followers that communist loyalty consisted not in loyalty to one’s wife, family, children or one’s country but to the organization to which the communist belonged-The Party. They pictured the Communist party as the final, the highest form of the collective will of the toiling masses who compose the working class. Hence they claimed everything the Party willed was justified, that the Party could do no wrong. Hammered home was the idea that communist morality consisted in completely suborning oneself to the Party. Thus were the men and women of the Communist party transformed into beings devoid of all spiritual idealism, without a sense of right or wrong, to be used as the communist machine saw fit. (1)

When put in those terms we can see how devout Roman Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or John Kerry can easily support abortion. It was clear that Bart Stupac was never going to violate his highest loyalty, to The Party. Public opinion be damned, the ends justify the means. Mr. Obama, The Party and their fellow travelers in the MSM are now busy selling the proletariat on the redistributionist healthcare miracle that they have wrought in the name of the working class.

Will Obama and The Party assure their base that single payer is now inevitable? Will they tell the masses that in the new America their will be social justice? “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”

Gas up $1 a gallon on Obama’s watch

Obamacare: It’s not over yet

March 25, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker

Obamacare: It’s not over yet

On Tuesday, just 36 hours after the House of Representatives voted, President Obama signed into law the massive health care reform bill. Despite its tremendous policy flaws, its lack of bipartisan backing, its widespread public disapproval and its egregious constitutional inadequacies, Obamacare is now the law of the land.

» The Heritage Foundation is fighting to repeal Obamacare. Watch Ed Feulner’s video message.

But we haven’t even seen the worst of it. The new bill is about to undergo so-called “fixes” via a reconciliation bill. “You may have thought it was impossible to make the policy and process of Obamacare even worse,” writes Heritage’s Conn Carroll. “But that is exactly what this reconciliation bill does.”

According to a new analysis from Americans for Tax Reform, over the course of a decade, the reconciliation bill will add an estimated $52.3 billion in new taxes. These taxes will be levied against employers, the sick, low-income and moderate-income workers, and just about everyone else, regardless of income.


These so-called “fixes” are misnomers that actually fracture our economy further instead of repairing it. But even true fixes aren’t enough to correct Obamacare. As Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out: “This bill is unconstitutional and it cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.” The Heritage Foundation could not agree more.

On top of the harm to our economy and harm to our health care that Obamacare will inflict, this liberal success will only fuel the left’s agenda to push forward with cap-and-trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and other costly and harmful big-government proposals. These proposals would draw us further away from American principles like self-government and closer to a European welfare state.

“But don’t take our word for it,” writes Heritage’s Rory Cooper. “Here is audio of Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), a champion of [Obamacare] telling radio host Paul Smith on WJR in Detroit: ‘It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.'”

Our Founding Fathers established a limited government in order to protect our liberties—not to control the American people. When Patrick Henry famously exclaimed 235 years ago, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” he was making a statement that has come to define our national character.

Patrick Henry’s sentiments remain very much alive today among the American people. Though under assault from the left, “the American love for liberty [that] prevailed in our founding will prevail once again,” writes Heritage President Ed Feulner in his response to Sunday night’s vote.

It is true that the passage of Obamacare opens the doors for the left’s radically progressive agenda. But it can also serve to remind Americans of the courage of our Founders as they fought government tyranny. This is especially important, Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding writes, as we “strive to revive our commitment to liberty and self-government.”

It’s not over yet! And thanks to your support, Heritage is able to continue to fight against Obamacare.

> Other Heritage Work of Note

  • While on the road promoting his new book, “Courage and Consequence”, former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove took time to sit down with The Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey to talk about his work in the Bush administration, the current political climate, and the future of conservatism. In the interview, concluded last week before Obamacare passed, Rove shares his shock over the perversion of procedural tactics that Congress has used to push through the healthcare legislation.

    Rove went on discuss Bush’s Medicare drug benefit, the Tea Party movement, and Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, about which he said, “It is conservative legislation. It says states are in charge. If you get federal money, a state has to have standards.” Rove also offered advice to conservatives about how we target our message: “We have to remember our target: It’s not our fellow conservatives. Our object here is to say things and make the case to people whose ears and eyes are open, but who don’t necessarily view themselves as conservatives.”

  • In spite of all of the evidence that the recently passed healthcare bill will decrease investment and eventually lead to rationing of care, the federal government seems to have overlooked a more imminent problem, says Heritage’s Jim Talent: we do not have the money to pay for this new entitlement program. Even if liberals were to re-institute the largest tax increase in U.S. history, which took place in 1993, “it would produce $71 billion annually in additional revenue — enough to fund the government’s current borrowing for just ten days.”
  • In a classic example of politicians determined not to learn from past mistakes, several members of Congress and President Obama have endorsed the creation of a federal infrastructure bank to invest in highways and transit. However, the title “bank” is a bit of a misnomer, says Heritage fellow Ronald Utt. The institution would simply provide grants and subsidies without generating any revenue through interest, very much like the failed financial institution Freddie Mac. Instead of creating a behemoth like this, Utt proposes, “Congress should instead develop legislation to create a real infrastructure bank whose assets match liabilities.”
  • Just when we thought President Obama couldn’t possibly make one more bad decision, he decided to finish the week off by nominating a radically liberal judge for the federal Ninth Circuit court, explains Heritage’s Deborah O’Malley. Goodwin Liu, a dean at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall Law School, is unabashedly outspoken about his opposition of the death penalty, his support for wealth distribution, and his view of the Constitution as largely irrelevant. But this might not be the last stop for Liu, says O’Malley. “Many pundits are speculating that the Ninth Circuit may be Liu’s stepping stone to the Supreme Court.”
  • Despite very real threats from Iran and other enemies, President Obama has refused to fully modernize our nuclear capabilities and build our defenses. Instead, the administration pursues an idealistic “road to zero” strategy, calling for nations, including our own, to surrender their nuclear ambitions and scrap missile defenses. But in a recent article for the Washington Examiner, Heritage national security expert James Carafano argues that “the continuing erosion of a credible deterrent force will only invite aggression.” We have both the capability to deter threats of attacks and the ability to stop an attack. Yet we’ve chosen neither option, and the consequences can prove fatal.

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM

Max Baucus is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Democrat most responsible fo Obamacare’s final shape other than Nancy Pelosi.

In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the “healthcare bill” to be  “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.”  Baucus continued, “[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.  Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Baucus’ candor is appreciated, though the fact that he waited until the bill passed to announce the real agenda behind the massive tax hikes isn’t a profile in courage.  And the seniors on fixed income who are about to lose Medicare Advantage would laugh at Baucus’ pseudo-populism.

Posted in Abortion, American Fifth Column, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Ayers, CNN traitors, defeat liberalism, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat John McCain, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, democrat spying, DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic media, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and acorn, democrats and CNN, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and labor unions, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Democrats and taxes, Democrats and the media, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, democrats socialized medicine, Democrats' Nepotism, Dennis Kucinich, Dianne Feinstein, Earmarking, earmarks, Evangelical Left, Fifth Column, Fifth Column Left, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Harry Reid, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Socialist, Hollywood liberals, Homeland Security, Hussein Obama, Impeach, In The News, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic immigration, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Murtha, Left wing churches, Left-wing, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, leftist fund, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, National Debt, Nazi Pelosi, Obama, Obama Czars, Obama Jackboots, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, Obamacare, partial birth abortion, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Pelosi Land, Radical Politics, Rahm Emanuel, Saul Alinsky. Leave a Comment »

UPDATE 2-Obama dares Republicans to seek healthcare repeal

UPDATE 2-Obama dares Republicans to seek healthcare repeal

Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:46pm EDT
* Mocks Republican for acting is if bill is “Armageddon”

* Poll shows public support for healthcare growing (New with Obama speech)

By Patricia Zengerle

IOWA CITY, Iowa, March 25 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama dared Republicans on Thursday to try to repeal his newly signed healthcare law but warned their effort would backfire as he touted the benefits of the massive overhaul.

“If they want to have that fight, we can have it,” Obama told a university crowd in Iowa two days after putting his name on the most sweeping change in U.S. social policy in decades.

“I don’t believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat. We’ve been there already. We’re not going back,” he said.

Taking his public relations blitz on the road as he seeks to overcome public doubts, Obama held a campaign-style rally at the University of Iowa Field House in Iowa City.

In the face of opinion polls showing the American public divided about the healthcare law, Obama and fellow Democrats are mounting an aggressive effort to gain credit for passage of the overhaul and to put Republicans on the defensive.

Obama first announced his healthcare plan in Iowa City in May 2007, launching a drive that aides say led to the bill passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law this week.

Republicans, who unanimously opposed the bill, have vowed to make repealing it a major issue in congressional elections in November.

“Well, I say go for it,” Obama said, goading his critics. “If these congressmen in Washington want to come here to Iowa and tell small business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest.”

Designed to revamp the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare industry, which accounts for one-sixth of the country’s economy, the law will extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who lack it. It will bar practices like insurers’ refusing coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, expand the Medicaid government health insurance program for the poor and impose new taxes on the wealthy.

Obama acknowledged the bill was “not perfect” but listed what he saw as numerous benefits such as tax breaks to help Americans buy coverage.


Looking relaxed and upbeat, he mocked Republicans for acting as if the bill would lead to “Armageddon.”

“After I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth,” Obama said, adding it turned out to be a nice day and “birds were chirping, folks were strolling down the mall.”

Republicans are seeking to reduce or reverse Democrats’ big majorities in both houses of Congress in November’s elections.

The Senate on Thursday approved a package of final changes to the healthcare bill that must be approved again by the House after the Senate parliamentarian cut two minor provisions.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One en route to Iowa, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs brushed aside complaints from two big manufacturers, Deere & Co (DE.N) and Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N), that healthcare reform would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Gibbs said the healthcare law simply closed an accounting loophole that had been giving them a subsidy.

Support for the law seems to be growing, according to a poll released by Quinnipiac University on Thursday. Before the House passed the bill, 54 percent of Americans surveyed disapproved of it, while 36 percent supported it, the poll found. After the vote, the disapproval rating dropped to 49 percent versus 40 percent. (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, Alister Bull and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Peter Cooney)


Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill
Mar 25 12:11 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer
HAVANA (AP) – It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.

“It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence … the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago,” Castro wrote.

The longtime Cuban leader—who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008—has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled “Reflections,” which are published in state newspapers.

Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba’s ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.

In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.

While Fidel Castro was initially positive about Obama, his essays have become increasingly hostile in recent months as relations between Cuba and the United States have soured. Washington has been increasingly alarmed by Cuba’s treatment of political dissidents—one of whom died in February after a long hunger strike.

Cuba was irate over the island’s inclusion earlier this year on a list of countries Washington considers to be state sponsors of terrorism. Tensions have also risen following the arrest in December of a U.S. government contractor that Havana accuses of spying.

In Thursday’s essay, Castro called Obama a “fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism” but also praised him as “unquestionably intelligent.”

“I hope that the stupid things he sometimes says about Cuba don’t cloud over that intelligence,” he said.

Obama Goes Soft On Iran

Obama Goes Soft On Iran

March 25th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Softens Sanction Plan Against Iran

VIENNA — The U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win support from Russia and China for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among provisions removed from the original draft resolution the U.S. sent to key allies last month were sanctions aimed at choking off Tehran’s access to international banking services and capital markets, and closing international airspace and waters to Iran’s national air cargo and shipping lines, according to the people.

The U.S. and allies are trying to force Iran to rein in a nuclear program that they worry is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Tehran says its nuclear activities are peaceful. The U.K. and Germany, concerned that Russia and China would reject the resolution outright and preferring to turn up pressure on Iran gradually, persuaded U.S. officials to drop or soften several elements, including some of the document’s harshest provisions, the people said.

U.S. officials said they wouldn’t comment on the day-by-day negotiations taking place among the Security Council members. But they stressed that the Obama administration is seeking the toughest measures possible against Tehran while maintaining unity among the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, which are drafting the sanctions.

“We are seeking an appropriate resolution that puts significant pressure on the government,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Wednesday. “We continue to consult with various countries, and it’s our desire to maintain unanimity. It will be a strong united statement that Iran will have to pay attention to.”

The disclosure of weakened proposals came as U.S. officials sought to persuade Russia and China to back measures against Iran in a conference call on Wednesday among the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, the first such meeting including China since mid-January.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to the United States to patch up relations ended in “humiliation” as Washington dressed down its close ally over settlements, Israeli media said on Thursday

Israeli media slams PM’s bid to end US row
Mar 25 07:23 AM US/Eastern
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to the United States to patch up relations ended in “humiliation” as Washington dressed down its close ally over settlements, Israeli media said on Thursday.Leading newspapers said Netanyahu now has his “back to the wall,” with US President Barack Obama demanding major steps to revive the peace process that threaten the premier’s mostly right-wing coalition.

Netanyahu insisted ahead of his departure that the two sides had made “progress” in resolving a row over continued construction in annexed Arab east Jerusalem which has hindered US efforts to revive the peace process.

But Israeli army radio said the visit had done little to repair relations and was at best a “disappointment” and at worst a “resounding failure.”

Israel’s Haaretz newspaper said Netanyahu had left Washington “disgraced and isolated” after a flurry of meetings that unusually included no public statement or joint photo opportunity.

“Instead of a reception as a guest of honour, Netanyahu was treated as a problem child, an army private ordered to do laps around the base for slipping up at roll call,” it said.

Israel’s Maariv newspaper said: “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage.

“Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea,” it added, using Netanyahu’s nickname.

Israel’s Yediot Aharonot said the carefully coordinated dressing down came with an explicit demand from Obama that Netanyahu take measures to restore confidence with the Palestinians, who have refused to negotiate with Israel without a settlement freeze including east Jerusalem.

Obama demanded that Netanyahu extend a limited 10-month settlement halt past its deadline, pull Israeli forces back from parts of the West Bank and release hundreds of prisoners in a gesture to Western-backed Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, the daily said, citing unnamed sources.

“Everyone understood that this time Obama had Netanyahu with his back to the wall,” it said.

The two close allies have been mired in a diplomatic crisis since Israel announced plans to build 1,600 settler homes in east Jerusalem earlier this month during a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden.

The move dealt a major blow to US-led peace efforts, coming just two days after the Palestinians had reluctantly agreed to indirect talks, and was seen as a major challenge to Washington’s credibility as a mediator.

Netanyahu apologised for the timing of the announcement but has vowed to continue building in east Jerusalem, which Israel seized in the 1967 Six Day War and annexed in a move not recognised by any other government.

Israel views the entire city as its “eternal, indivisible” capital, while the Palestinians have demanded the eastern part, home to some 270,000 Arabs and 200,000 Jews, as the capital of their promised state.

Obama risks alienating Jewish voters

Analysis: Obama risks alienating Jewish voters

By TOM RAUM (AP) – 13 hours ago 

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama reached out to skeptical Jewish political activists immediately after nailing down his presidential nomination in 2008, promising he would “never compromise” in his support for Israel. Now president, he risks alienating a core Democratic constituency by ratcheting up a public feud with Israel’s prime minister. 

Obama’s demands that Israel cancel new housing construction in Palestinian areas of east Jerusalem may be backfiring. The hardball tactic clearly failed to advance prospects for restarting Middle East peace talks, and it may be undermining Obama’s standing among Jewish groups in the United States. 

It also enabled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike a defiant stance while in Washington, to bask in warm bipartisan praise from congressional leaders and to visit the White House without having to apologize or give in to Obama’s demands. 

Yet Israel badly needs the United States as a strong ally. The two leaders are now caught in a high-stakes diplomatic standoff as both sides work to defuse rising tensions. 

Netanyahu held closed-door meetings on Wednesday with Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell and other U.S. representatives. But the talks, which extended well into the evening, ended without any breakthroughs. 

New Israeli housing construction in lands jointly claimed by Israelis and Palestinians is an issue that has frustrated a succession of U.S. presidents. In most cases, the U.S. has tended to fume then largely look the other way — acknowledging a no-win confrontation. 

But Obama chose to take a firm stand in response to Israel’s badly timed announcement — made during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit earlier this month — that it was building 1,600 new housing units in east Jerusalem. Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their eventual state. 

Perhaps emboldened as he moved toward a major domestic victory on health care, Obama dug in his heels and demanded a halt to the new construction. And in a break from tradition that many U.S. lawmakers saw as a snub, the White House accorded Netanyahu’s visit none of the trappings usually extended to an important ally. 

The news media were not allowed into any part of the initial 90-minute Tuesday evening meeting between the two leaders, or a follow-up 35-minute session. There was no joint news conference afterward, no statements about what transpired, not even a White House-produced photograph. 

Then, providing yet another irritant, Jerusalem officials said Wednesday the city had approved 20 new apartments for Jews in an Arab neighborhood of east Jerusalem. The White House said it was seeking “clarification” on Israel’s latest plans. 

Jewish voters, one of the most active political blocs in this country, have long expressed some misgivings with Obama, a nervousness that persists today. 

It began with false rumors that he was Muslim, his comments during the presidential campaign suggesting a willingness to meet with the leader of Iran and praise from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, for Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, who has made anti-Semitic remarks. 

But Obama reached out effectively to court the 5.3-million-strong U.S. Jewish community, the largest in the world outside Israel. He spoke at synagogues, included a stop in Israel on his whirlwind pre-election overseas trip, and ended up with nearly 80 percent of the Jewish vote. 

Jewish political activists are also important financial contributors, and their support will be important both in this year’s midterm elections and in the 2012 presidential contest. If they decide to pare back those contributions because of misgivings about Obama’s support for Israel, that could prove costly to Democratic candidates. 

Since Obama took office, his relations with Israel have been tense. He has visited the Middle East twice as president, but has yet to schedule an Israeli visit. Last fall, Netanyahu, under pressure from his right-leaning coalition, defied U.S. demands for a full freeze on settlements in the West Bank. 

At best, under Obama’s latest prodding, “Netanyahu will likely suspend some construction in east Jerusalem, which could pave the way for restarting Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks,” said Haim Malka, a Middle East scholar for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. 

“Even if those talks are restarted, it’s uncertain how the administration intends to move those talks forward or change the strategic calculations of either side,” Malka said. He said “fundamental differences” remain between the Obama administration and Netanyahu over the issues of negotiations, settlements and the fate of portions of Jerusalem captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. 

While Netanyahu’s reception at the White House was frosty, he was widely praised on Capitol Hill. 

“We in Congress stand by Israel,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “We have no stronger ally anywhere in the world than Israel,” said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. 

The pro-Israel lobby remains a potent one. On what other issue, for instance, have Pelosi and Boehner seen eye to eye? 

Officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee rallied to Netanyahu’s defense against the administration’s scolding when he addressed the group on Tuesday. “When disagreements inevitably arise, they should be resolved privately, as is befitting close allies,” said AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr. 

Whereas the president usually leads on most foreign policy and national security issues, Congress appears to have a stronger hand on Israel-related matters because of the strength of the lobby and strong bipartisan support for Israel. 

The pro-Israel lobby “is almost like a 51st state,” said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. “It’s strong. It has one issue.” 

Still, he said, if Netanyahu is trying to drive a wedge between the White House and Congress, he may wind up disappointed. “In the end, the president does have the power” to call most of the shots, Thurber said. 


A START towards Undermining Our Nuclear Security

– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. –

Morning Bell: A START towards Undermining Our Nuclear Security

Posted By Conn Carroll On March 25, 2010 @ 9:42 am In Protect America |

Yesterday the Kremlin announced that the Obama administration and Russia had reached agreement on a new nuclear arms agreement intended to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The declaration appeared to surprise the White House [1], as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only confirm that the two sides were “close” to a treaty. But U.S. officials confirm that “all major obstacles” in negotiations with Moscow have been cleared.

Russian approval of a new START agreement has been the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s “long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons” [2] policy. President Obama’s desire to appease Russia is why he began negotiations by unilaterally surrendering to Kremlin demands that the United States betray our Czech Republic and Polish allies [3] by going back on our promise to build ballistic missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe. Russians took President Obama’s easy and early capitulation on missile defense as a sign of naivete and weakness and concluded that the Obama administration was far more desperate for a new nuclear treaty than they were and, as The Los Angeles Times [4] reports, “used that fact in negotiations.”

The full text of the new agreement has not been released, but early reports indicate that it will not adequately address three key issues and would therefore compromise U.S. national security:

Verification: The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements. By focusing intently on the reduction in each nation’s strategic arsenal, the U.S. has lost some negotiating ground on the issue of verification. The Senate must ensure that the new treaty is adequately verifiable. There is no reason to sign the treaty if the verification mechanisms fall by the wayside.

Nuclear Modernization: Some arms control advocates insist that the U.S. has a robust nuclear modernization program. This claim is simply inaccurate. The truth is that America’s nuclear infrastructure is rapidly aging, in deep atrophy, and is losing its reliability and effectiveness. The U.S. is not producing new nuclear weapons, and its ICBM force is shrinking and not being modernized. In contrast, Russia and China are engaged in a major modernization effort. On December 16, 41 U.S. Senators voiced their concerns and signed a letter saying they will oppose the new treaty if it does not include specific plans for U.S. nuclear modernization as stipulated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Missile Defense: It is absolutely imperative that a new START agreement not undermine our post-Cold War defensive posture by linking offensive weapons with missile defense. But early reports indicate that the treaty does exactly that. The New York Times reports [5]: “Administration officials describing the draft treaty said its preamble recognized the relationship between offensive weapons and missile defense, but that the language was not binding.” But the Times goes on to quote retired major general Vladimir Dvorkin who says Moscow will scrap the treaty if the U.S. pursues missile defense: “If, for example, the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated.”

The Obama Administration’s arms control strategy has been deeply flawed [6]. It is based on outdated 1970s arms control strategy and 1960s idealism and naivete. It will not work because it does not account for Russian nuclear strategy [7], which is based on approximate parity between the two sides, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), denial of missile defenses to the U.S., and nuclear warfighting capability. The U.S. needs to reset the reset before the Obama administration is allowed to seriously undermine our national security.

Quick Hits: