NO-GO: NETANYAHU FEARS ISLAMIC AMBUSH

UPDATE 3-Netanyahu cancels trip to Obama’s nuclear summit

Fri Apr 9, 2010 1:01am GMT

* Netanyahu fears Islamic ambush at conference

* Sends a deputy in his place to Washington (Updates with White House, Liz Cheney comments)

By Douglas Hamilton

JERUSALEM, April 9 (Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has canceled a planned trip to Washington next week for President Barack Obama’s 47-country nuclear security summit conference.

He made the decision after learning Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal at the conference, a senior government official said on Friday.

Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East but has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons. It has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or NPT.

Netanyahu saw Obama at the White House late last month for talks on the stalled Middle East peace process with the Palestinians, but they failed to see eye to eye and relations between the two leaders remain at a low ebb.

“The prime minister has decided to cancel his trip to Washington to attend the nuclear conference next week, after learning that some countries including Egypt and Turkey plan to say Israel must sign the NPT,” the official said.

Israeli media said Netanyahu feared that Islamic countries attending the summit would try to shift its focus from nuclear terrorism to a concerted attack on his country’s presumed nuclear weapons capacity.

The White House said it had been informed Netanyahu would not attend the summit and that Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor would lead the Israeli delegation.

“We welcome Deputy Prime Minister Meridor’s participation in the conference. Israel is a close ally and we look forward to continuing to work closely on issues related to nuclear security,” Mike Hammer, White House National Security Council spokesman, said.

In New Orleans, hundreds of party loyalists at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference applauded when they were informed Netanyahu had just canceled his visit to Washington.

At the gathering, Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, blasted Obama for his “shabby” treatment of Netanyahu at the White House recently, saying it was “disgraceful.”

She added: “Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and one of our strongest allies anywhere around this globe. And President Obama is playing a reckless game of continuing down the path of diminishing America’s ties to Israel.”

UP TO 200 WARHEADS?

Foreign analysts believe Israel has been a secret nuclear power for the past 40 years and may possess a sizable arsenal.

Based on estimates of the plutonium production capacity of its Dimona reactor in the southern Negev desert, experts say it could have 100 to 200 advanced nuclear explosive devices.

Dozens of world leaders are due in Washington next week for the unprecedented conference, with Obama hoping they can agree on how to keep atomic bombs out of the hands of terrorists.

The summit will not focus on individual nations, but the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea — and possible new U.N. sanctions against Tehran — are expected to come up.

Both countries are excluded from the meeting.

Israel considers Iran’s suspected drive to build nuclear warheads a threat to its existence, but it hopes that diplomatic persuasion and sanctions will be sufficient to make the Islamic Republic drop its nuclear weapons aspirations, without resorting to the use of military force. (Reporting by Joseph Nasr and Douglas Hamilton, Steve Holland in New Orleans; Editing by Diana Abdallah and Peter Cooney)

Fitzgerald: Obama constructs a reality that does not exist

Fitzgerald: Obama constructs a reality that does not exist

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said. – from this news story

This is not only a problem in the United States. It is a problem all over the Western world. How are the people of Western Europe to understand their own reality if they cannot speak truthfully, and openly, about the ideology of Islam? If they have noticed — and they have at long last noticed — that Muslim immigrants are particularly aggressive, demanding, hostile, and un-integrable, save always for a small, discrete minority of people who arrive as Muslims but become integrable only to the precise extent that they cease to take Islam to heart, or even, in the best cases, as a result of the mental freedom and physical security that the West offers them, become estranged permanently from Islam (for who knows better what Islam is all about, than Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Magdi Allam, and all the other outstanding and brilliant apostates who offer us their articulate testimonies?), should the peoples of Western Europe not allow themselves to employ the only vocabulary that allows them to discuss this matter?

And when they realize, as many of them now do, that this is a problem not in one, or two, or a half-dozen, countries in Western Europe, but in all of the them without exception, and perhaps most noticeably so in the two countries that have elevated Tolerance to the level of State Religions (i.e., Denmark and the Netherlands), are they to be rendered mute through a policy that fills the collective heart of the O.I.C. with satisfaction and deep pleasure?

If they realize that these Muslim immigrants pose a permanent problem that no group of non-Muslim immigrants poses, should they be reduced to whispers? Should their permitted lexicon be lacking such words as “Jihad” and “dhimmi” and “Jizyah” and even, it seems, “Islam” itself? The latter word is always and everywhere, if applied to the case, to be modified fore and aft, with such meretricious verbal tricks as “Islamism” and “Islamists,” or sleight of word, as with “violent extremists” who have kidnapped — in the alternative, hijacked — “a great religion.”

If Israelis wish to begin to grasp their own reality, and to comprehend why “peace-processes” and treaties mean nothing, but are merely part of one unending Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya being used to whittle away at the state of Israel, in order to push it back into conditions of maximum peril and hopeless vulnerability, they will need to use, and to hear others use, such words as “Islam” and “Jihad” and “dhimmi.” If the Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims of India are to grasp the permanent threat to them, one not assuaged by a possible surrender of Kashmir, but that goes on, unassuageable, forever, they will need to use such words as “Jihad” and “dhimmi” and “Dar al-Islam.” If the Thais, or the Russians, or the Filipinos, wish to understand what it is that they are dealing with, they must — they cannot but — use the words that exist to properly explain this reality. The Christians of the southern Sudan, and the Christians of southern Nigeria, have used such words as “Jihad” before. They understand, perhaps better than those in the West, what Islam is all about, because in black Africa, the Arabs and those whom they have islamized and arabized have been able to treat the black African non-Muslims as roughly, as murderously, as they wish. They have had no need to engage in the kind of stuff we see Muslims engaging in here — Interfaith-Healing, Outreach Nights at the Mosque, taqiyya masters such as Tariq Ramadan spreading their smiling word in order to charm or confuse the unwary and the ill-prepared, and to keep up this mountebank’s patter at such a pace that no one who speaks quietly, logically, and with attention to the evidence can get in a word, or if he can get in a word, can truly and properly be heard by those unwary and those ignorant Infidels over the steady tariq-ramadanian hum.

Those who make policy and construct policies are dealing with a reality that they refuse to learn adequately about. In so refusing, they hobble themselves from thinking sensibly, and at times imaginatively, about what makes the most sense, what would weaken the Camp of Islam and thus the threat to all non-Muslims from Islam and its adherents. They prefer to throw money, and men, and materiel, at the problem. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, before we are through, will have cost well over three trillion dollars.

Think of what that could have done, as far as this country goes. We fight over a few hundred million here and there, we fight about health care and social security, and we keep avoiding, in some collective mental paralysis, connecting these budgetary woes with the sums being spent — futilely, and quite unnecessarily, in the lands of Muslims, in order to bring them (for how long? forever?) prosperity, to bribe them into (most temporarily) being “our friends.” This “friendship” consists of their not becoming or giving harbor to those “violent extremists” who, we tell ourselves, are a discrete, isolated group, when in fact any Muslim who now, or in the future, for whatever reason, chooses to take Islam fully to heart, can become one of those “violent extremists.” And long before that, Muslims have shown, in thought, word, and deed, that they do take Islam sufficiently seriously to attempt to press its case everywhere, to change our legal and political institutions and our social arrangements, to interfere with our academic teaching and thinking about Islam, to interfere with our freedom of speech, and our ideas of what can or cannot be spoken and written. They do all this unapologetically, with violence or the threat of violence. What’s more, they conduct, unhindered, vast campaigns of Da’wa targeted at the most vulnerable and also the potentially most dangerous kinds of people — the psychically and economically marginal — who, in converting to Islam, add to the security threat to all the non-Muslims. Those former fellow citizens, now changed utterly, become a threat to us and the political institutions of this country, and the physical security of its citizens.

Because of the ignorance of Islam at the top, we have instead locked ourselves into a Tar Baby policy that requires the expenditure of vast sums on places that cannot, because of Islam, ever embrace advanced Western democracy. They cannot — because of Islam — ever be our true allies, or ever be counted on to help suppress the forces of violent Islam. They will, however, do what they can to divert outside their countries, to the Infidels, the fury of those who are working against their own regimes, as the Saudi government’s “re-education” efforts of Al-Qaeda supporters consists not in ending their Muslim fanaticism, which the Al-Saud share or promote, but in redirecting their murderous fury away from the Al-Saud themselves to the Western Infidels who deserve whatever those local fanatics wish to inflict on them — just please leave us, the nice Al-Saud, alone.

Never before has such sustained stupidity, in the face of a decade of what should have led to some obvious conclusions, been exhibited by the Western world. Even with Hitler and the Nazis, there were only six years from his resistible rise in 1933 to the outbreak of war in 1939, when suddenly “everyone” appeared to have “known all along” what Churchill and a few others, and only they, had known. We have had perfectly good information — for those who do not put their trust in the New York Times but go online — about the Jihad, in its violent manifestations, and in those that employ non-violent means, for nearly a decade. We have had the vain efforts in Iraq and the vain effort now in Afghanistan, where the actual goals are never clearly stated, because to even attempt to do that would expose the whole enterprise to the quizzical looks, and the criticism, and even the mockery, that the assumptions upon which it rests deserve.

Eventually reality will break in. But when? At what considerable unnecessary future cost? Perhaps there are those in the Obama Administration who have never read “Politics and the English Language” by Orwell, though it is now a staple in freshman composition courses. Perhaps they are unaware of how Hitler and Stalin, refashioned the lexicon, or how such words as, for example, “People’s Democracy” came to describe the most despotic of regimes.

The Obama Administration does not strike me as full of people terribly interested in, or impressed by, faith — in the way that George Bush, a born-again Christian, was so impressed with what religion had done for him that he simply couldn’t believe that something — Islam — called a “religion” could be other than good.

So what is it that prevents the Obama Administration from learning about, analyzing, studying the history of, Islam and Islamic conquest, as it would, presumably, anything else? What makes it so fearful, in the councils and corridors of power, of people speaking truthfully about such matters, or at least asymptotically coming close to that truth, so that they are now apparently being deliberately told they cannot use the very lexicon they most need, and now most lack?

The self-inflicted intellectual wounds here will have, do already have, fantastic consequences — not good ones for us, but very good for the Camp of Islam — in the world we like to call “real.” But the Obama Administration is engaged in the political construction of a reality that does not exist, and is leading itself, and those whom it presumes to instruct and protect, astray.

Oil could give kiss of death to recovery

Oil could give kiss of death to recovery

By Gregory Meyer and Michael Mackenzie in New York

Published: April 8 2010 18:51 | Last updated: April 8 2010 18:51

Oil graphic for Markets

This week oil climbed to $87 a barrel, its highest level since October 2008 and prompted concerns that triple-digit crude was once again in the offing.

This was after a period of eight months when oil traded between $70 and $80, a narrow band that pleased oil producers without hurting consumers too much.

The latest surge seems to have been prompted by rising confidence in a global economic recovery, even if most traders and bankers are still cautious about supply and demand fundamentals.

Worries about the Greek economy have pegged prices back over the last couple of days but the more bullish Wall Street banks see prices climbing further, with Barclays Capital forecasting $97, Goldman Sachs $110 and Morgan Stanley $100 next year.

But the higher prices go, the deeper the concerns that they will stifle global growth. Jeff Rubin, a former CIBC chief economist and author of a book on oil and globalisation, says: “Triple-digit oil prices are going to threaten a world recovery.”

Pricier oil and other key commodities, notably iron ore and copper, could ripple through the economy and financial markets, potentially triggering inflation and forcing central banks to lift interest rates from ultra-low levels. This could force bond yields higher, but lower the attractions of equities.

However, higher oil prices could lift energy shares. In the S&P 500 index, the energy sector is up just 2.4 per cent this year and was barely positive in the first quarter, lagging behind the index’s 6 per cent gain for the year.

Nicholas Colas, ConvergEx Group chief market strategist, says: “With crude oil prices marching steadily higher, portfolio exposure to the energy sector could well become a key determinant of overall investment performance through the balance of 2010.”

Oil prices first hit $100 a barrel in January 2008, before continuing their rapid ascent to peak at $147 in July of that year. They fell to a low of $32 in December 2008, before recovering again. On Thursday oil traded at about $85 a barrel.

The latest rise comes as the economic recovery fuels a jump in oil demand after the first global decline in a quarter century. Supply is not a worry, as the Opec oil cartel has more than 6m b/d of capacity to spare in a pinch.

One difference from last year is that then the oil price was rising against the backdrop of a weaker dollar. This year crude and the dollar have risen together.

Policymakers seem untroubled. Energy ministers at the International Energy Forum in Mexico last week embraced less volatility, not lower prices. Lawrence Summers, director of the US National Economic Council, in remarks this week bemoaned his country’s dependence on foreign oil supplies, but did not complain about prices.

Some economists do not view $80 oil as a threat to global growth, which the International Monetary Fund projects at 4 per cent this year. James Hamilton, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, is author of a paper that found oil’s 2008 surge to $147 a barrel helped tip a housing-led slowdown into a recession. This time, the relatively steady nature of the price rebound has allowed consumers to adjust.

“The shock value is gone now,” Prof Hamilton says.

Hussein Allidina, commodity strategist at Morgan Stanley, says the $100 oil he predicts next year would increase the “oil burden” – a function of demand, prices and global output – to about 4 per cent from 2.8 per cent late last year. This would hurt developed economies more than emerging ones, as the latter are powering global growth and can afford fuel subsidies, he says. The IMF estimates consumer petroleum subsidies will reach almost $250bn this year.

“If we were to move to $100 a barrel, economic growth would start to slow, but ‘derail’ is likely too strong a word,” Mr Allidina says.

A move to higher oil prices would not necessarily generate corresponding gains in retail fuel prices, as new refining capacity has made petrol markets more competitive. In the US, filling stations in most states still sell petrol for less than $3 a gallon, well below the peak of 2008. In the UK, however, petrol prices are close to record highs, even though crude is well below its peak.

In any case, prices are as much an effect of the economic expansion as a threat to it. China, the fastest-growing economy, is alone expected to consume 520,000 b/d more this year than last, contributing a third of global demand growth, according to International Energy Agency estimates.

“You can’t have a global recovery without the oil price recovering as well,” says Lutz Kilian, a University of Michigan economist who has studied the effects of oil shocks. Because demand is fuelling prices, “the only way to keep oil prices down is to remain in a recession, which hardly sounds attractive”.

The prospect of higher prices is still alarming to many observers. Olivier Jakob, of Swiss consultant Petromatrix, said in a note that the “recovery of 2009 was fuelled with crude oil at $62 a barrel, not at $90 a barrel or $100 a barrel. We fear that the latest run on WTI will be the kiss of death for a global economy that was trying to avoid the possibility of a double-dip recession.”

When oil prices last surged to $100 a barrel in late 2007, US and other rich-country consumers blunted the impact by drawing on home-equity loans and credit cards to finance petrol purchases, says David Greely, energy economist at Goldman Sachs.

“It does raise the issue if we’re in a much more credit constrained world going forward, are consumers able to do that or will they be more sensitive?” he asks.

Harmful hints of a hand to Hamas

Harmful hints of a hand to Hamas

By BENNY AVNI

Last Updated: 5:01 AM, April 7, 2010

Posted: 1:38 AM, April 7, 2010

Some of President Obama’s friends are making quiet overtures to Hamas — the terrorists who control Gaza. Even if this doesn’t lead to an official dialogue, the administration’s failure to distance itself from such efforts undermines US allies and US alliances.

A seasoned former US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Pickering, and a key member of Bill Clinton’s team at the 2000 Camp David talks, Robert Malley, sat down in Zurich last summer with top Hamas politburo members, Osama Hamdan and Mahmud Zahar.

A classmate of Obama’s at Harvard, Malley has long argued that Middle East diplomacy should include Hamas and Syria. He was an Obama adviser on Arab-Israeli issues in 2008 — until the campaign had to sever ties in the wake of media attention to his regular meetings with Hamas leaders.

Plus, as the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, State Department official Rachel Schneller was on an Al Jazeera debate panel with Hamdan in Qatar last month — and shared coffee and a private chat with him later.

Schneller is on sabbatical, so State enjoys some deniability about her official role. But even weeks after the fact, State officials can’t say if top brass had sanctioned her participation in the Al Jazeera panel.

With the administration still slapping Israel and reaching out to Syria, all this raises fears that Obama might have one of his most drastic foreign-policy reversals yet in the offing. At the least, suspicion is strong that the president has blessed these contacts with a wink and a nod: Meet these folks, see what you can get, then we’ll talk.

America’s long-stated policy is it won’t talk until Hamas fulfills three conditions: recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and abide by all agreements previously signed by Palestinians and Israelis.

Yet Hamas can’t meet those conditions without rejecting its defining goal, which is to assure that no part of Palestine is controlled by infidels — Jewish, Christian or atheist. The best it can promise — but not necessarily deliver — is a limited cease-fire.

State officials tell me that Pickering and Malley are “private citizens,” and that the policy is unchanged. And another Clinton-era Mideast negotiator, Aaron David Miller, insists there’s no reason to fear: “What good could possibly come from an officially-sanctioned meeting with Hamas? Nothing, just a headache,” Miller told me.

But in the region, very few people buy the administration’s line. Hamas officials say Obama is different from all his predecessors. As its deputy “foreign minister,” Ahmed Yussuf, told the Journal, “We believe Hamas’ message is reaching its destination” — the White House.

And Egypt’s main government mouthpiece, Al Ahram, last summer ran a story saying the Zurich meeting had been “coordinated with and promoted by” the State Department. (The Egyptian government considers Hamas a threat, since it’s an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — which only recently renounced, semi-convincingly, plans for a violent takeover in Egypt.)

And Israelis view this in the context of their own troubles with Obama. “In a period when engagement with one’s enemy is the buzz word in Washington, one can’t rule out that Obama is testing the waters with Hamas,” a former Israeli UN ambassador, Dore Gold, told me.

Then there’s Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — who relies on America and Israel for protection from Hamas. Any sign that Washington is courting his enemies reduces his already-failing street-cred.

Obama has tirelessly promoted “engagement” with the North Korean “rogue regime,” as well as the terror-sponsoring states of Iran and Syria; it doesn’t seem a stretch to think he will reach out to Hamas, too. Until the president himself convincingly condemns these efforts, much of the Middle East will suspect he’s about to fall into that trap

beavni@gmail.com

Something to think about!!!

Something to think about!!!
Shep Smith, Fox News.
If you check Obama’s last trip over seas. His wife left just after their visit to France as stated below.
She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. The pieces of the puzzle just keep on coming together!

I was at a Blockbusters renting videos, and as I was going along the wall, there was a video called “Obama”. There were two ARAB men next to me. We talked about Obama. I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband…
 
They told me she couldn’t go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq .
I said “Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia , Turkey and Dubai .” They said that Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law he would not be allowed to bring his wife into countries that accept  Sharia Law.
 
I just thought it was interesting that two Arabs at Blockbusters accept the idea that we’re being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed.
 
They also said that’s the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia .. It was a signal to the Muslim world.
 
When I received this it made sense to me, but there were also a couple blank spots.

Thus, I sent it to a friend who is a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert, Dr. Jim Murk.

Here is his explanation that states a little clearer what the Arabs at Blockbuster were saying.
“An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices shari’ah law, which includes Saudi Arabia .

It is why Obama left Michelle in Europe , or at home, when he went to Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this included his bowing to the Saudi king.

Obama is regarded as a Muslim in these countries simply because he was born to a Muslim father. Note that he has downplayed his Christianity–even spoke of his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus –by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C., but simply attending the chapel or services at Camp David ..

He also played down the fact that the USA was a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense.

He has also publicly taken the part of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel Finally he ignored the National Day of Prayer.

He is bad news.  He is God’s judgment on America .” Jim Murk
 
Thus once again ACTIONS speak louder than words. Check out Obama’s. Do they appear treasonous to you or is it just millions of us who think so?

The president without a country

The president without a country 
By Pat Boone

  
“We’re no longer a Christian nation.” – President Barack Obama, June 2007

” America has been arrogant.” – President Barack Obama

“After 9/11, America didn’t always live up to her ideals.” – President Barack Obama

“You might say that America is a Muslim nation.” – President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president, I keep wondering what country he believes he’s president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale’s “The Man Without a Country,” a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, “Damn the United States! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!”

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: “You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country’s naval vessels – under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed.”

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan’s dying hours in his small stateroom – now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore – never fails to bring me to tears.  And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president – a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white – I want to ask him, “Just what country do you think you’re president of?”

You surely can’t be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It’s because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn’t you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark “Federalist Papers” – “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers – and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation – to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892 – “Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900′s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a “wall of separation between church and state” was used to deny some specific religious expression – contrary to Jefferson’s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute. Were your ideas about America’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that “America is no longer a Christian nation”? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that “America has been arrogant”?

Even if that’s the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of “not always living up to her ideals,” how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be “considered a Muslim nation”?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a “Muslim nation”?

Why are we not, then, a “Chinese nation”? A “Korean nation”? Even a “Vietnamese nation”? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you’re trying to make is a religious one, why is America not “a Jewish nation”? There’s actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution – and the success of our Revolution and founding – owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can’t you? You do recall Muhammad’s directives [Surah 9:5,73] to “break the cross” and “kill the infidel”?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are “no longer Christian,” who have “failed to live up to our ideals,” who “have been arrogant,” and might even be “considered Muslim” – you are president of a country most Americans don’t recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?

 PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH OTHER AMERICANS IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, BECAUSE YOU’LL NEVER SEE IT ON TV NEWS OR YOUR  LOCAL NEWSPAPER.      
                   

Morning Bell: Obama’s False START

Morning Bell: Obama’s False START

Posted By Conn Carroll On April 8, 2010 @ 9:24 am In American Leadership, Protect America | 37 Comments

Obama and Medvedev sign new START [1]

Just hours before President Barack Obama unveiled his Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters [2] in Moscow that the Kremlin maintained the right to withdraw from the new START agreement if the United States pursued its missile defense program. Late last night, the White House responded [3] to Lavrov’s statement, insisting: “The Russian statement does no more than give the United States fair notice that it may decide to pull out of the New START Treaty if Russia believes our missile defense system affects strategic stability. We believe it doesn’t.”

But the Russians couldn’t care less what the Obama administration believes about missile defense. The Russians have made it exceedingly clear that Kremlin compliance with the treaty will evaporate at any point when Moscow decides our missile defense program threatens them. And the Russians have already said [4] repeatedly [5] that they believe it does [6]. There is a good reason that neither Russian President Dmitri Medvedev nor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have uttered a word about the treaty in public. As New York University professor of Russian Studies and History Stephen Cohen told MSNBC just seconds after Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the agreement: “Politically it is an unstable treaty.” Why should the U.S. Senate ratify a treaty that Russia maintains it can exit at any time?

President Obama’s New START has other problems as well. The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements. By focusing intently on numerical arms reduction, it is unclear what ground Obama gave up on verification. There is also legitimate concern that the President has not yet met requirements under U.S. law (sec 1251 of the 2009 Defense Authorization Act) to adequately address the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons and infrastructure before entering into a new arms control agreement. But President Obama’s NPR promises not to develop any new nuclear weapons. That’s an odd promise since Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are all doing so.

Taken together, New Start, the NPR and next week’s Nuclear Security Summit all raise significant questions about the soundness of the administration’s nuclear strategy. The President has made it clear that he sees the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as the core of U.S. nuclear policy. But maintaining an effective nuclear force that protects the United States and its allies and combating proliferation and nuclear terrorism are not incompatible, as the President’s strategy suggests. The last administration made significant strides in countering proliferation, including establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative.

It is President Obama’s nuclear strategy that is contradictory. By having a smaller, less reliable, less credible nuclear force, the President’s strategy will increase the incentive for nuclear proliferators and the reliance of other states on nuclear weapons — the world will become a more, not less dangerous place. As The Wall Street Journal [7] reminds us today: “To the extent that more states haven’t gone nuclear, the reason has been U.S. power, not a treaty. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Canada could build a bomb in a week, but instead they have long relied on America’s nuclear umbrella to deter aggressors. A credible U.S. nuclear deterrent is the world’s greatest antiproliferation weapon.”

The right U.S. defense strategy would emphasize a modernized, credible nuclear force; comprehensive missile defense; and robust conventional forces, as well as vigorous efforts to prevent proliferation, illicit trafficking in nuclear technology and materials; and combating terrorism. This will provide for a more robust and effective deterrence for the post-Cold War World.

Quick Hits:

  • Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned [8] Wednesday that “unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”
  • According to projections by the Tax Policy Center, almost half (47%) of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes [9] at all for 2009.
  • Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told a townhall meeting in Florida last month that Obamacare does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance [10].
  • Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona joined Florida and 12 other states in a lawsuit [11] claiming Obamacare violates state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.
  • According to Rasmussen Reports [12], 55% of U.S. voters continue to think that media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions

Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

 

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a “new beginning” in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense,” said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

Ramamurthy runs the administration’s Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach “in pursuit of a host of national security objectives.”

Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming.

Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 U.S. embassies worldwide. And business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an “entrepreneurship summit” for Muslim businesses.

“Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?” Ramamurthy said.

To deliver that message, Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke to Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research.

He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

“They didn’t look up to the U.S. because we hated communism,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia.

The United States and the OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.

“President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, `We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,”‘ said World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari.

Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries — Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan — but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should have their children vaccinated.

“We’re probably entering into a whole new level of engagement between the OIC and the polio program because of the stimulus coming from the U.S. government,” said Michael Galway, who works on polio eradication for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Centers for Disease Control also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, the deputy director of the CDC’s immunization division.

Though health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.

Public opinion polls also showed consistent improvement in U.S. sentiment within the Muslim world last year, although the viewpoints are still overwhelmingly negative, however.

Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.

But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a “crusade” and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice” — words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America’s enemy as “Islamic extremists” and “radical jihadists.”

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

“I did recommend that, in my judgment, it’s unfortunate because of the way it’s heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion,” Hughes said. “Whenever they hear ‘Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,’ they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That’s the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.”

Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, said Obama’s efforts build on groundwork from Bush’s second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.

“In some ways, it didn’t matter what the president did or said. People weren’t going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to,” Zarate said. “The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start.”

Obama’s foreign policy posture is not without political risk. Even as Obama steps up airstrikes on terrorists abroad, he has proven vulnerable to Republican criticism on security issues at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.

“This is the long-range direction we need to go in,” Ramamurthy said.

GOP Will Win House and Senate

GOP Will Win House and Senate

Posted By Dick Morris On April 7, 2010 @ 10:17 am In Congress, News, Obama, Politics | 300 Comments

Stanley Greenberg and James Carville claim that the Republican Party has peaked too soon. Incredibly, Greenberg says that “when we look back on this, we’re going to say Massachusetts is when 1994 happened.” Stan’s only claim to expertise in the 1994 elections, of course, is that he’s the guy who blew it for the Democrats. Right after that, President Clinton fired both of the flawed consultants and never brought them back again.

article-1135603-034A1057000005DC-377_468x286

Their latest pitch is that the highpoint of the GOP advance was the Scott Brown election and that, from here on, things will “improve slightly” for the Democrats.

Once again, Carville and Greenberg are totally misreading the public mood. Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called “moderate” Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rise.

Were Obama’s ambitions to slacken, perhaps a cooling-off might eventuate. But soon the socialist financial takeover bill will come on the agenda, followed by amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap-and-trade and card-check unionization. Each bill will trigger its own mobilization of public opposition and add to the swelling coalition of opposition to Obama and his radical agenda.

And, all the while, the deficit will increase, interest rates will rise and unemployment will remain high.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama Vows More Nuclear Cuts

Obama Vows More Nuclear Cuts

April 8th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

captphoto_1270726537893-1-0

PRAGUE (AP) – President Barack Obama says a new arms pact with Russia sets the stage for further cuts in the two nations’ nuclear arsenals.

Obama says he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (dih-MEE’-tree med-VYEH’-dyev) also have agreed to expand discussions on missile defense, and will aim for a dialogue on cooperation in that area.

The treaty was signed by the two leaders in Prague on Thursday.

Obama called the spread of nuclear weapons to more states an unacceptable risk to global security that could raise the specter of arms races from the Middle East to East Asia.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers