Why Conservatives Love the Founders

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.
History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.
They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.
The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn’t changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.
They read it in Plutarch’s Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.
You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia’s serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)
America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.
The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.
Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.
America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history — because they understood that human nature hasn’t changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama.  It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.
The Left seems to believe that Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.
Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas — not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.
Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.
Russian president Medvedev said this last week – said it out loud, to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:
“President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights.  He also condemned Joseph Stalin’s record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.
… “Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven.”…
Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.
That’s why you liberals scare us.

Obama’s invisible Islam–Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam

Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression “radical Islam.” The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents – the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt – “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam.”

Mr. Holder said there are a “variety of reasons” why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That’s fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, “some of them are potentially religious.” Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad.”

Mr. Holder mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric now holed up in Yemen who has been mentioned in connection with all three attacks. Mr. Holder said that Mr. al-Awlaki “has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of [the faith].” Mr. Holder did not go into details to back up his assertion that Mr. al-Awlaki, an Islamic scholar, is somehow at odds with his own faith, nor did he pinpoint exactly what Muslim teachings he was referring to.

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Obama’s Burden of “Brightness” touted by Left wing media

Obama’s Burden of Brightness

By John Dietrich

President Obama is frequently described as highly intelligent. His advisor Valerie Jarrett has described this as a “burden.” She announced at the John F. Kennedy School of Government that “[p]art of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.” Advisor David Axelrod claimed, “He does have an incisive mind. This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” The president obviously shares this opinion, having told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid early in his Senate career, “Harry, I have a gift.”
The “progressive” media can be counted on to regurgitate this mantra. They have, in fact, surpassed it, and they have often entered the realm of idolatry or even adolescent infatuation. Chris Matthews is perhaps the leading example of this. Following one the president’s press conferences, Matthews claimed that “[t]he president showed his analytical mind. He was at his best intellectually. I thought it was a great example of how his mind works. What a mind he has, and I love his ability to do it on television. I love to think with him.” Matthews is famous for the frequent “thrill” that goes up his leg. He apparently also suffers from gender confusion. Watching Obama board a helicopter, Matthews gushed, “We agree, we girls agree. I don’t mind saying that. I’m excited. I’m thrilled.” Following Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, reports on the president became so fawning that even Bill Maher, no right-winger, commented that “the coverage … that I was watching from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him.” 
The commentators at MSNBC were not alone. Judith Warner, who writes for the New York Times, claimed that many women are dreaming of having sex with the new president. How did she know? Well, from personal experience. She shared her fantasy of finding President Obama in her shower. Was this news “fit to print”?
Another New York Times columnist, David Brooks, shared the experience of his first encounter with the President: “I remember distinctly an image of — we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks reported, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” Evan Thomas, Newsweek editor, provided this analysis: “I mean, in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world…he’s sort of God.” Historian Michael Beschloss, who might be considered an expert on American presidents, claimed that the current president’s IQ is “off the charts.” When pressed to reveal what he thought the President’s IQ was, Beschloss could only say, “he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Even many of Obama’s critics have bought into the intelligence hype. FOX news contributor Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard claimed that “for all his brainpower,” he is a “slow learner.”
This adulation may cause a serious problem for supporters of the president. Joe Scarborough pointed this out on his MSNBC program: “I tell you my biggest fear for Barack Obama, he has been sainted. He is Saint Barack. The same mainstream media that tried so desperately to get him elected has engaged in hyperbole, engaged in exaggeration. They have deified this man. … They have set up such unrealistic expectations that no politician could meet those expectations.” Scarborough might blame the media for this hyperbole, but they are only willing accomplices. The president himself has set the bar rather high. On June 3, 2008, he announced that future generations would look back on his primary victory as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
It would be unfair to elaborate on all of the president’s gaffes in order to bolster the argument that he is not as intelligent as his supporters claim. It was unfair of the progressive media to pillory Vice President Dan Quayle for misspelling “potatoe.” It was unfair to highlight every instance of Ronald Reagan and George Bush misspeaking. But is it professional for the media to edit a president’s remarks in order to correct them? President Obama, speaking of the Somali pirates, stated, “And I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region.” This was obviously a mistake. However, the major media reported that he vowed to “halt the rise of piracy” off the coast of Africa.
Can an individual who is obviously infatuated with a public figure provide an objective analysis of that figure’s policies? It seems unlikely.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).

Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don’t Work

Obama National Security Policy: Hope Their Bombs Don’t Work

May 6th, 2010

By Ann Coulter, Townhall

It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word “terrorism.” (And not to refer to Tea Party activists!)

This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to “jump to conclusions” after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and began shooting up Fort Hood.

After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it “Pack-i-stan” instead of “Pahk-i-stahn.” We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his “Hope, Change & Chuckles” tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.

In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that — contrary to the terrorists’ wishes — Americans “will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated.”

First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that “not intimidated” look Obama wants America to adopt.

Read More:

How close was the Times Sqauare bomber to getting away?

How close was the Times Sqauare bomber to getting away?

G. Wesley Clark, MD

How close did the Times Square bomber come to getting away? The FBI lost him from surveillance, and did not locate him until the final passenger list was submitted from Emirates airlines, after the doors of the plane were closed.Eric Holder says he “was never in any fear that we were in danger of losing him.”

According to the Obama official government version, as reported by AP and several other outlets, “he was in his seat and the plane was preparing to leave the gate. It didn’t. At the last minute, the pilot was notified, the jetliner’s door was opened and Shahzad was taken into custody.”

However, the actual flight controller recording shows otherwise. The plane was not at the gate, it was not just pushed back, it had taxied to the runway, and was “number one” for takeoff, had been switched to tower frequency for takeoff clearance, and the tower controller was actually in the middle of saying “position and hold” (on the runway for takeoff), when she ordered a return to the gate.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has a different version, alleges that bomber was removed from the plane, the plane taxied to runway, then was called back to remove two more passengers. Based upon the puzzled tone and query of the pilot talking with the controller, this sounds really fishy, and is most likely a CYA by the FBI or DOJ.

Thankfully, the Taliban is just slightly more incompetent at making bombs, than our government is at catching the bombers, and at protecting us.

Times Square Bomb Plot Revenge, Group Says Pakistani Taliban Claims Responsibility, Reports Claim

Pakistani Taliban Claims Responsibility, Reports Claim

Times Square Bomb Plot Revenge, Group Says

Updated: Sunday, 02 May 2010, 10:34 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 02 May 2010, 2:32 PM EDT

  • ADRIAN CARRASQUILLO
    MYFOXNY.COM

MYFOXNY.COM – New York City’s police commissioner says there’s no evidence of a Taliban link to a failed bomb found in an SUV parked in Times Square but said he couldn’t rule them out.

On Sunday, Fox 5 reported on a Reuters story that the Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the bomb plot.


COMPLETE COVERAGE OF TIMES SQUARE CAR BOMB


According to Fox News, in a 1 minute video allegedly released by the Pakistani Taliban, the group says the attack is revenge for the death of its leader Baitullah Mehsud and the recent killings of the top leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Images of the slain militants are shown as an unidentified voice recites the message. English subtitles are at the bottom of the screen.

According to the AP, an unidentified speaker on the tape also says the attack comes in response to American “interference and terrorism in Muslim Countries, especially in Pakistan.”

The claim could not be immediately confirmed andhe tape makes no specific reference to the attack nor does it mention that it was a car bomb or that it took place in New York City.

A text in gold letters on a black background at the start of the video congratulates Muslims for the “jaw-breaking blow to Satan’s USA.” As the speaker recites the message, images of the slain militants referred to flash across the screen. English subtitles are provided at the bottom of the screen.

The video was uncovered Sunday by SITE, which monitors militant websites and has been accurate with such militant claims in the past.

The Pakistani Taliban is one of Pakistan’s largest and deadliest militant groups. It has strong links to al-Qaida and is based in the northwest close to the Afghan border. The group has carried out scores of bloody attacks inside Pakistan in recent years, mostly against Pakistani targets, but it has made no secret of its hatred toward the United States.

The investigation into the Times Square bomb plot is ongoing. Mayor Bloomberg called the improvised device “amateurish”.

According to the New York Times, a 911 call on Sunday morning warned that the bomb plot was merely a diversion for a much bigger explosion that is set to happen at Times Square.

More information on these developments throughout Sunday. The FBI released the following statement:

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, along with the NYPD, has responded to Times Square in response to the vehicle and device. Bomb technicians, Evidence Response Team members, and investigators are on scene and a command post has been established. All of the resources of the New York FBI office are available to assist with this ongoing investigation. Numerous initial reports will be checked and authenticated and the appropriate leads will be set.

Question Authority (the Cartoon)

Obama’s Demoralized Left

Obama’s Demoralized Left

By Bruce Walker

The Gallup Poll generic congressional ballot of registered voters shows that those supporting Republicans and Democrats are in a statistical tie, with Republicans at 46% and Democrats at 45%. The real story, though, is the huge advantage that Republicans have in enthusiasm about voting. Gallup shows 57% of those supporting Republicans as very enthusiastic and only 37% of those supporting Democrats as very enthusiastic. 
Several weeks before, the Marist Poll published a revealing profile of New York voters. The partisan breakdown of those “very enthusiastic” about voting this November showed these percentages: Republicans (34%), Democrats (25%), and Non-Enrolled (20%) — a modest edge for Republicans.  The enthusiasm of New York voters widened significantly when the ideology of the voter was considered: 38% of conservatives were very enthusiastic about voting; 22% of moderates felt the same; and only 18% of liberals were very enthusiastic about voting. The left in America is demoralized. This slide will continue, for several reasons:
The War on Something-or-Other. Obama must keep troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He must respond to Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power. Many of his supporters disapproved of the Bush Doctrine, but they will want an Obama Doctrine that keeps America and Israel safe. Obama has no such plan. He will be forced to adopt a watered-down, disguised Bush Doctrine. This is what Democrats over the last fifty years have done. Recall the muddled mess of LBJ and Vietnam, Jimmy Carter and Iran, and Bill Clinton in Somalia. Articulating the case for America comes easy to Reagan conservatives but hard to McGovern leftists. After years of bashing Bush, Obama must follow his lead, and that will leave his cadres bitter.
Been there; done that. When Barack Obama became president, millions of Americans who did not support his radical leftism smiled that white America had elected a black president. However, once Obama was elected, the mystique vanished. We have seen this before. Carter in 1976 was the first candidate from the Deep South since the Civil War. He was an evangelical Christian who spoke openly about his faith. In 1976, Carter carried every state of the Confederacy except for Virginia and Texas, both of which he almost carried. Many Southerners and evangelicals saw Carter’s election as curing an old bigotry against them. Carter won because of those voters. 
But what happened in 1980? Carter lost every state in the South except for his home state of Georgia. Now, having a Southerner on the presidential ticket means as little as having a Catholic or a Jew or a woman on the Supreme Court. Since Carter left office, six Southerners have been on the presidential ticket: Bush, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Edwards. Conservative Southerners have carried the South, and leftist Southerners have lost the South. “Been there; done that” seems to be the attitude of Southerners since Carter. Voters who supported Obama as the first black president have made their point. Next time they will stay at home or vote for the policies and not the man. 
Jilted friends. Obama is drawing heat from big labor, who feel that he has done little for them. Gays heckle Obama, feeling also that they have been jilted. “Civil libertarians” bemoan his continued use of some of the “Bush” tactics against terrorists. Environmental radicals yelp when he even ponders more drilling for oil. Feminists (pro-abortionists) are upset about the Stupak compromise on abortion, meaningless though it is. These jilted friends are not going to vote Republican, but they are less likely to contribute or to campaign for someone they see as a feckless friend.
How radicals triangulate. Republicans will make big enough gains in November to deny Obama the luxury of ignoring them. Clinton after the Republican landslide of 1994 was able to “triangulate” — to appear to place himself between conservatives and the left. But Clinton professed to be a moderate. As the multi-term governor of a conservative state, Clinton learned his magic trick well. Obama, however, is to the left of much of the Democrat Party. When Republicans push popular conservative measures like repealing health care, cutting taxes, and aggressively drilling for oil in America, the triangulation will leave Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson in the middle. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (or the new Democrat floor leader) will be the far corner of the triangle. Obama can either appear hapless or “sell out.” Either course will demoralize his supporters.
Messiah fatigue. The president is almost as ubiquitous as Big Brother in 1984, but he does not reign over Orwell’s Oceania. Every redundant or pointless appearance Obama makes diminishes him. Americans know all about advertising and self-promotion. We are savvy about oversold products, particularly political products like Obama, who works in an utterly scripted and unchallenged public environment. This fatigue affects Democrats, too. All Americans bore easily when the same face is saying the same things. It does not help that these hoary nostrums of Obama are more than a century old.   
The demoralization of the left will affect 2010, but the biggest bite could be in 2012, when Obama faces voters again. If an Obama Malaise keeps growing after 2010, that could embolden leftist Democrats to challenge him for the nomination — that happened to Johnson in 1968 and to Carter in 1980. We have a chance, and we must not throw it away. Now is the time to be energized, be bold, and be sure. If the left is tired, scared, and unsure, then that is our chance to reclaim America. Carter led us to Reagan. Obama may lead us to a similar victory. 
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity

Shockingly Weak Obama Shockingly Moves To Weaken Iran Sanctions

Shockingly Weak Obama Shockingly Moves To Weaken Iran Sanctions

April 29th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

r972425069

Washington Times:

The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in “cooperating countries,” a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama’s desk by Memorial Day.

“It’s incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of “cooperating countries” in the legislation.

Neither the House nor Senate version of the bill includes a “cooperating countries” provision even though the administration asked the leading sponsors of the Senate version of the bill nearly six months ago to include one.

The legislation, aimed at companies that sell Iran gasoline or equipment to refine petroleum, would impose penalties on such companies, up to the potentially crippling act of cutting off the company entirely from the American economy. It also would close a loophole in earlier Iran sanctions by barring foreign-owned subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran’s energy sector.

Although Iran is one of the world’s leading oil exporters, it lacks the capacity to refine as much oil into gasoline as its domestic economy uses. Three years ago, the Iranian government imposed gasoline rations on the population.

“We’re pushing for a ‘cooperating-countries’ exemption,” the White House official said. “It is not targeted to any country in particular, but would be based on objective criteria and made in full consultation with the Congress.”

Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen, however, said the exemption “is aimed at China and Russia specifically.”

“The administration wants to give a pass to countries for merely supporting a watered-down, almost do-nothing U.N. resolution,” she said.

All past sanctions against Iran have included a waiver that lets the president refrain from penalizing foreign companies that are doing business with Iran.

The “cooperating countries” language that the White House is pressing would allow the executive branch to designate countries as cooperating with the overall strategy to pressure Iran economically.

According to three congressional staffers familiar with the White House proposal, once a country is on that list, the administration wouldn’t even have to identify companies from that country as selling gasoline or aiding Iran’s refinement industry.

Even if, as current law allows, the administration can waive the penalties on named companies for various reasons, the “cooperating countries” language would deprive the sanctions of their “name-and-shame” power, the staffers said.

The prospect that China and Chinese firms would be exempt from penalty follows reports that Beijing is cooperating with Iran’s missile program. On April 23, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that China broke ground on a plant in Iran this month that will build the Nasr-1 anti-ship missile.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he directs the group’s Iran energy project, said the “‘cooperating-country’ status would send a signal to the energy sector that the Obama administration is not serious about penalizing those companies that continue to do business with the Iranian energy sector, the lifeblood of the men who rule Iran.”

Indeed, Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of the French national oil concern Total, told Reuters news agency on Tuesday that his company would stop business in Iran only if required to do so by the law.

“I’ve been asked by certain people to reconsider,” he said. “I say, ‘OK, make it official.’”

However Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said U.S. policy objectives should not be to penalize foreign companies, but instead to persuade countries like China to enforce their own trade restrictions with Iran.

“If the administration can use this ‘cooperating-countries’ waiver to get cooperation from a country like China on enforcing the U.N. sanctions and on suspending investment in Iran’s oil and gas industry, then this bill will be a great success for U.S. objectives about Iran’s nuclear program and support for terrorism,” he said.

One congressional staff member working on the bill told The Washington Times that Mr. Obama personally asked the House leadership this month to put off the sanctions bill until after the current work period. Shortly after that meeting, both the House and Senate named conferees for the legislation.

U.S. unilateral sanctions aimed at freezing foreign companies out of American markets have been irritants in U.S. diplomacy. Foreign countries complain that imposing such “secondary sanctions” is just a form of protectionism.

The Obama administration has promised to pursue sanctions at the U.N. Security Council and also has indicated it would pursue unilateral sanctions targeted at Iran’s banking sector and the companies that insure shipping to and from Iranian ports.

Keith Weissman, a former Iran specialist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said he did not think the current refined-petroleum sanctions would be effective.

“Of all the sanctions I have been around, this is one of the dumber ones,” Mr. Weissman said. “We have been talking about this for so long, the Iranians are ready for this. Not only are they building the capacity for refining the fuel, they will have more capacity to purchase it from regional countries.”

Nonetheless, a number of foreign companies have announced in recent months that they would end business in Iran in anticipation of U.N. and U.S. sanctions. Some companies that provide Iran with refined petroleum, such as the Indian firm Reliance and the Kuwaiti trader IPG, have announced they would end the gasoline shipments.

Mr. Weissman was accused in 2005 by the federal government of conspiring to leak classified information to a Washington Post reporter. The Justice Department dropped the charges last year.

Because oil-refining sanctions would end up increasing the price of gasoline and heating oil for average Iranians, they have been opposed by many in Iran’s “green” opposition movement, such as Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights lawyer.

Mojtaba Vahedi, a former chief of staff to opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi, said in a telephone interview that he would prefer to see targeted sanctions aimed at Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its front companies.

“The main problem in Iran is the management of the country, everything that helps to remove [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is good for the people, especially smart sanctions that target the regime,” he said.

Obama Is Enabling Nuclear Breakout

Obama Is Enabling Nuclear Breakout

By James Lewis

Jimmy Carter didn’t want to be known as the Ayatollah Appeaser, but that’s how history has him chalked up. Bill Clinton played dumb about the 1994 World Trade Center bombing, actually blocking the flow of foreign intelligence between Justice and the CIA, and thereby enabled 9/11/01 — the second al-Qaeda attack on Manhattan in seven years. The liberal media are still in shrill denial of those facts, but history will not forget their failures. Historians will ask over and over why yet another feckless Democrat was elected in 2008. How could Americans be so blind to the circling jackals of this world? 
Now Obama seems intent on reversing the Cold War and letting nuclear proliferation explode. In Congress, the Democrats are committing mass suicide for him. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Obama is giving us the Raw Deal.
But FDR presided over the bloodiest war for America since the Civil War. He didn’t want to be a war president, but when Pearl Harbor came, he did not deceive himself the way the Left has deceived itself since 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a plain act of war, and Americans in 1944 got that instantly. Four years later, Harry Truman didn’t plan to begin the Cold War against Communist aggression with a defensive war in Korea. But that’s how it turned out. “Events, my dear boy,” said Harold McMillan. Events decide how presidents will look to history.
Obama is now set to be the biggest loser of the last sixty years — the man who let nuclear weapons explode out of control by fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the threat. The implications for the future are  unpredictable, but just as World War II was more consequential than the New Deal, there is nothing an American president can do that is more important that his national security actions. When — not if — nuclear proliferation runs out of control, it won’t look like the Cold War, when only two superpowers had usable missiles and weapons, and when, after Stalin died, both sides acted fairly rationally.
Instead, Obama’s towering failure means a multi-polar race to get the baddest bombs, with the mullahs racing the Sunni Arabs and a very real chance that Hezb’allah or al-Qaeda will get enough material to build a dirty nuke. Only advanced missile defenses will save us, and if America doesn’t speed up our defense development, then the saner nations in the world will do it. They are not going to wait for us.
When unstable tyrannies like Iran, North Korea, Libya, and even Venezuela have nukes, Obama’s self-glorifying ego trips will fade by comparison. The only question Americans will ask will be: How well did he protect his country? We forget that for the last ninety years, America’s military power has been kept at the razor’s edge — not because we somehow decided to conquer the world, but because we had to resist the imperialistic aggression of the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao (by proxy in Korea and Vietnam), and the Soviet Empire. Liberals pretend that war is all the past, but history hasn’t ended.
Today we see murderous tyrannies rising again, and Obama is too busy navel-gazing to see them for himself. Hugging Mugabe is more his style. So nobody is driving this train, and an abyss yawns just ahead of us. 
Jimmy Carter actively enabled the Islamofascist overthrow of the Shah of Persia, one of the great traditional imperial powers of the Middle East. Turkey, another great power for five centuries under the Ottomans, has now slipped back from a century of increased political tolerance toward radical Islam, and is now siding with Iran against Israel. Iraq, another imperial center that goes back six thousand years to Sumer, is torn between Sunnis and Shiites, which means Iran against the Arabs. The Saudis helped finance Pakistan’s nukes and missiles, and they can import them as soon as they give the signal. Arabia is the heartland of Islam, and Iran has had its eyes on Mecca and Medina since Khomeini. The end of war? Only in Liberal Land.
Radical Muslims are ideologically resistant to the Enlightenment values of tolerance, science, free speech, elected governments, and free trade. They are not like India and Japan, which have adopted modernism at a very deep level in the last half century. But since Khomeini took over Iran, all the modernizing forces in Muslim lands have been forced backwards. Islamic radicalism was much less of a problem before that huge defeat for civilization. Jimmy Carter was therefore criminally naïve (and still is today), Clinton didn’t even try to face the facts of international life, and Obama is the worst of all. He is mentally stuck in third-world Leftism, and he has shown no capacity to learn. So much for “progressive” politics driving us back to the past.
A small but ominous event happened two weeks ago at the “nuclear summit” of 45 nations, most of which have no nuclear capacity at all. At the summit, Obama publicly snubbed the president of Georgia. The American media were too dumb and ignorant to get it, but Putin and Eastern Europe took notice, all right. Georgia was, after all, the first country to be invaded by Russian tanks since Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
Two years ago, Putin stole the province of Abkhazia from Georgia, and today they are committing ethnic cleansing there. For Obama to snub Georgia’s president at a big international powwow sends the clearest possible signal to Czar Putin: Go ahead — we won’t stop you. That’s why the Russian Bear is snarling again in the Ukraine, Poland, Syria, (where it is building deep water ports), Iran (where it just declared its intention to complete the Bushehr nuke reactor), and anywhere else it sees easy prey. Predators act like predators. It’s not a surprise to saner folks.
The astonishing thing about Obama is that he actually signals American weakness deliberately; he is the anti-Reagan to the ultimate. Only the American people are kept in the dark.
A week after Obama’s snub of Georgia, a Russian-maintained, Russian-manufactured airplane carrying Poland’s president Lech Kaszinksy, its army chief, its central banker, and 94 other leaders died in a suspicious crash at Smolensk. We don’t know if Putin sabotaged the plane — easy enough to do — but we know that he regularly assassinates his opponents, domestic and foreign. Putin poisoned the president of the Ukraine with dioxin and killed a former KGB spy in London with radioactive Polonium. Is there a link between the death of Poland’s political leadership and Obama’s signals of weakness? Well, the timing was perfect. It also happened to be the anniversary of Stalin’s massacre of Polish officers in Katyn forest. Coincidence? Nobody who knows that history will believe that.
Obama has now publicly humiliated the Prime Minister of Israel, the PM of Britain, the Queen of England, the Czechs, the Poles, and the Japanese. He has bowed ostentatiously to the Saudi king, the former god-emperor of Japan, and the president of China. Those are not slips of diplomatic etiquette. They aren’t even eccentricities for this ultimately weird president. They are deliberate signals to the world, and our enemies know exactly what they mean.
The United States has plainly failed to stop North Korean and Iranian nukes. Saudi Arabia just announced plans to build a nuclear plant. North Korea just blew up a South Korean warship. All the little mad tyrannies around the world see nuclear weapons as their key to survival and power forever.
Nuclear breakout can’t be far away.