Istanbul and Moscow: The Capitals of an Emerging Axis of Evil
Joel J. Sprayregen
May 18th, 2010
BY ED MORRISSEY, Hot Air
This must be what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean by “smart power.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not exactly known for his erudition or deep intellect, has managed to outmaneuver the US on uranium enrichment, reaching a deal with Brazil and Turkey to exchange raw nuclear fuel for processed fuel rods. That deal still allows Iran to enrich some of its own uranium, but even while the US objects, it allows political cover to Russia and China:
Iran backed the Obama administration into check in its ongoing nuclear chess match by announcing its own fuel swap deal after a Western-backed plan fell apart last fall.
The country, trying to avoid sanctions after it rejected a deal with the U.S., Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy Agency in October, steered around the United States in brokering a swap with Turkey and Brazil.
In a sense, Iran left the Obama administration an out by declaring it would continue producing 20 percent enrichment uranium even as it proposes shipping nuclear material to Turkey. To become official, the deal still has to be agreed to by the same group of nations that pursued the deal last fall — and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement that while the fuel swap would be a “positive step,” any move to continue enrichment internally would be a “direct violation” of Security Council resolutions.
The UN’s Economic and Social Council has just elected Iran to a seat on the UN’s women’s rights commission. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ship the entire UN, lock, stock and seating arrangements, to Iran?
…”Pragmatic cooperation” with the ICC-for example, helping it with investigations and sitting in on court bodies, [proponents argue] would give the U.S. a voice on decisions that affect its interests, such as helping the ICC define the “crime of aggression.” U.S. officials were stunned that a recent draft defining aggression was so wide-reaching that NATO would have been criminally liable in the 1999 Kosovo war…
…The ICC’s indictments have so far targeted nasty characters in Africa, but the court has always resisted outside oversight, especially from the U.S. What’s more, no amount of reform of the founding treaty will change the ICC’s inherent flaw. The ICC is a child of the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction,” which holds that courts can adjudicate crimes [by their definition] committed anywhere in the world.
And other Obama acolytes support a constitutional overhaul to allow more direct control to those in power, without the messiness of congressional action – as originally stipulated in the Constitution. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court Justice, has warned about Obama’s “living constitution” views :
…the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts. It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution – not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times,” a “living constitution,” resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe…
As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, [the constitution should] be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges.
Morning Bell: The Ahmadinejad Victory Tour
Posted By Conn Carroll On April 29, 2010 @ 9:26 am In American Leadership, Protect America | No Comments
Yesterday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had submitted an application for a visa to attend the United Nations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York next month. Since Crowley also confirmed that Ahmadinejad is likely to be awarded the visa, the Iranian President can now look forward to witnessing first hand the failure of President Barack Obama’s Iran policy.
At first the White House believed that President Barack Obama’s sheer power of personality and persuasion would be enough to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear program. So the President gave a conciliatory speech in Cairo , sent a direct message to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , and opened up direct talks with the Iranian regime . The results have been crystal clear: the Iranian regime has only accelerated its nuclear program , accelerated its ballistic missile program, and further crushed internal dissent, all while the Obama administration remained silent  as the Green Revolution was brutally crushed .
Now the Obama administration is seeking “crippling” sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Security Council. This is another Obama fantasy that plays right into Iran’s “cheat, retreat, and delay”  nuclear strategy. Whatever goodwill the Obama administration hoped to get from Russia by caving into their New START demands has not paid off . With help from Turkey , China and now Egypt , Iran’s rope-a-dope  U.N. diplomacy will render any U.N. sanctions regime completely toothless .
All these Ahmadinejad victories over President Obama would not be so alarming if the Obama administration were not actively undermining our nation’s ability to deter and defend against Iranian nuclear attack. First there was President Obama’s decision to cancel missile defense installations in Eastern Europe . The Obama administration claimed that their alternative system, called the Phased Adaptive Approach, could defend U.S. allies by 2020. But a recent Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report  warns Iran may be able to reach the United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by 2015. This means President Obama has created a new “window of vulnerability”  for our enemies to exploit.
And then there is President Obama’s New START agreement which limits U.S. conventional, nuclear and missile defense options. Former director of the Missile Defense Agency, Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, noted in The Washington Times  this week: “Strangely, New START may actually rest on what Russia permits the United States to do to defend Americans and our allies from such a missile attack. This equation is both bizarre and unsafe.”
“Bizarre and unsafe” is a generous assessment of the Obama administration’s efforts to protect America from Iran’s nuclear ambitions so far. The Obama administration must change course. The United States should impose and enforce the strongest possible sanctions , even if doing so requires action outside of the U.N. framework, and step up public diplomacy efforts to discredit the regime’s legitimacy and offer support to opposition groups, such as the Green Movement . Most importantly the Obama administration must make the commitment to create and sustain a layered missile defense system , designed to counter every range of Iranian missiles in all stages of flight, including those that threaten the territory of the United States and its allies. This would include scrapping New START, returning missile defense installations to Eastern Europe and fully funding missile defense. For more, see 33 Minutes .
By James Lewis
With the economy in the tank, unemployment hovering at ten percent and over four million jobs lost since he was elected, one would think President Obama would have more important things to talk about than what his opposition says or does on a daily basis. In fact, most former presidents would rather focus on their job than be distracted by a daily war of words with their opposition. In an effort to stay above the fray and maintain their “presidential” status,” former presidents usually let their surrogates do political hand-to-hand combat.
But not President Obama. He could care less that his provocative statements might show him as unfocused or even un-presidential. In fact, the President’s provocative statements are a calculated political strategy intended to divert attention from his socialist agenda.
President Obama’s is just following Saul Alinsky’s methods from his book, “Rules For Radicals,” to change America into a socialist European-style socialist nation.
Excerpts from Alinsky’s book help illuminate, in part, President Obama’s propensity for making frequent provocative statements: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” These rules have worked for President Obama his entire political and community organizing career, and continue to work to advance his socialist agenda today.
Putting Alinsky’s methods into practice, President Obama will continue to say and do provocative things in order to identify the target so he can; ” freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Following the President’s lead, the liberal media will reinforce and defend any and all of his provocative statements. Once the opposition is identified, they will be branded as dangerous right-wing radicals and railed against, on a daily basis, by the liberal media until they are marginalized. This scenario has been playing out since before President Obama was elected, and will continue throughout his tenure in office.
Unless the Republicans can take back the House and Senate this November, President Obama, with the help of his willing accomplices in the liberal media, will lead America slowly and methodically into socialism. Like a frog in a pot of cold water, gradual warming will result in the frog being boiled without making any effort to escape.
Feel free, fellow Americans – while you still are – to investigate the facts regarding President Obama’s radical strategies and socialist agenda.
When these facts become clear, read the following words from the “Declaration of Independence,” and see what “we the people” have a “right” to do when “any form of government becomes destructive.”
“…that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Exposing President Obama’s socialist agenda, and getting enough people to declare their independence from it, may be the only way to keep America’s melting pot from boiling.
Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.