U.S. grapples with idea of permanent nuclear N.Korea

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54S3XY20090529

We're too late. The UN is too late. But if there is still time, let's sit and think (or sht and stink) some more, to make sure it will be too late. Because it seems the only time that some of us can justify force is only after we've been hit. Otherwise we will appear aggressive and intimidating, and won't be able to live with ourselves or with the world's perception of us. So tell you what, for all those who think that way, if we are to be hit first, they should volunteer to be in the bullseye. The rest of us don't want to die, and will fight like hell afterwards.

Note to BO: This is what inaction ultimately leads to. History is replete with such examples.

Now substitute Iran for N. Korea in the title. Coming soon. At this rate, real soon.

A New Beginning for Israel

The Obama administration seems to be holding its ground, insisting that Israel cease building of settlements in the West Bank. This is a good first step.

Another would be supporting having Israel move the "security wall" out of the West Bank and into Israel.

Another would be restricting Israel's use of American military aid to defensive purposes.

Ideas like these are no-brainers - but have been off the table in the past; any public figure broaching these topics is given the AIPAC treatment, any media outlet that even writes about them in other than derisive terms is assailed as anti-Israel or soft-on-terror.

What is hopeful for Israel in this new approach, is that if forced to abandon the old crutches of aggression and intimidation, she may learn to take real steps toward independent citizenship in the world community.

The US is being forced to take more responsibility for its actions in the current economic climate, and must discontinue dead-end policies. The days of unquestioned acquiescence by the US to Israel are over, by economic necessity more than progressive politics. The long term results for Israel will be positive.

Sotomayor for USSC - Not

So, to mayor or not to mayor.
I say: Not.

We know that every nomination to the USSC is politically driven. It begins with which President makes the nomination, and revolves around whether the candidate will be a strict constructionist, the way Conservatives would have it, or a flaming revisionist, as favored by Liberals.

But beyond that, and much to the chagrin of many Libs, the Supreme Court is supposed to represent blind justice. I emphasize BLIND.

For all those who flunked civics, the Supreme Court is not a representative body of government. And selecting a Justice is not an ethnic popularity contest. It is not about diversity, skin color, gender, race, or any nonsense of the sort. And it is certainly not about legislating (or for those who will jump to correct me, setting "policy", either. Setting judicial "precedent" is far different from setting "policy", which is reserved for the legislature, not the courts.) It is about finding a person with the deepest and truest of intellect. An awe-inspiring mind; not an awe(ful)-inspiring agenda.

For BO, a former professor of Constitutional Law, nominating Sotomayer, a judge who does not appear to stand out within the jurisprudential fabric of the bar, but who is otherwise a woman of Puerto Rican descent, this is not only pathetic pandering and race playing, but an affront to the Constitution to prop up someone who will advance BO's result-oriented, policy-setting, jurisprudence on the highest bench in our land.

Here's one of the more insightful statements she's made about herself:
"[A] wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Really? I dont' remember learning that in law school. That would have made for a terrifically fun class.

She should be kicked off the second circuit for crap like this; not elevated to the Supreme Court. And if she were a white male, and the words reversed, she would be. What hypocrites!

Note to BO: A Supreme Court decision should not be based on the racial, ethnic or gender characteristics of either party before the Court. Nor should it be based on the same characteristics in a Supreme Court justice.
Why?
BECAUSE ALL DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION!
Why?
Because this is the bedrock that forms the basis for our laws and our society. If this is replaced with any changing criteria, such as a judge's personal view based on their heritage or any other crap, or on how a pending decision may appear through the eyes of a particular litigant (which BO says should be taken into account before a decision is handed down), then WE'RE HEADING TOWARD LAWLESSNESS. There will be no predictability, nor stability, in our laws and our society. The law will become tyranny's flavors of the day, which will change with the justices' moods, as well as with the physical characteristics of the litigants before the Court. And anytime a white man goes up against a woman or a person of any color, he'll know that he'll never win with Sotomayor.

The Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!

It's a complete freakin' disaster. We go to the Supreme Court for a decision on where we stand relative to the Constitution; not relative to a Puerto Rican woman, or a black man, or anyone else.

Fortunately, if she's confirmed, one Lib justice will be replaced with another, and the make-up of the Court will not change... this time. But what about next time? With this kind of direction, where are we headed!?

Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America AND Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Uranium to Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521731,00.html

According to Israeli intelligence, Venezuela and Bolivia supply Iran with Uranium. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America.
Wonderful. BamBam's policies are working!
How is BamBam going to deal with this issue? Apologize for American imperialism again?

And then there's North Korea...

Hey! Wake up!! The UN is powerless. If we don't protect ourselves (and this goes for Israel), no one else will. There will come a point when it will be too late.

Obama's Plan to Destroy Israel

At Konny's request I will post this on the blog for future reference

Daniel Greenfield - May 5, 2009

If there's one thing that the Carter Administration can be given credit for, it's creating the new wave of Islamist terrorism, both Sunni, operating out of Afghanistan, and Shiite, operating out of Iran. The Carter Administration cracked down on Israel and put its "faith" in Muslim terrorists, who then went on to wage war on America, even while Carter was in office.

28 years after Carter was removed from office, we're in reruns again with the Obama Administration, which is not only following the Carter line, but whose plans greatly exceed it. 28 years ago, Wahhabi Sunni and Shiite terrorists were generally an afterthought when compared to the standard USSR backed Marxist terrorist groups, such as the PLO.

Today, thanks in part to the Carter Administration, they control several countries and have designs on several more. From Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Gaza to Lebanon, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the threat is very real and bigger than ever particularly as the race by both Sunni and Shiite groups to build and deploy nuclear weapons continues.

Like Carter before him, Obama has chosen to cut backdoor deals with the Mullahs in Iran, offering them power over Iraq and Afghanistan, in exchange for quieting things down enough to let him hang up a Mission Accomplished banner and pull the troops out. "Peace with honor", preferably before the next election. The rape law for Shiites in Afghanistan, the push for a US funded Hamas/Fatah Unity government in the territories and the rising expansion of the Taliban are all fruits of this arrangement.

If Iran is to be our new best friend under this arrangement, Israel is to be our new best enemy.

Obama stacked the deck by deploying Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in a position that gave her an important title, but absolutely no power to go with it, while stacking the National Security Council and even the Pentagon with oil appointees in the pockets of the Saudis or his own left wing radical friends.

Israel electing a conservative government really put the ball into play, freeing up even more resources for attacking Israel. The strategy runs something like this.

The Obama Administration has broken down the Israel problem into two subsections, Israel itself, and American Jews.

Obama's people have studied the problem and understand where Carter went wrong. Obama does not want to have the same image problems as Carter in the Jewish community. Should that happen, the Beloved Leader and his lapdog press are fully prepared to unleash a Chavez style hate-on targeting American Jews. But that would be inconvenient and messy. Even with the changing face of America, there are significant differences between the average American and European or Venezuelan, and what kind of ugliness they are willing to tolerate. So Obama's people have split their attention in handling the two factors as two different problems.

American Jews - Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama's appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.

While outwardly courting Jews, Obama's people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70's have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries were intimidated and silenced.

Much as with conservatives, a list has been drawn up of those figures who can be won over, and those who cannot. The ones who can be won over are described as "moderates", the ones who cannot be won over are described as "extremists".

Meanwhile a bevvy of left wing Jewish In Name Only groups have been organized to play their part. Key among them is the Soros funded J Street, a group created as an anti-Israel lobby meant to eventually replace AIPAC. Meanwhile AIPAC itself has been kept on the ropes with such things as the well timed Harman leak. The message once again is fairly clear, cooperate and keep quiet, or we'll destroy you.

The multi-layered approach to American Jews can then be summed up as follows;

1.) Co-opt existing Jewish organizations and swing them to the left using old school 70's leftists.

2.) Create new "progressive" organizations to appeal to a younger generation of ethnically Jewish youth detached from any actual identity. Have these organizations generate attacks on the Israeli government and pro-Israel Jews, while creating phony polls indicating that most American Jews are behind them and Obama.

3.) Silence and intimidate remaining Jewish organizations and leaders behind the scenes.

The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.

Israel - The basic understanding in the Obama Administration is that Israel Must Go. In the worldview of the more moderate Obama appointees, Israel is a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. To the more left wing Obama advisors, Israel is a Western imperialist colonialist state that must be destroyed in the name of revolutionary justice. To the Islamist mindset, Israel is a Kufir state that has no right to exist in the Dar Al Islam.

While intractably hostile to Israel, the Obama Administration wants to avoid the kind of public confrontations that marked the Carter and Bush Sr administrations. Instead they would much rather model the way that the Clinton Administration waged a quiet war against Israel, removing one government, and forcing extensive concessions to terrorists, all the while keeping a happy face pasted on the whole affair.

On the one hand that means avoiding harsh public attacks on Israel, but keeping the pressure up for Israel to make extensive far reaching one sided concessions, to accept Saudi and Arab League "peace plans", to legitimize Hamas as the new government of the Palestinian Authority, and to insure that Israel does not reply to any rocket or terrorist attacks.

There are two forms of quiet leverage that the United States has on Israel, the first is financial and the second is military.

On the financial side, the goal will be to bring down the Netanyahu government coalition by destabilizing Israel economically. This is the surest and most direct path to bringing down Israel's conservative government and replacing it with a left of center coalition. The Obama Administration has a wide variety of tactics at its disposal for doing so, from the overt, such as targeting Israeli exports and imports, to the covert, that would involve targeting the Shekel. Additionally fundraising in the US could be investigated and groups such as the Jewish National Fund, prevented from raising money in the US. All of these have been in play before at one time or another.

On the military side, Obama's people will make their non-existent efforts to stop Iran's nukes conditional on more concessions to terrorists. Since Israel will never be able to make enough concessions and since Obama is working with Iran, rather than working to stop Iran's nukes, this is a hollow charade.

Furthermore while Israel has already been locked out of the military technology pipeline for anything cutting edge, it still remains dependent on US military equipment for parts and supplies. The decades of US foreign aid have also served to create dependency. Unlike many other countries, including even Sweden, Israel does not have its own jet fighter. Israel's Air Force is heavily dependent on US weapons, parts and equipment. Cutting Israel off, would leave the Israeli military dangerously vulnerable in the case of a war. This is an effective chokehold that has been used before to prevent Israel from attacking Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, as well as preventing Israel from carrying out a preemptive strike against its enemies before the Yom Kippur War.

The overall Obama policy will be to push Israel to the brink, using financial and military blackmail against the Netanyahu government, while maintaining control over American Jews to prevent any protests or backtalk.

The more Israel will offer, the more the Obama Administration will tighten the screws. No offer will be good enough, and Israel will be blamed for every breakdown in talks and every bit of violence that takes place. The media will portray Israel and particularly Netanyahu as extremist and intransigent. Hamas will be slowly whitewashed in the media, the same way that Arafat's goons were, (assuming that they prove more willing to cooperate in creating a positive media image of themselves than Ahmadinejad is.)

The plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff. Israel's enemies will be getting top of the line US military equipment. Israel will not. Israel will be squeezed economically until the Netanyahu government collapses, leaving a weak left wing leader like Livni in charge of Israel, and in charge of acceding to the new Pharaoh's demands.

Meanwhile so-called American Jewish groups will support Obama all the way, some because they were created precisely for that purpose, e.g. J-Street, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.  

That is the game plan and some of it's coming. The rest is already here.

When Barry Met Bibi

The Obama-Netanyahu meeting seems to have been a chilly affair:

There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the "benefit of having served" previously as prime minister and for having "both youth and wisdom".

The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.

It's in the grand tradition of delusional leaders to inflict ever goofier "linkage" on the Zionist Entity: Only solve the Palestinian problem and [INSERT CRISIS DU JOUR HERE] will go away! This time round the Israelis are being told that another go-round of the ol' "two-state solution" two-step will so entrance Iran that the nuke program will be mothballed.

This makes even less sense than the previously confident "linkage" that a Palestinian state would eventually make al-Qaeda beat their suicide bombs into plowshares. Iran has no interest in the Palestinian "peace process." The lack-of-peace process has enabled its proxies to annex Gaza and a big chunk of Lebanon. The only relevant linkage here is that Teheran's destabilization of the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon and beyond is a good indicator of where the broader region will head once the mullahs have gone nuclear.

It's interesting to watch how smoothly and painlessly first Europe and now Washington have accepted the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Alas, it's a little harder to digest not only for Israel but also for the Sunni Arab despots. Yet it seems to be only the hapless Jews the administration is pressuring. An Iranian nuclear regional hegemon will destabilize everything, from Egypt to the Gulf monarchies. And those "pro-American" states that have no particular desire to live under Teheran's umbrella will observe that Washington let it happen, reach their own conclusions about the so-called superpower, and make their dispositions accordingly.

Strange to see Obama lecturing Netanyahu about the iniquity of the "settlements": In a hundred days, he seems to have mastered perfectly the exquisite European technique of having attitudes rather than policies.

Withholding Torture Photos Could Make U.S. Weaker

President Obama's decision to stop publication of photos showing torture of prisoners by U.S. service personnel was reached by a calculus of greater complexity than the factors I perceive, so I do not oppose it now, but only raise cautionary issues, reserving judgment.

Mr. Obama's main stated reason against releasing the photos - stirring up anti-American hatred - paradoxically also contains a very good argument in favor of publishing them. Are we about torture or not? If not, there are no photos to discuss. But there are photos, so either we ARE about torture, or "a few bad apples" are ruining the whole bushel. The best way to prove it's the "apples," is to publish the photos along with a public adjudication of the perpetrators' deeds. Our moral authority in the world is restored, and the photos serve as evidence of justice for all [and not just them].

The photos will be published, and the only question is by whom. If a newspaper does not get hold of and publish them, eventually the Supreme Court will order their release. Under those circumstances, and especially if, by that time, no official responsibility for the torture is ascertained through prosecution, "truth commission," or other means, the photos will forever correlate to complicity between the torturers and the government.

We like to think of America in terms of our freedoms, and the idea of transparency in our governance is attractive. But free speech, to talk about reality television shows and which medications we want our doctor to think are right for us, is not so radical or precious. Free speech is only remarkable if it remains free in the face of danger and turmoil. During our history, America has experienced shameful instances where that freedom was curtailed, usually out of fear. In retrospect, it has seemed cowardly, and political operatives have skillfully manipulated those fears to advance their programs. Post 9/11 America has many such examples, which got us into war, cost us our privacy, and in the current context, has us defending policies of torture as necessary expedience.

Lack of courage by Democrats, as the opposition party in 2002 and 2003, haunts them today, as Republicans use it as a smoke screen to avoid reckoning for their transgressions while in power. Hope that the Republicans learned from the Democrats' error, and will provide a legitimate and reasoned opposition, seems faint, as the main message from their visionaries still plies our fears - abandoning torture will make us vulnerable.

Freedom is not absolute, and there are extraordinary cases, where we must accede to the government's greater understanding of world politics. We need to see solid evidence of those circumstances soon, or the surrender of our freedom of speech will become just ordinary.

Crossing party lines to disappoint everyone

Greg Aharonian, well known in patent circles for his PATNEWS blog, who is also a Democrat and BO supporter (at least up until BO got sworn in), now writes the below about the next possible Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos, the man currently in charge of IBM's intellectual property.

As time goes on and situations present themselves, it's becoming more evident to more people, that BO was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Today the Democrats in the patent community; yesterday the financial backers of Chrysler who also voted for BO. Tomorrow, who's next? More importantly, what's next?

From the May 6, 2009 PATNEWS by Greg Aharonian:
Second, some emails going around has that one of the candidates for PTO Director, James Pooley, has confirmed this week his nomination as Deputy Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. This pretty much puts him out of the running, leaving Todd Dickinson and David Kappos as the two frontrunners (Michael Kirk is a conservative Republican the examiner corps is not overly thrilled to have back).

Third, President Obama has upset high tech CEOS by promising to end tax breaks for U.S. companies that "create a job in Bangalore, India (rather than) one in Buffalo, New York". Does President Obama know that David Kappos' IBM has twice filed patent applications for methods to automate outsourcing U.S. jobs (retracting both apps in embarassment)? The latest app is 2009/083107. IBM India in 2002 had 4900 employees. Now? In 2008, IBM India had 98,000 employees. I ask President Obama, how many of these 98,000 employees were outsourced from "Buffalo" by IBM using technology in their patent applications managed by David Kappos?

Fourth, the PatentlyO blog points out two very disturbing Kappos comments that sound too similar to some of Jon Dudas' contempts: that "people no longer innovate individually" and that "many new innovations require investments of unprecedented size". Both are nonsense. In fact, someone tell President Obama that some of the best innovations in renewable and green technologies are coming from individuals and small teams spending their limited hard-earned dollars. I should know, for some of the best of this stuff I am asked to do patentability searches for. Yet, President Obama, once these true American inventors are ready to share their knowledge with the world in return for a patent, they face a patent examination pipeline clogged by IBM patents such as making reservations on an airplane to use the toilet. I find it hard to believe that Kappos won't carry these biases with him into the PTO, and act upon them. What message does President Obama send to the renewable/green entrepreneurs to
appoint a PTO Director who doesn't think such entrepreneurs even exist?

Hillary for US Supreme Court Justice

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_dems_court_outsider_tell_bam_not_to_pick_fed_judge_for_justice_souters_job.html

President Obama Advises Not To Replace David Souter with Judge

The theme from the Administration is that the Supreme Court needs to better represent the people... the downtrodden... How about another woman, a Latino, or another black person?


WELL, HOW ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE CASES BEFORE THE COURT?! The Supreme Court is NOT a representative body of government!


But all this con law baggage is a drag to our Prez. Let's stick with representation. And let's put Hillary on the bench! She's the best pick to be US Supreme Court Justice.


Oh, is there no end...?

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
You have to watch this video.

Sorry. But this is too damn easy. The facts are as plain as day.
So today we have Barney's Frank and Shmucky Shumer leading the charge to blame the Bush administration for this mess, AND calling for the banks to give more lending to low-qualifying people. If this weren't for real, I'd be having a great belly laugh.

They must think we're complete, blind, idiots. And they're right.
NO ONE calls them out on this. And no one is stopping this lunacy of spending money to do the things that led us here in the first place.

The wheels are coming off this administration's bus, and we'd better pull over and fix all this before we go over a cliff.

Obama's Health Plan

If he can do it with the banks and with the auto manufacturers, what makes you think he can't do it with your healthcare and your life? Read his own words. It's no exaggeration.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/01/obamas-health-care-rationing/
Bureaucrats will decide when to pull the plug

BO said: "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."

Are you serious!?

[BO] stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." For them, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."

Are you sh!tin' me!?

The time to really worry about your health is when a government bureaucrat, not your personal doctor, tells you what treatment you can have. Yet that's exactly the scenario endorsed by Mr. Obama. This position clearly leads to health care rationing. Nobody in the government or in any "political channels" should tell individuals how to make decisions about "the end of their lives." The only conversations happening should be personal, not democratic. It's not up to government to pull the plug.


Government healthcare is expensive. So not only is BO going to get the government (politicians and statisticians) involved in end of life decisions for the elderly who are on government health care, but he's going to expand this unsustainable, government controlled health care system to all of Americans. And we get to flip the bill.

Stop dreaming and listen carefully to what he's saying about your health and your life. "Democratic conversation"!? The country making decisions through political channels!?

Just imagine that conversation. Your elderly parent is on Medicaid and receiving care without which your parent will die. In walks a BO government official and has a statistical and economic discussion with you and your parent about how it will be better overall if they pull the plug and your parent drops dead.

This is some really scary stuff. I'm thoroughly disgusted with our President at this point. You thought GW was bad. This is beyond stupid.
Enough is enough.