WHEN WILL SOMONE IN THE MEDIA GROW A SPINE?

A wise signer of the Constitution once said: "A strong an stable rule of law and governance, and a history of paying our debts. Fosters growth and expansion which keeps foreign and domestic investors investing their money in the public coffers".

Unfortunately, the monetary base of this once great country has increased by 13 times under the last year of the Bush administration, but exponentially since Obama took office. This is the highest in our history, and I predict that prime interest rates will become double digit in three to four years. Reminiscent of the Carter years, only worse.Yet there is no clarion cry, not even a peep from the Obama adoring media!

No where can you read or see any warning news that the Obama administration is spending to much money that is the result not of tax income, but by keeping the Treasury printing presses on full bore.

Not only is Obama spending billions that are supposed to be for shovel ready projects, but are in reality to pay back groups that put him in the Oval Office.
His handling of the Chrysler debacle is an example of Obama's pragmatic approach to the rule of law and our Constitution.

Congress gave President Bush the Sarbanes/Oxley law in 2002. This law has A provision called Section 363(b) that relates to the bankruptcy laws, that has allowed Obama to make an end run around Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy laws. He used this to rig the Chrysler "fast track" bankruptcy IN favor of the auto workers union despite the fact that normal chapter 11 dictates that secured lenders are entitled to first consideration.
Instead Obama gave the unsecured creditors, the union,!0 billion dollars and almost half of the new Chrysler stock.
This violation of a fundamental principle of our Constitutional government gives less than a quarter of a dollar on a dollar invested by teachers' pension funds and other retirement funds. The UAW, while it has made some sacrifices in wages and benefits, will be given more than half ownership of the firm(New Chrysler) - a far larger share than it deserves under Chapter 11.

This lawness began with "The Emergency Economic stabilization Act". This law gave the constitutional powers reserved to the legislative branch to the executive branch. This resultED in TARP, and the avalanche that followed that effectively became a "slush fund" to pay off Obama's friends and allies!

This type of bankruptcy tramples on the constitutional provisions that have governed bankruptcy for decades, and will have a devastating effect on our economy if allowed by Congress, that can stop it, because this "new" bankruptcy deprecates the investor who would buy stocks and bonds normally. But if it is possible to give superior rights to unions or other unsecured participants. What will be the incentive to invest in companies? The lending and capital investment all across our economy will be adversely affected if the Congress allows Obama to strike down contractual rights!

And it is not over by any means. The Gm deadline is June 1st. They cannot possibly make the drastic changes to their administrative and union problems in a few days. I believe they will be handled by the Obama administration the same way Chrysler was . If Congress doesn't stop the trampling of Constitutional rights of Contracts. The Federal government will first take over GM, and then a rapid bankruptcy with secured investors getting 28 cents on a dollar invested, and the UAW will receive $10 billion of the tax payers money besides getting up to 39% OF THE "New GM" for their unsecured 20 billion. Source for information: The Heritage Foundation

Readers remember that "unbridled discretion, brings unbridled power" and we are well on our way to tyranny!

IT APPEARS THE CHRYSLER/FIAT DEAL WILL FAIL

The intrigue surrounding the "rapid" bankruptcy of Chrysler and the pending financial disaster of General Motors on June 1st appears to be never ending.
A story you will not read in the New York Times or see on the main scream media is the progress in Germany and Italy between Opel, Fiat and the German government regarding both Chrysler and GM.

Though the decision on who gets Opel will be up to GM, or the U.S. goverment, the German government will also play a big role because it would likely have to supply billions of euros in financing guarantees to the eventual buyer.

This has made the Opel tender a political hot potato as the German chancellor is just four months away from a general election and must decide how to save jobs and tax-payers money without losing votes.

Fiat chief executive Sergio Marchionne is looking to create the world's second biggest carmaker, after Japan's Toyota, by adding the assets of Opel and Vauxhall to Fiat's own brands and those of US carmaker Chrysler.This information will not sit well with our government and the Chrysler union.

German media reports, however, said the Fiat plan would involve total job cuts of about 18,000, compared to about 10,000 each for Magna and RHJ. Fiat is also seeking some 7 billion euros ($9.7 billion) in government support, about 2 billion more than Magna and RHJ require.
My question is will Obama offer the same amount of money or more if Fiat goes through with the deal?

Addressing growing media speculation, German government spokesman Thomas Steg called for calm, saying that any premature speculation on a political comment on Opel could affect a government negotiating position. He said the government would be looking at three key factors: a deal for carmaker Opel that secures the most jobs and sites in Germany and does not burden taxpayers.

Steg went on to say that until the government had met with industry experts and the federal state representatives no preference could be drawn.

Steg also reiterated that the primary decision lay with the GM/US, which still has to announce whether it is selling GM Europe, thus offering up Opel( a company that is part pf GM) for tender.

The US government has given GM until June 1 to restructure its operations and prove it can be viable without state aid, or face probable bankruptcy.That deadline is fast approaching!

Marchionne said we want to build a real European car company that will achieve worldwide success. We want to combine Fiat, Opel and Chrysler. If we achieve this we will be the second biggest car company behind Toyota and it will provide jobs not just in Germany, but around the world.
I wonder how this will sit with the Union at the new Chrysler if the deal does go through? And where is the U.S.news on the potential deal between Gm and Fiat for Opel?

CAP AND TRADE WILL BE ECONOMIC SUICIDE FOR USA

The push to pass the "Cap and Trade" Bill in Congress is being promoted by those wealthy politicians and the out of touch with the real world academics. Some like Al Gore stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars through his association with World organisations that profit from the marketing/trading of emission credits.
And I suspect there are many more politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle who will profit from this Bill if it is passed.

On the opposite side of the issue, the average American will have to pay more for driving a car that doesn't meet the new gas mileage standards, and it is estimated that heating and air conditioning bills for the average household will increase by more than a thousand dollars a year.

These type of free enterprise, private industry destroying measures are based upon a premise that is disputed by over three thousand scientists who study climate change. Yet those academics in Ivy League Schools who think they are so smart that they CAN THINK for the average citizen, In so doing, the law the back will arguably destroy our free enterprise system. to satisfy an EU and UN aspiration to form World government through international laws like "cap and trade" and a World Court that is supreme over all Countries Laws and Courts.

While we are marching toward National Bankruptcy with the massive "spendulus" program that will result is devaluation of our money, and a plethora of Socialism programs. Countries like Brazil, China and India are driving toward economic dominance by giving nothing but lip service to the air emission issue as this quote illustrates.
"While visiting Prague this week, Premier Wen Jiabao(Cina) shrugged off pressure from the European Union for China to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, though he backed EU efforts to reach a new global climate change accord to replace the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
He even went so far as to say this about the so called "developed" nations: " Wealthy nations, as history's biggest polluters, should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 China says in a policy document on climate change. The government also rolled out fresh help for solar power and other "green energy."
This despite China, which relies on heavily polluting coal for about three-quarters of its electricity, has sought to "spotlight" its efforts to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions, but has not committed to specific targets in climate talks.

The reductions China is calling for are based on the principles of "historical responsibility and fairness," the position paper says, and sets a hard line ahead of international negotiations on addressing global warming. Talk is cheep, especially when the Communist nation wants to see our Country and any free-enterprise Country to reduce their capability to compete with the growing economic "giant" of China! A country that will be making more and more cars for General Motors and Chrysler that will be shipped to the USA for sale, because their totalitarian State only allows the workers who make the cars only three dollars an hour!
And by the way, China has welcomed President Barack Obama's commitment to tackle climate change and re-engage in the international negotiations to come to an agreement in December. Of course they will cheer for everything that Obamna does to destroy the free enterprise system and productivity of the USA.Which is what I think is his hidden agenda!

The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period.
And the Bill is so long that the Democrats are talking about having speed reader read the Bill to Congress to satisfy the Promise, broken already many times, that Obama made that his administration will be open. The latest estimate of how long will it take to have a speed reader, read the Bill, is nine Hours!
I can remember when I was in College studying Political Science, that the average Congressional Bill was 30 pages long. Today the Bills are many hundreds,some Bills are more than a thousand pages. These massive Bills are filled with things that are inserted to hide from the public, and are never read by the Congressional staff much less the Congress person!

This quote from The "Right Side News" illustrates the impact this dastardly Bill will have on US taxpayers and business in general.
"Memorial Day was the target date set by Democrats Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) for passage of a cap-and-trade bill that promises economic hardship for all. The Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) would raise taxes on American families by nearly $3,100 a year, lead to huge job losses, and dramatically raise the energy expenditures of American households.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as numerous studies dictate.

"The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis determined that Waxman-Markey would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those previously rejected by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs.

A study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.
And a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15% noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

Given these dire consequences, some may be surprised that some of the nation's largest corporations are lobbying for this bill. Companies participating in the United States Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group of over thirty corporations(notably GE) and environmental activist organizations, are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so-called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases". So to make special interest groups and many politicians more wealthy. A Bill will be passed that not only hurts the private free enterprise system, but taxes all of us in this country who do not have the elected officials working for us anymore!

OBAMA TALKS THE TALK BUT DOES HE WALK THE WALK?

Like the weather if it doesn't suit you stick around and it will eventually change. Obama's positions and campaign promises have been unstable to say the least.
First there was his promise to release the photographs of the alleged torture of terrorist Muslim prisoners. He decided that their release would give aid and comfort to the enemy, so he blocked their release. Then there is his flip flop on the military tribunals.
Now his promise to close Guantanamo prison is apparently not going to be fulfilled, because Congress refuses to appropriate the funds needed to close the prison, and no U.S.Senator wants to have any terrorist imprisoned in his state, nor do foreign countries want them!
As a result, feeling political pressure, Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they planned to withhold funding( Obama asked for 80 million) to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until President Barack Obama presents a plan for handling its 241 detainees. Source: Wall Street Journal

Then there was Obama's statement that he did not want to own and run the Detroit based car companies, but he fired the president of General Motors and brokered a deal where the Union holds 55% percent of the Chrysler Corporation, and has guaranteed the warranties on Chrysler cars with the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. treasury!

Obama has broken at least ten campaign promises, including seven promises in signing the economy-shrinking $800 billion stimulus package, and one promise in signing the Lilly Ledbetter law and the SCHIP tax increase.

After it covertly inserted language into the stimulus package to protect millions of dollars in bonuses at AIG, a major liberal donor, the Administration later switched course and sought to curry favor with an outraged public by praising the House for passing a 90 percent bonus tax, a tax broadened to cover not just AIG but also employees at other, healthy TARP banks. On March 22, the New York Times reported that the Administration wants to impose vague compensation limits on all banks and financial institutions, whether or not they receive any taxpayer money at all, and perhaps all public companies as well. To avoid stringent application of those limits, companies’ executives would have an incentive to curry favor with their federal masters, by making campaign contributions to Obama and his liberal Congressional allies (the way AIG did). Meanwhile, the Administration is now backtracking on its earlier praise for the legislation that would tax the AIG bonuses.
And Obama promised that the public would have 5 DAYS to look online and find out what’s in his proposed bills before he signs them. Well, another promise broken. Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in US history andi t had only been posted online for 12 hours before it was voted on in the US House and Senate.


Obama also claimed the $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by his own Congressional allies, admitted that the stimulus package will shrink the economy over the long run, in reports and studies released before and after the bill’s passage.Source:OpenMarket.org

And yesterday he continued with his deception when he met with the Prime Minister of Israel.This quote from Press Secretary Gibbs illustrates my point.
"With each of them,( he is speaking about Israel, Syria and the Palestinians) the president will discuss ways the United States can strengthen and deepen our partnerships, as well as the steps all parties should take to help achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab states,"

Given that with the exception of Syria, peace already exists between Israel and the Arab states, and Syria and Israel have been having bi-lateral secret talks without help from the U.S, Obama is setting up as a goal for himself something that already exists.

With regards to Israel and the Palestinians,Obama's statement of support of a two state solution, notwithstanding Netanyahu's political posturing against it is not exactly earth shattering since that has been the goal for years.

With the United States the most important broker of peace in the region, Obama so far has shown little imagination, little strategic thought, and nothing in the way of new initiatives to bring to the process. The only thing Obama has been able to do to date, is unite the Israelis and Palestinians in their mutual anger against him when he made a major diplomatic blunder during the Democratic primary in a speech regarding Jerusalem.

In a speech given before 7000 Jews in Florida, Obama stated that he supported a unified Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. That of course brought a standing ovation since it meant a rejection of any idea of partitioning East Jerusalem to establish a capitol for a Palestinian state, an idea that is unacceptable to most Israelis and Jews.

But Obama's statement brought condemnation from the Palestinians within 24 hours and in what has lately become an almost daily occurrence with Obama, he reversed himself saying "that he was misunderstood and that what he meant by a unified Jerusalem was a Jerusalem with no barbed wire".

In February of 2008,less than a month after his inauguration, Obama released the statement, "Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."

Since making that statement almost a year ago, President Obama has consistently refused to make good on his campaign promise, and support legislation to stop Fortune 500 firms from hijacking federal contracts designated for America's nearly 27 million small businesses.

Not only has President Obama refused to propose even a single policy to address the problem, but he actually changed his Web site to remove the appearance that he had ever made the statement, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."
Is someone counting the broken promises? It's interesting to see how many it will add up until his re-election?

Modern politics seems to consist largely of the well-intentioned being fooled by scoundrels of one kind or another!

THE MUSLIM WAR IN THE WORKPLACE

While Secretary Napalitano tripped over her tongue trying to sort of apologize for her statement that returning Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, bible readers and gun owners were a national threat.She apparently ignores the potential threat that the government has created by allowing many thousands of Muslims into this country on work permits.
The agencies of the government were busy trying to close the loop hole opened by president Clinton, that allowed hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Somalia and Bosnia to enter the USA on work permit visas. This massive influx has raised a legal fight in the workplace between those companies that offered jobs to the Muslim refugees and the Muslims they hired over their demands that the employers allow them to practice the Muslim religion in the work place.

In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com, Ann Corco of Refugee Resettlement Watch shared her insights about this phenomenon. Her group has been chronicling the spread of “workplace accommodation” for some time. Her comments reflect this expertise and are worth quoting at length.

“At some point,” says Corco, “big businesses like meatpackers discovered they could keep wages low by using immigrant labor. During the Clinton Presidency, the State Department's Refugee Resettlement Program brought in over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims” who ended up working in Midwestern meatpacking plants.

“Somalis are the most obvious group demanding workplace accommodation,” Corco points out. “We have brought to the US over 80,000 Somali refugees in the last 25 years. The State Department has cut off all family reunification because they found through DNA testing that a very high percentage of Somalis lied to get into the US.”

Corco points to well publicized disputes between Somali Muslim workers and meat packing plants in Shelbyville, Tennessee, and Greeley, Colorado.

In Shelbyville, tensions led to interracial conflict. In 2008, “about 500 Swift workers, all Muslim and most Somali, walked off the job and marched a mile to Grand Island City Hall to protest for religious freedom,” according to a news report.

“They wanted prayer time during the holy month of Ramadan.

“The plant’s attempt to accommodate the requests led to counter protests staged by Caucasians, Hispanics, Vietnamese and African-Americans.”

In St. Cloud, Minnesota, Somali Muslim employees were awarded $1.35-million for “discrimination” when a meat packing plant refused to let them pray during work hours.

Is this sort of civil unrest, resentment and disharmony among neighbors really worth the dubious monetary benefits of “cheap labor”?

Ann Corco wonders who is behind it all.

“Some one or some group is organizing the Somalis,” she says. “There is no way on earth, they became that savvy in organizing without being taught the fine art of ‘community organizing’ using the Saul Alinsky playbook. Is it a coincidence that in Greeley and Grand Island, well-educated, English-speaking Somalis, just happened to arrive in those towns and get hired by Swift & Co. in the weeks prior to the demonstrations and walkouts?”

Echoing observations by others that the late Saul Alinsky’s radical theories have shaped the thinking of President Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and others currently wielding power in the political realm, Corco explains that Alinsky, “taught that you must create chaos to bring about change. A good agitator eventually wears people down. They don't have to win this year or next, it's the wearing down process that will ultimately succeed if we don't counter it.

“And, the Somalis are really good at it because they have an ‘in your face’ personality and they are very very smart.”

Corco warns that the Muslim holiday of Ramadan in August may see another upsurge in workplace demands and unrest, given the daunting requirements placed upon Muslims during that celebration, such as dawn to dusk fasting. In the U.K, some organizations have tried to impose Ramadan fasting rules on non-Muslim employees.

Lately, Muslim demands for workplace accommodation have met with increasing resistance, such as that seen in the Dunkin’ Donuts case. Last autumn, Somali Muslim cab drivers serving the Minneapolis airport lost an appeal in their ongoing campaign for the right to accept passengers who were carrying alcohol. (The city’s cab drivers have also caused controversy over refusals to accept blind passengers traveling with guide dogs.)

Ann Corco believes such developments demonstrate what can happen if non-Muslims vocalize their opposition to “stealth jihad” in the workplace.

“As for what people can do,” she says, “when Tyson's dumped the Labor Day holiday at the chicken plant in Shelbyville in favor of giving the entire plant off for Eid last year, the publicity came out very negative and very quickly. As a result hundreds of calls of complaint went into Tysons and the plan was modified---negative publicity is very important. These big companies can be swayed by negative publicity.”

Why is it that in a country that has all but banished the Christian religious symbols and holidays from all public places, the Muslims can successfully intimidate not only their employers but the judicial system to the extent that the above quote illustrates?
If you or I demanded that you have time during normal work hours to pray the rosary or another Christian prayer like the OUR FATHER. You know what the answer would be!!

However as Fritz said in response to this post:"So by trying to save a buck these companies ended up having to spend thousands in legal bills and suffer lower productivity. No sympathy from me. These are all the same companies that condone illegal immigrants so they can exploit them.

Hopefully its beginning to sink into these companies' thick skulls that not all cultures are created equal when it comes to getting work done. That's why the immigrants are fleeing their h##l hole countries in the first place".

IS OBAMA LIVING UP TO HIS OATH OF OFFICE?

In my opinion, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE OATH THAT THE PRESIDENT ELECT TAKES when he is sworn in on inauguration day is "to preserve,protect and defend the Constitution". Is his apparent determination to assume that the Iranians developing nuclear weapons is no threat to the USA a huge mistake? I think so, and those who are confronted with the immediate threat, the Israeli's, are of the same opinion, as this excerpt from the Jerusalem Post will illustrate.

" US President Barack Obama underestimates the threat Iran poses to global security. Were this not the case, he would not have sent CIA Director Leon Panetta to Israel ahead of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House.

Director Panetta was reportedly dispatched to Israel to read the government the "riot act". Israel, he reportedly told his interlocutors, must not attack Iran without first receiving permission from Washington. Moreover, Israel should keep its mouth shut about attacking Iran. As far as Washington is concerned, Iran's latest threats to destroy Israel were nothing more than payback for statements by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials regarding Israel's refusal to countenance a nuclear armed Iran."This of course is rediculous since Iran threatened to "wipe Israel of the face of the world map" long before the Israeli Prime Minister took office!

This would have some credence if it were not for the close relationship between Iran's madman and Venezuela and Nicaragua's dictators.
Over the past several weeks, we have learned that the administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy. Does this make us safer if a mad man has nulear weapons and has close association with other uuUSA haters in our hemisphere?

The administration's nonchalance about the threat of a nuclear armed Iran explains why the White House is so up in arms about the prospect of Israel acting independently to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. As far as the administration is concerned, the only reason Iran would threaten US interests is if Israel provokes it. As far as the administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself. But if Israel preemptively takes out Iran's nuclear capabilities, and Iran in turn attacks Israeli and US targets in the region, the Obama administration will hold Israel - not Iran - responsible for whatever losses the US incurs. That was apparently the message Panetta wanted to transmit to Jerusalem during his recent visit.This not only crazy! But seriously naive.

Venezuela's military alliance with Iran places Iranian military personnel and Hizbullah operatives at every level of Venezuela's military, intelligence and law enforcement establishment. For example, as the Washington-based Center for Security Policy's Western Hemispheric Security Project documented in a recent report, Hizbullah agents control Venezuela's passport agency.

In 2003, Chavez appointed Tarek el-Aissami, a known Hizbullah member to head the country's passport agency. Last year Aissami was promoted to serve as Minister of Interior and Justice. Then too, last June, the US Department of Treasury designated Ghazi Nasr al Din, a Venezuelan diplomat who served as the deputy ambassador in Damascus and Beirut as a Hizbullah agent.

Hizbullah has a large and active presence in Venezuela. It operates openly throughout the country through both Lebanese cells and through native Venezuelan operatives who have converted to Islam. In 2006, a Hizbullah cell comprised of local converts staged an attempted bombing against the US embassy in Caracas.

This Hizbullah has developed a formidable economic presence in Latin America. Although it has run a web of businesses in the region for decades, since 2005 the economic importance of these businesses has been eclipsed by the terror group's involvement in worldwide cocaine distribution facilitated through its close ties with Chavez and FARC. According to the US military's Southern Command, Hizbullah in Latin America earns between $300-500 million per year. This dwarfs the $200 million a year it receives from Iran.

In 2007 Iran and Venezuela announced that they were investing $350 million to build a deep water port at Nicaragua's Monkey Point along the Caribbean Sea. Iran also announced its plans to upgrade Nicaragua's Pacific Port of Corinto. Finally, Teheran announced it would build a dry canal connecting the two ports. Such a building scheme would enable Iran to evade the Panama Canal; to build its own military infrastructure within the ports themselves; and to freely camouflage missile ships as civilian maritime traffic and use them to launch short and medium-range missiles against the US. Moreover, with its massive army of Hizbullah operatives on standby, Iran could launch attacks through its proxies - as it did in its 1992 and 1994 attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires - and so deny it had anything to do with the attacks.

None of this should suggest that anyone expects the US to attack Iran's nuclear installations. The administration's policies clearly rule out any such contingency. As for Israel, regardless of what the US does, it should be clear that Jerusalem will not stand by idly and allow existential threats to emerge and grow.

What people - and particularly Americans - could have expected is that the administration would take seriously the threat that Iran poses to the US in the Western Hemisphere. Depressingly however, the administration's apparent decision to abdicate America's position and responsibilities as the sole global superpower has led it to also abdicate its position and responsibilities as the most powerful nation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, what the administration's refusal to acknowledge the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran - rich with proxies and allies at America's doorstep - poses to America demonstrates is that in its haste to blame its predecessor for the fact that the US has real enemies, the administration is abdicating its responsibility to defend America

itself". Hat tip to Caroline Glick of Jerusalem Post

So is Obama living up to his swearing to support and defend the Constitution upheld when is apparently endangering the people covered by that document by "making nice" with avowed enemies of the USA? As he extends his hand to Iran, are they extending their threat by supplying missile capability and know how to outspoken enemies of the USA like Chavez and Ortega. These idea logs hate the USA not because of Bush, but because of whom we are and what we stand for. Obama's hope of seeking a diplomatic solution is like trying to make a deal with the Devil!