ALL TALK AND NO RESULTS WITH IRAN!

October 24, 2009

The Times of London is reporting that Obama’s offer of friendship to Iran is about to be rejected, as anyone could have predicted who is not a worshiper of the Democrat “messiah”.

From Times Online October 24, 2009
“Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel.
Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.
Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign emissaries with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad.

Tehran’s proposals fall far short of the deal drawn up in Vienna by the United Nations atomic watchdog and endorsed by the UN, the US, Russia and France. It would not only fail to reduce Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium — now large enough to fuel one nuclear warhead — but it would also require the waiver of pre-existing UN sanction”s.

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail. But without the co-operation of the Communists in China and the quasi-communists in Russia, unless a blockade of Iran is established. The Iranians will get anything they want from Russia and China, and the rest is just talk!

It has been six months since Obama made the commitment to talk to Iran with no pre-existing conditions, to convince them to stop their quest for nuclear weapons.
He made the commitment on March 20th 2009, and yesterday(10/23/09) Iran threw his proposal back in his face! It appears that Obama has yet to learn that power and force are the only thing tyrants respect.
Obama has the ability of using the full force and power of his office as president to intimidate and vilify his opponents of his health care and cap-and-trade proposals, but he speaks softly without the “big stick’ when he speaks to dictators and tyrants!


Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
OBAMA SPEAKS SOFTLY WITHOUT THE “BIG STICK”!

OBAMA IS NO KENNEDY OR REAGAN

COMMERCE WITH THE AXIS OF EVIL?

Iran Nuke Talks? Well, Maybe Not

Posted in THREATS TO US
Tags: FAILURE, Iran, nukes, obama, TALKS

YES MADAM SPEAKER WE ARE SERIOUS!!

Friday, October 23, 2009


Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

CNSNews posed a question to the power happy “capo” of Obama in the House of Representatives that illustrates the extent the left has shredded the Constitution to accomplish the power grab of Obama and the Democrats.
The following is a direct quote from a CNS reporter that asked what Constitutional authority the Congress had to demand that Americans buy health insurance or be fined.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question it asked Speaker Pelosi by sending written questions for the speaker via e-mail to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. “If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

This is the most preposterous part of the contention/argument. Insurance company’s are presently forbidden to be domiciled in one state and sell in other states. That is what keeps the price of health insurance artificially high. If the Congress passed a law eliminating the provision that forbids a person in New York from buying a health insurance policy in any other state. This would create more competition and reduce the premium prices. There is no interstate commerce in health insurance now because of government prohibitions!

Further more, Doctors are licensed by the State not the Federal government. Where is the interstate commerce here?

The capitation clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, reads “[n]o capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Capitation here means a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per taxpayer. Direct tax means a tax levied directly by the United States federal government on taxpayers, as opposed to a tax on events or transactions. The United States government levied direct taxes from time to time during the 18th and early 19th centuries. It levied direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates in the late 1790s, but cancelled the taxes in 1802.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, outlawed the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition in voting in Federal elections. The 1966 Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections extended this explicit enactment as a matter of judicial interpretation of a more general provision, ruling that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Today we are facing a tax more heinous than a poll tax. WE all know that since the poll tax was abolished and made illegal, some (at times many) people still do not vote. Also, everybody does not get sick. Particularly the young adults who have not entered the years of debilitating and sometimes fatal diseases like hypertension, diabetes and cancer. Why should we force these people, who a large portion of the uninsured, to get insurance or be fined?

Americans who fail to sign up for a medical plan after health care overhaul takes effect could be hit with fines of up to $3,800, according to a new proposal circulated Tuesday by a senior Democrat.This would be included in the Baucus’s bill that is currently slated for a vote sometime before Christmas.



“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said a 1994 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique,” reads the report. “First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

And the most odious thing about this whole fine,aka TAX, is that it would be the IRS that collects the fine! Not the state or federal law enforcement people or the courts. And there is another provision floating around Congress that the fine would be automatically taken out of a person’s bank account. What about those people who do no have $3,800 in their bank account. Will we once again establish Konzentrationslager /gulags or debtors prisons?

CZAR ANOTHER NAME FOR POLITICAL COVER

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
It will go down in history as one of Barack Obama’s signature decisions on the economy, a dramatic move to slash corporate pay at bailed out banks and automakers.
But on Wednesday night, administration officials said that the president of the United States didn’t have all that much to do with a decision that will, in many ways, come to define his relationship with Wall Street.
In fact, sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg’s, and his alone. A senior administration official tells POLITICO that Obama did not sign off on the pay master's decision. Feinberg didn’t even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead.
“Decisions were his,” says the official. Treasury, in turn, briefed White House staff on the “shape and general direction” of the Feinberg decision last week, but didn't offer extensive detail. The president did not have to approve Feinberg’s plan.

Feinberg, a Washington attorney who was appointed to the unsalaried position as Treasury’s special master for corporate pay in June, has wide latitude to act independently of the administration. But it appears to me that the denial of the Obama syncophants is nothing more than giving Obama plausable deniability.

In fact I believe that the whole Czar set-up is an elaborate shield for the actions of Obama that could be damaging to the presidents "messianic" image.


The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else.

History will show that on more than one occasion President Truman referred to his desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.



Some one should remind Obama and the adoring press of this fact!!

DELEGITIMIZATION AND DEMONIZING ARE THE LATEST OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TACTICS

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

What Ronald Regan left out, is apparently the watchword of the Obama administration,demonize your opponents.
Used against anyone or any group that opposes what the Obama administration is  trying to do to our Country.Make it a "banana republic" like his friend Hugo and Raul have done.
First it was the bond holders of GM who held  27 billion dollars of bonds. They were told they could lose all if they continued to oppose the Obama bankrutcy plan and went to unregulated bankruptcy.
At approximately the same time they turned the dogs of Acorn and SEIU upon the homes of those on Wall Street, who dared to defy Obama and his czars on salary and bonus restrictions(aka .caps)

Then there is the attempt to intimidate the groups who protested  peacefully at the Town Hall meetings and TEA parties. Obama and his "workers" said they were mobs, nazis, and tools of the Republican party in an atttempt to intimidate them! And they had help from the Media! Except for the FOX network.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reportedly met with about a dozen doctors groups last week in which he promised to do the doctor "fix".The next day the Senate bill included billions more for doctor payments for Medicare patients. But there still is 400-500 billion dollars that will be slashed from the medicare budget to fund the pool for the millions added to the plan who presently have no health insurance.
But several people familiar with the meetings with the doctors, say he also made it clear he would expect the support of medical groups for whatever health care bill emerges in exchange for sparing them from the deep reimbursement cuts.I guess he thinks they don't know about the 400 billion taken from medicare!

Then an AARP executive warned Congressional opponents  of the Democrat health plan, of possible political consequences of voting against the plan as they were watching how the Congressmen and Senators voted.

And when Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress about "his" health care plan, he said this to any potential opponents of the plan. "But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

And Obama's "capos" attack on the FOX network and specifically the Beck and Hannity TV opinion shows are classic examples of what Obama promised he would do to anyone who stood in his way to get socialized medicine.He calls it the government option, but any thinking man knows that is a bold faced lie!

First they attacked Fox news by putting a Mao loving women named Dunn on the tube to say that FOX was not a real news network. Then the Sunday talk shows on the "lame Stream media" carried Axelrod and Emanuel further villifying and excoriating FOX! All because FOX appears to be the only news TV network that is not a propaganda arm of OBAMA!

David Libaugh had it right when he wrote in todays Patriot Post that; "Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.

A DEAL WITH THE EVIL ONE WILL LEAD TO CATASTROPHE

Danger - if you meet it promptly and without flinching - you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!...Winston Churchill

Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, AND HE POSTED THIS ON YHE INTERNT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS TO READ THIS POST.



In the face of rising domestic opposition to the war, mounting casualties and a clear unwillingness on the part of European allies to send additional troops for the NATO-led mission, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set his government down an extremely risky and dangerous path of negotiations with a barbaric enemy.


It is a dangerous strategy that is also backed in principle by some senior figures in the Obama administration such as Richard Holbrooke, the President's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who may be keen to use the British-led experiment as a trial balloon for a possible U.S. exit strategy as well. This is a disastrous approach that signals defeat, and one that must be firmly rejected by the next British administration, almost certainly Conservative, likely to take office in the spring of 2010.

Great Britain is the second largest contributor to the NATO-operation in Afghanistan, with over 9,000 combat troops on the ground. The British contribution in Afghanistan is roughly equal to that of continental Europe's big four combined -- France, Germany, Italy and Spain. So far 191 British troops have been killed serving in Afghanistan (more than were killed in Iraq), and hundreds wounded. In the month of July alone, Britain lost 22 soldiers in combat.

However great the bravery of British servicemen, it is being undercut by massive underfunding of Britain's armed forces, crippling defence cuts, and by shortages of helicopters, armored vehicles, medical teams as well as basic equipment. Britain now spends less on defence than at any time since the 1930s, and is waging a major war on a peacetime budget. It is though the lack of political will in London that is the biggest threat to the British mission.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband's recent speech on Afghanistan at NATO headquarters sent completely the wrong message to our enemies. In his address on July 27, the foreign secretary called for a political deal with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban in an effort to split the insurgency:

First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists -- separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally -- and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with their government.

In effect Miliband is saying that Britain and the United States must be willing to place cooperative, supposedly more reasonable wings of the Taliban back in local power in Afghanistan. This would be like putting the Nazis back in office after the fall of Berlin or the Khmer Rouge in charge of Cambodia again. No matter how much spin is placed on this negotiating strategy, it smacks of defeatism and appeasement, and a failure to place the conflict in Afghanistan within the broader context of a global war against a brutal Islamist ideology that seeks the destruction of the West and the free world.

British, American, Canadian and other NATO troops are not dying on the battlefields of south Asia to facilitate the return of a medieval-style government steeped in barbarism and savagery where women are treated as fourth-class citizens and individual liberty is non-existent. It would be only a matter of time before an Afghanistan dominated by "moderate" Taliban returned to its old position as a safe haven for al-Qaeda to launch attacks against New York, Washington or London.

Great Britain and the United States should have no truck with any strategy that allows a return to political power for the Taliban of whatever stripe. If this foolhardy policy is executed, it may ultimately lead to negotiations with al-Qaeda-linked groups in the region as well.

It is vital that a future British Conservative administration reverses what is a disastrously naïve approach, and commits to the complete political isolation, as well as the ultimate military defeat, of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This will require a significant increase in British defence spending to adequately fund a major military mission on this scale, as well as leadership in Downing Street that takes Britain's great power responsibilities seriously.

As UK Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox wrote in a recent article for The Times of London,

If we abandoned our task in Afghanistan today, we would put the security of our own country in greater peril. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan for training, and to plan attacks on the West. We must not let that happen again. To throw in the towel at this stage would encourage every jihadist to believe that we lack the moral courage to see through a difficult mission. And it would gravely undermine the credibility of NATO, the alliance that has protected this country for six decades.

Negotiations with a fundamentally barbaric organization such as the Taliban will never result in anything good for the people of Afghanistan and will undercut both Britain and America's long-term security. If NATO talks to the various wings of the Taliban, the Allied coalition will negotiate only with different shades of evil. This is a recipe for failure and defeat as well as a monumental surrender to a totalitarian Islamist ideology based on a doctrine of hatred, fear and destruction.


With the announcement that Obama is using the mess in the Afghanistan election as reason to once more delay the sending of more troops as requested by the Commander in the field. It is feeling to this veteran that the President is putting the lives of the brave men/women in jeopardy, because he would rather spend the tax payers money rewarding those who voted him into the Oval Office than he is to give the General he sent to Afghanistan, the tools he needs to win a victory over the evil Taliban. After all Obama said he has trouble with the word VICTORY!

THE DUPLICITY OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.


"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.
Continued Dunn: "Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."
SOURCE: WORLD DAILY NET

And if a Network like the Fox Network does not allow the Obama "captains" to force feed them as they do the other compliant Networks. They attack, and smear the Networks as this quote found on the intrnet illustrates!
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."
By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news." This attempt by the Obama Administration to silence FOX NEWS violates all that is American. What they are trying to accomplish is strangely reminiscent of what the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia did to their Press!
And in our time is similar to what Hugo Chavez did when he shut down all the television and radio stations who were critical of him     Freedom of the Press and  speech is in danger if this is continued unapposed by the voting public!

What's scary is how this administration has so readily turned their backs on debate and free speech and resorted to bullying and thuggery in their attempts to silence their critics.Americans meet Chicago politics now take residence in the White House!




.