The Obama Watch
A Clear and Present Danger
How Barack Obama endangers you and your family.
(Page 2 of 3)
And without the American nuclear umbrella, would not the whole world be on hair trigger for nuclear development, lest anyone’s enemies secretly develop such weapons first? Would America end up the only “power” without a nuclear deterrent?
Yet, Mark Helprin writes in the Journal on September 23 that Obama’s talks with Iran will be about America’s nuclear disarmament, not Iran’s:
Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for [negotiations with] the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read “apology”), and taking the nuclear question off the table. We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program…the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons.
If only Obama last year, when he was falsely preening as the only American leader to even think of talking to Iran, had told the American people that his strategy for talks with Iran on giving up its nukes was for America to give up ours.
Putin in Charge
The hapless ineffectuality of President Obama’s foreign policy is revealed by his retreat on land based missile defense in Europe. After governments in Poland and the Czech Republic faced down the political risks of agreeing to work with America to base such missile defenses in their countries, President Obama pulls the rug out from under them with the diplomatic equivalent of “never mind.”
The Obama Administration lamely claimed that it would pursue instead a smarter missile defense from U.S. Navy ships that would be even better at countering the shorter range missiles that are supposedly the real Iranian threat. Helprin explains the ineffectiveness of this approach:
We will cease developing the ability to intercept, within five years, the ICBMs that in five years Iran is likely to possess, in favor of a sea-based approach suitable only to [countering] Iranian missiles that cannot from Iranian soil threaten Rome, Paris, London or Berlin….Interceptors that would effectively [protect] Western Europe are too big for the vertical launch cells of the Aegis ships, or even their hulls.
Indeed, the land-based missile defenses in Europe that President Obama has canceled would have defended not only Europe from long range Iranian nuclear missiles, it would have defended America as well. But the “smarter” sea based defenses Obama says he will now pursue will not.
President Obama retreated from missile defenses in Europe because Russia growled that such defenses could be used to stop its own nuclear attack on Europe, and somehow that was unacceptable and offensive. Obama’s retreat is again just the opposite of Reagan, who stared down the same growls from the Russian bear in the early 1980s to plant in Europe Pershing II missiles that could attack Russia and its forces, not merely defend. Reagan’s wise fortitude led to an agreement with Russia for both sides to remove their intermediate range missiles from Europe. President Obama doesn’t understand that kind of strength.
Instead, in return for his retreat on European missile defense, Obama did not even get the Russians to agree to serious sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program. As Stephens wrote in the Journal, “Moscow is still offering no concessions on sanctioning Iran in the event negotiations fail, but might graciously agree to an arms control deal that cements its four to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.” Helprin adds:
The new American diplomacy is nothing more than a sentimental flood of unilateral concessions….Canceling the missile deployment within NATO…is to grant Russia a veto over sovereign defensive measures — exactly the opposite of American resolve during the Euro Missile Crisis of 1983, the last and definitive battle of the Cold War.
The CIA Investigation We Need
Recall the so-called National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, which reported that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003. That was effective in short-circuiting any military action under then President Bush to take out the Iranian nuclear program. With recent events, the question that 2007 report leaves is whether U.S. intelligence agencies have been penetrated by foreign agents.
The CIA investigation we need now is to focus on that question, not on whether the CIA was too mean to terrorists plotting mass murder of Americans. If that investigation uncovers treason, then the law must be enforced. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, call your office.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (78) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/30/a-clear-and-present-danger
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
jd| 9.30.09 @ 6:40AM
The statement "Obama believes that America does not have the moral credibility to ask Iran to give up its nuclear program unless America gives up its own" sums up Obama and the leftists thinking. That statement alone speaks volumes. Not even at the height of the Cold War have I ever felt the fear that I now have regarding this Presidency and the dangerous path it is on.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.09 @ 3:44PM
Isn't there a way we can take out a (hopefully large) number of Iraniamn officers? Say a hundred colonels, 50 generals.
But then Toddard would say we would be viowating their pwecious wittle civil wights. Boo hoo.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.09 @ 3:47PM
oops, Iranian, not 'Iraniamn.'
Musn't confuse them with Uranium.
Robbins Mitchell| 9.30.09 @ 6:43AM
Well,I guess Barokeydoke is EVERYBODY'S bitch
Deborah D | 9.30.09 @ 8:11AM
Helprin: "Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for [negotiations with] the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read "apology"), and taking the nuclear question off the table. We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program…the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons."
Isn't an American president's first duty to protect the country? It's almost like he wants us to get attacked. Like I said in a post on another thread a couple of days ago in relation to Obama's ridiculous speech to the U.N...if he won't defend us in his words, how can we expect him to defend us in his actions?
If he won't do what's best for the country in the way of the economy, how can we expect him to do what's best for the country in the way of foreign policy?
If these incredible circumstances don't rise to direlection of duty to defend and protect the country, I don't know what does. When does this become impeachable? What makes up high crimes and misdemeanors?
Ferrara: "If Obama insists on holding hands and singing Kumbaya instead, then he should be held fully accountable for the results."
Shouldn't Congress too have to be held accountable? Isn't it their duty to speak out against what they fear will endanger the American people? And then, isn't it their responsibility to rein in the executive branch if that is the case? I know foreign policy is the realm of the executive branch, but that doesn't include leaving our country vulnerable to attack.
I'm just asking questions because that's what a good citizen should do. I, too, feel it is my duty to protect and to defend the country.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.30.09 @ 8:42AM
Peter Ferrara
The whole premise of you article is goofy!
Obama and crew DO NOT believe in flower child diplomacy to win friends and influence folks.
I certainly do not know exactly what their agenda really is, but I suspect the worst.
I do know that Obama would feel quite comfortable with the dictators he spoke to at the UN the other day. I think he sorta' envies them.
Margie| 9.30.09 @ 10:48PM
If you want to know Obama's agenda, read his autobiography. You will then see how crazy to the Left he truly is. He is cold and calculating, and he means serious business. Marxist leaders are his idols. He's not just playing around.
Sue| 9.30.09 @ 9:32AM
A person only has to look at the left's policies on gun control to understand their policies on nuclear weapons. You see, if everyone would just "give up" THEIR guns the criminals won't have any and we'll all be the better for it. Same principle, same argument, different weapons.
One can never convince these people that criminals will ALWAYS find a way around any prohibited weapons because they are CRIMINALS.
The left does not believe in "good" and "evil." To them, everyone would be "good" if only........... And those who do not follow them are the "evil ones".........; not the criminals.
One would have to be blind in both eyes to not understand this. Wake up America. It's time to get rid of the cataracts and see clearly for the first time since FDR.
Wesley Mouch| 9.30.09 @ 10:06AM
I say if China will lend us the money, lets attack 'em.
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.30.09 @ 10:13AM
I carry no credentials in International Diplomacy but I suspect that no one knows including President Obama, what he will do next. The only reference material he seems to be using to set policy is Ramsey Clark's toilet paper.
Bobc| 9.30.09 @ 10:35AM
The more I hear Obama, the more I keep seeing in my mind, that movie which starred Humphry Bogart, who was a ship captain....eventually ending up in court, as he testified he sat there on the verge of a nervous breakdown, tossing bearings or marbles in his hand as he tried to explain away his actions.
Obama is sinking our ship, in more ways than one!
Deborah D | 9.30.09 @ 2:15PM
"The Caine Mutiny" -- and that's basically what the Tea Parties are -- a mutiny against insanity.
JimJam| 9.30.09 @ 10:37AM
Obama hates America. Everything this man does serves to undermine the nation. He's a sell out of the first magnitude who does whatever his socialist masters tell him to do. Quit giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his bumbling moves. He's being orchestrated and played like a fine violin.
Oldefarte| 9.30.09 @ 12:18PM
Thank God for writers such as exist here at the AS who can articulate with words the problem facing us Americans today with this administration and congress; BUT it is up to US alone as citizens/voters to correct this present situation, beginning with the 2010 elections. I'd suggest to all readers of this to vote for any/all representatives,senators,etc who promise to NOT follow the liberal agenda now being activated; whether they be Republicans, Democrats or Independents. Especially, congressional incumbetants should be targeted for defeat as to whether or not they support Obama & Company!!!!!!!!!!!
Tim| 9.30.09 @ 12:31PM
Relax, all is well, Iran would never attack Barack's America, that would be...racist.
Robert| 10.1.09 @ 8:13PM
I'm not sure, but isn't that pronounced, "Raaaaaaaacist".
I'll check with MSNBC and get back with you.
Jobe| 9.30.09 @ 12:34PM
This empty suit of a president has installed the brains behind his global idiocy and socialism. They will carry out the destruction of the country from within. The fly in the ointment is that Iran and Russia, and China, and India, and Pakistan my not give these reds the time they need to complete the sovietization of the nation.
Al Adab| 9.30.09 @ 2:08PM
Clearly we have defined the problem. It is more than any one man as it represents a mindset pervasive to this administration.
Whether or not Conservatives can invigorate the national debate and attempt a restoration of Constitutional government remains to be seen. That however, must be the goal. Somehow we must find a way to defend, preserve and protect our Constitution against our government which is increasing forsworn.
Stray Bullet| 9.30.09 @ 4:19PM
There is more afoot here than just a naive young inexperienced President. He is following a Socialist playbook. Spend the country into bankruptcy and collapse.... Take over as much of the private sector as you can when it collapses.
Negotiate away our national soverignty. Take over Financial, Educational and Health Care systems. Then you can control the country.
Watch out for a massive (Govt Paid) Blitz to get him re-elected (Using Acorn, and all the Power of the Unions, NEA and Czars) to get out the vote, PLUS the Main Stream Media.
Then watch out for a move to negate or repeal the requirement for only two terms for President.
I am telling you. This wimpy guy who tells you one thing then rams something else through and does another..... Has Bigger Plans.
Virginia Dallas| 9.30.09 @ 8:22PM
It's spelled: DICTATOR FOR LIFE
and we will be in the bread lines
just like Russia was.
Everly Waverly| 9.30.09 @ 5:14PM
How far is Obama going to be allowed to proceed? His notion of unilateral disarmament is beyond dangerous, and it appears he not aware of the consequences.
Will Obama go so far as to put America in such jeopardy that Generals and Admirals decide enough is enough, that the 1st black president just isn't worth it.
I envision a scenario that involves a 3am march on the White House by a company of Marines, telling the guards to stand down and then rousting the occupants of the 2nd floor, encouraging them to evacuate the premises and subsequently relocated to the destination of their choice. I thought of this last night at 3am!!!
M. Bond| 9.30.09 @ 5:29PM
He won't resign because it won't be his fault - Bush is responsible. I am waiting for him to apologize for our county polluting the landscape when we landed on Omaha Beach and then tramped across Europe - tearing-up the landscape and dropping munitions.
Texas Mom| 9.30.09 @ 8:25PM
Ok, I see what you mean but I've been to the Normandy Battlefields and Omaha Beach. Did you know that every plant,every tree, the grass and the dirt all came from America? And the French people gave that land where our fallen heroes are buried to us and it is considered American soil!
Paul Revere| 9.30.09 @ 5:43PM
Seems too many are afraid to confront that which is becoming obvious: Obongo was Placed in Power by some group unknown at present who have a lot to gain by utterly crushing America. His refusal to stand by allies and confront Iran is on purpose. His destruction of the Economy, on purpose. He would welcome an attack on the US- as long as it left him "in control." Look at the glut of communists and black supremacists in his Administration: Time to wake up, folks, or we'll all be taking a long, long dirt nap.
FRANK COLLATT| 9.30.09 @ 5:51PM
"If we wake up one morning, surprised as we were on that fateful day in 1941, to find that Iran has nuked an Israeli city and murdered millions of Jews, I would expect President Obama to resign in disgrace." Peter Ferrara, the author of this article did an excellent job portraying the facts of the OBAMA Administration with regards to foreign policy and IRAN. It is not "IF" Iran will use a nuclear based weapon, but "WHEN" and upon "WHOM". The one point Peter Ferrara left out of this splendid article is the 'Hugo Chavez Effect' in assisting Iran with nuclear technlogy. When you combine all of these "radical minds", whom incidentally place no value on human life, on one common goal of "eliminating the infidel" a mass extinction of life is inevitable. The only question remaining is, "WHOM" will be the target.
S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 6:47PM
Hmm... dire warnings about Iranian-launched nuclear holocaust, just around the corner. Why does that sound so familiar?
"Iran has been a critical issue for the United States and Israel for a very long time. Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."
Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....-war/full/
Doorgunner| 9.30.09 @ 6:56PM
Thanks for that devastating insight from Columbia U. prof Gary Sick at the daily beast; we are all now enlightened!
p.s. /sarc aside, please spare us a recitation of his c.v.; we can read it ourselves... esp. the part about the hostages in Iran being taken on 'his watch'.
Doorgunner| 9.30.09 @ 6:58PM
And as for the daily puppy, waddya gonna do next, 'Tarded, quote Meghan McCain?
Doorgunner| 9.30.09 @ 6:59PM
Clown.
S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:07PM
I'm sorry, Doorgunner - are there any facts in that passage that you dispute?
S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 6:58AM
Didn't think so.
S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:06PM
Thankfully there is at least one responsible American journalist who - instead of succumbing to the cowardice that has come to define the American character, and which leads so many to reflexively shriek for their Daddy State to go to war against the latest manufactured boogeyman - is covering the story with a cool head and clear eye:
Until there's an IAEA inspection -- which Iran said it would permit -- it's impossible to know the true purpose and capabilities of this facility, which is the cause for the Chinese's skepticism and should cause skepticism among every thinking person, beginning with the American media. Can anyone point to any such skepticism anywhere? Listening to the media coverage, one would think that Iran just got caught sitting on a secret atomic bomb.
The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a military attack on Iran -- the same faction, more or less, that caused us to attack Iraq -- and will seize on anything to justify that. Anyone who doubts that should look at this creepily excited and chest-beating statement yesterday from Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, GOP Sen. John Kyl, and Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iraq War supporters all. Contradicting the 2007 NIE, they declare as an "inescapable conclusion" that "Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Their joint statement threatens "catastrophic consequences" against Iran and vows that "we are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout." Just in case anyone is still confused by what they are threatening, they favorably cite a "bipartisan" report from former Senators Chuck Robb (D) and Dan Coats (R) which urges the President to begin preparing for military action against Iran, and lays out a detailed plan for what it would entail, beginning with a naval blockade and extending to "devastating strikes" against "assets" inside Iran that "would probably last up to several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come." That's what three key U.S. Senators are explicitly threatening.
In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would "cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe economic hardships. So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with our dictates. The Post Editorial Page repeats the same claim made for two decades about Iran ("officials say that when it is operational, it could deliver the material for a bomb in a year") and warns: "If it had not been discovered, the Qom plant could have given Iran the means for a bomb by 2011 without the world knowing about it. And if there is one clandestine facility, most likely there are others."
So we can all see where this is headed. Obama, to his credit, is one of the least inflammatory and fear-mongering establishment voices in all of this. And whatever else one might think of the whole Iran question, Obama officials -- just on a strategic level, in terms of negotiating tactics -- are infinitely smarter and more calculating than the ones who preceded them. They seem intent on formulating a negotiation strategy that will be most likely to resolve the matter through mutual agreement. But the drooling, belligerent sentiments being unleashed by the reporting of this story -- eagerly fueled by the always-war-hungry Bayh/Kyl/Lieberman faction -- could easily produce its own momentum.
Just look at how these people think -- the ones who exert great influence over our actions. Here's the deeply Serious Evan Bayh in 2008:
"You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they've threatened us, too."
In other words: Whoops. We bombed, invaded and destroyed the wrong country. We should have attacked that one over there rather than this one here. Silly us. It sure would be awful if our little mistake in Iraq prevented us from attacking Iran or caused people not to trust what we say. And here's what Joe Lieberman is, as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg, then of The New Yorker:
"In another conversation, [Lieberman] told me that he was reading "America Alone," a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism [GG: that book also flirts with explicit advocacy of anti-Muslim genocide]. . . .
Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, "Yeah!" and "All right!""
With people like that at the center of American power -- and with recent history demonstrating how literally crazed and bloodthirsty our political establishment is -- nothing is more vital than aggressive media scrutiny and skepticism towards war-fueling accusations against our Enemy Du Jour, the latest Hitlers. But we have the opposite. Nothing excites them like the smell of aggressive American confrontation with the bad people. As a result, all of the genuine questions raised by this latest Iran episode are completely obscured, and the most inflammatory and hysteria-generating assertions are assumed to be true and disseminated as such by our "journalists."
UPDATE: Daniel Larison has some typically insightful observations about all of this, which should be read in their entirety, including this:
"Significant Russian cooperation with a sanctions regime would make it more "successful" in that it would isolate Iran more fully, which would at least address part of the practical problem of imposing sanctions on Iran, but this would not lead to the result that sanctions advocates want. Most likely, China would pick up the slack and become even more heavily invested in trade with Iran than it has been. On the contrary, as opponents of sanctions keep saying, a tighter sanctions regime will harm internal political opposition to the regime, increase the political-military establishment’s hold on the economy and cause Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of outside hostility."
One of the things the American political establishment has the greatest difficulty accepting is that sometimes we can't force other countries to do what we order by bombing them or otherwise harming them, and that the far more likely way to obtain the outcome we want is through consensual agreement. That doesn't produce the same pulsating sensations of power and strength as Shock and Awe -- it won't cause Joe Lieberman to pump his fists and yell "Yeah!" and "All right!" -- but it is still the most rational and effective course of action.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html
By American patriot and staunch defender of the Constitution Glenn Greenwald.
Doorgunner| 9.30.09 @ 7:22PM
You established your anti-Israeli bona fides here previously. You needn't any longergo to such great acrobatics of mis-characterization and mightily selective omission. We're not buying it.
And Glenn Greenwald? Please. Whom could a "Secret Jew Cabal World Conspiracy" nutter such as yourself find more useful to quote than Greenwald- a pardigmatically Lib-reflexive political fashionista with a better vocabulary than actual "constitutional scholar" resume.
S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 3:38PM
Right. Who would be more useful to a "Secret Jew Cabal World Conspiracy" than a Jewish journalist?
Good point.
S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:14PM
Also Mr. Ferrara - you might want to talk to your editor. It seems he attached the headline for a different piece for this one. I don't see anything in your article about a "Clear and Present Danger". I see plenty of conjecture about hypothetical, fantastical dangers in the far-off future, but none about any that are "Clear and Present". Would you please look into that?
Thanks.
PS
Anybody recall what our intelligence community has had to say vis a vis the Iranian nuclear weapons program and whether it was active or not? I can't remember...
Joe Ellis| 9.30.09 @ 8:12PM
The ignorance here is truly blinding. And frightening. No wonder why the world is in the state it's in after ~20 years of GOP control.
Howard| 9.30.09 @ 9:18PM
There must be a full moon tonight. If I understand it, "The Jews" put Obama in as part of a worldwide conspiracy. This conspiracy is designed to weaken the US. This allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The purpose of these weapons is to kill Jews in Israel, and presumably elsewhere. Hmmm.
TacoBill| 9.30.09 @ 9:26PM
As a hand picked, media created, media protected marionette for Soros and the dark Marxists fascists , O's strings are just beginning to become visible to those who care to look. The dozens of meticulously scrubbed records of college admissions, college life, State Department passport history, and the hidden use of an Indonesian passport in traveling to Pakistan, the complete paucity of the reasonable and logical paper trails that accompanies any American citizen, all stink with the fingerprints of the Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye (PGU), the First Chief Directorate of the KGB.
Robert Rosencrans| 9.30.09 @ 9:30PM
Here is an article from the English version of Pravda. It was written by Stanislav Mishin. Yes, there is a clear and present danger. I'm beginning to see the collapse of the American dollar. Don't underestimate it.
"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker. "
Margie| 9.30.09 @ 11:35PM
Mr. Mishin is absolutely correct. This is only the beginning of the birth pangs. Read Matthew 24. Jesus Christ is coming soon.
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
Pavlya | 10.1.09 @ 2:32AM
I dont think it is so. We can all change...
Tenn Slim| 10.1.09 @ 7:07AM
All
Intended to pass the following about HC but will pass instead.
"Obama believes that America does not have the moral credibility to ask Iran to give up its nuclear program unless America gives up its own"
bt
MAD a nuclear concept that the Silent Service still holds aces on. Folks, Iran will bluster, shoot missles down range, but knows full well that a Los Angles Boomer in the Indian Ocean has Terahan targeted once a Nuc Missle lifts off. Death and destruction from the sea. Tit For Tat. A 1200 mile missle from the sands of Persia vs a boomer Posidean some 500 miles down range is no contest.
end of conflict.
End
Tenn Slim| 10.1.09 @ 7:09AM
Addendum
HC shell game.
September 30, 2009
Senator:
Sen. Reid(d) is proposing an end around on the Health Care debate and Vote Process:
1. End the Committees discussion.
2. Take the Senate Finance bill and the House HR 3200 bill, add Obama care agendas from the Leftist agencies IE: OBAMACARE
3. Compose an Amendment set that will be attached to the Already Passed House Bill HR 26## that limits CEO payroll tops.
4. Attach the kluged up amendment bill set from the Senate Finance committee and use the process of passing an already discussed and passed House bill as the main bill to the Senate Floor.
5. A Vote straight down the middle takes 51 majorities to pass and we have an End Run Health care bill for Pres Obama signature no later than next week.
7. A thoroughly despicable method of shoving a set of UNWANTED legislation down the USA Electorate throat.
Bt
VOTE AGAINST THE PROCESS< VOTE NO on ANY AMENDMENT> VOTE NO ON HOUSE/AMENDMENT BILL!!!
YOUR RE ELECTION DEPENDS ON YOUR VOTE> SENATOR REID DOES NOT HOLD YOUR RE ELECTION IN HIS HAND>
End
September 30, 2009
End
Pass to your lists and Senators ASAP
Jim O'Brien| 10.1.09 @ 8:32AM
President Bush was weak on Iran. Obama is even worse, since he thinks Israel should cave in to terrorists, which would include terror-sponsoring states such as Iran. Iran supplies terrorists with money and equipment, and has no intention of giving up on nuclear weapons.
The intelligent thing for the U.S. to do would be to team up with Israel, then bomb and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, military forces, oil pipelines, and ports. Pound Iran into oblivion. Of course this won't happen, and Obama will allow Iran to build nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system. This threatens the security of the United States and undermines freedom everywhere. Obama is a total failure.
Pingback| 10.1.09 @ 9:43AM
Stand Like a Rock » Blog Archive » A Clear and Present Danger links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Red Phillips | 10.1.09 @ 2:50PM
This article is more of the same ol' same ol' reflexively hawkish alarmist interventionism.
Take out Iran because they might be working on a bomb, which they might succeed in creating, which they then might use. This is preventative war and derivative at that. This so tramples on Christian Just War Doctrine it boggles the mind.
S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 3:19PM
Peter Ferrara - frothing at the mouth, maddened by blood-lust, shrieking in bug-eyed terror - demands "regime change" (read: bloody conquest) because... Iran disclosed to the IAEA that it is building a nuclear facility, and will allow inspectors to monitor it.
All the same old specters (nuclear holocaust), the same old references (more Hitlers!), and the same, one-size-fits-all solution (imperial conquest of lands overseas).
S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 3:36PM
It's amazing - as well as frightening and discouraging - that the mainstream right learned NOTHING from Iraq. There are people here - a majority, I would bet - who still refuse to acknowledge that Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. One cannot learn from one's mistakes if one refuses to acknowledge them in the first place.
Also -
NEWSFLASH: Wilsonian internationalism is not "conservative". And it doesn't work.
CPT. Charles| 10.1.09 @ 4:00PM
Something to consider.
The Twelver's initial target may not be Israel. Their #1 major foe is Sunni Islam with Saudi Arabia at it’s core. As a post-test stratagem Iran could gain tremendous political mileage by announcing: ‘We have the means to destroy Israel, but we choose to do otherwise.’ That simple statement would utterly de-mast any ‘international’ effort to move against Iran and give Russia and China the fig-leaf they'd need to shield Iran.
It would also put Israel in a box (I'm admittedly presupposing that Obama put enough political pressure on Israel [the threat of 'Outlaw Nation' status] to forestall a strike allowing Iran to 'long-jump' across the finish line.) with very few ways out.
Would Iran's declaration be a lie? Absolutely. But consider this: Iran’s initial stock pile of warheads will be quite small [initially]; using them could trigger Israel’s final act of revenge: the UTTER destruction of the Dome of the Rock mosque [That is one of Israel's unspoken trump cards, and don't think they wouldn't do it.]. In terms a world-wide power struggle between Shiia vs Sunni Islam, that be a major wedge point against the Shiia.
Besides, Iran has no lack of ‘helping hands’ in the quest to make Israel ‘go away’; why waste your precious nukes when you’ve got tens of thousands of Palis willing to die for you. And with it's nuclear shield in place, the flow of arms into that region would increase because Egypt and Jordan would be ordered by Tehran to 'look the other way, or else'. And Lebanon? The hint would be worded differently, but the bottom line the same (and don't think the Syrians would be sitting still).
The chief X-factor? Would Iran be able block, or slow, it's regional neighbors from nuking-up in response? The key to that would be the successful manipulation/incitement of the Shiia populations within those respective states and our ability to block that ploy. That's a BIG unknown, especially when you consider who's 'in charge' here in the US.
I cannot stress enough the ‘moment of glory’ that would ensue if: [A] Dinnerjacket, or [B] the King of Saudi Arabia ‘humbly’ enters the Dome to offer prayers to Allah. THAT is one of the ultimate ‘grand prizes’ both sides are shooting for. However, who controls Mecca is THE ISSUE the Twelvers want to settle, permanently. And don’t think the Saudi’s don’t know it.
In terms of that particular struggle, Israel is a side show. If you don’t understand the game, and the stakes, you can’t play. That’s the chief reason we’ve been ’spinning our wheels’ on the ‘peace process’. It’s NEVER been about peace.
The ‘Two-State’ solution is a fiction that the muzzis are all too willing to keep alive. IMO It’s always been about who controls Jerusalem, and it’s ‘assets‘. Period. And that's just one piece of a much grander struggle that the West seems disinterested in understanding.
Or dealing with.
S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:30PM
I'd not realized that the truly excellent Daniel Larison had already addressed Peter Ferrara's ridiculous, bloodthirsty screed:
There are several items that have already caught my attention today. The first is Peter Ferrara’s article for American Spectator on Obama and Iran. Ferrara writes:
"A cherished maxim of self-congratulatory liberals is the notion that diplomacy and negotiation are always the best course of action because “as long as the two sides are talking, they are not shooting.” That was not true on the morning of December 7, 1941. On that very day, Japanese diplomats were in Washington to continue ongoing talks for peace between Japan and America, as Japanese planes were slaughtering some 2,400 American servicemen at Pearl Harbor.
President Obama now has America, and Israel, on that same course in regard to Iran."
I doubt very much that very many liberals would recognize this as one of their cherished maxims, but I’ll leave that to them. There is no guarantee that negotiations preclude fighting, and this is not just because of the possibility of sneak attacks or one party negotiating in bad faith. After all, negotiating peace treaties and armistices presupposes that there is an ongoing conflict. In general, however, avoiding war by pursuing a diplomatic track is preferable to war. If there is to be a war with Iran, it will be started by U.S. or Israeli forces launching, well, something very much like sneak attacks on Iranian facilities. The main difference is that most of the world will be expecting these attacks, and much of the Western world will have acquiesced in them. If anyone should be suspicious of Obama’s extended hand, it should be the Iranians, who could reasonably conclude that Obama is merely buying time or going through the motions of diplomatic overtures to make war “inevitable.” Most of the pre-invasion “diplomacy” the Bush administration engaged in from September 2002 until the start of the war was meaningless. It was done for the benefit of squeamish liberal hawks, multilateralists and pro-war Labour figures in Britain. As we know very well, the decision to go to war had been made months earlier. It is the Iranians who are in the position America was in during the closing months of 1941; we and one of our allies are the ones openly discussing the possibility of bombing their country without having suffered any injuries at their hands. Obviously, this is not the repeat of Pearl Harbor that Ferrara means to conjure up for us, but that is the only way to make sense of the comparison.
Ferrara’s article is representative of the distorted language and thinking that permits American hawks to cast the objectively aggressive, provocative moves of the U.S. and our allies as defensive and the defensive, minimal responses of other states as aggression, revanchism, revisionism, and imperialism. By this thinking, Georgia was not acting aggressively even though it started last year’s war with Russia; Russia is necessarily the aggressor because it is Russia and opposes our projection of power into their backyard. This is how American hawks can continue to portray the events of August 2008 as proof of Russian “expansionism” and aggression: they invert the meanings of all the relevant words and corrupt language to suit their purposes.
As Michael Lind recently observed in an essay Dan McCarthy has already mentioned:
"First, defensive military measures that these nations undertake to deter U.S. attack — Russia’s attempt to intimidate Georgia, China’s development of “anti-access” capabilities to reduce the ability of the U.S. to defeat it in a war over Taiwan, and Iran’s not-so-disguised attempt to obtain nuclear weapons to deter conventional U.S. or Israeli attacks — are portrayed by American policymakers and pundits as aggressive. According to this Orwellian double standard, U.S./NATO encirclement of post-Soviet Russia on its borders is alleged to be “defensive,” while feeble protest gestures like Russian military flights to Cuba or the bullying of Ukraine are defined as “aggressive” actions that threaten a new Cold War. The knight with the best sword naturally wants to ban the use of shields and armor.
In addition to defining the defensive reactions of Russia, China and Iran to U.S. provocations in their own neighborhoods as diabolical schemes for regional or global conquest, some champions of the Pax Americana have pretended to identify a new global ideological struggle against an “axis of autocracy” or “authoritarian capitalism.” In reality, of course, three countries could hardly be less similar to one another than Russia, China and Iran, which seek to benefit from the existing world system on their own terms rather than overthrow it."
As I was saying earlier this week, the hysteria that hawks display at the smallest sign of another state acting in its own legitimate interests does not come from a real fear of growing foreign threats. It is a pose. It is an an act put on to keep the public from thinking or questioning the reason for so many deployments, wars and permanent installations around the globe. An important part of the play is to make the audience believe that our policies are not arbitrary, aggressive and unnecessary, but have been forced upon us by myriad foes that would annihilate us if we did not keep attacking other states without cause. Their opponents are so busy untangling the nonsensical language and misinformation they put out that there is scarcely any time to debate the real policy, which I suppose is one of the side benefits for the hawks.
http://www.amconmag.com/lariso...../#comments
Compare Peter Ferrara's emotion-driven shriek for conquest with Daniel Larison's cool, logical evisceration of it and the manipulative, dishonest mindset behind it.
Come Clean!| 10.4.09 @ 6:10PM
"Truly excellent Daniel Larison?" HAhahahaahaha! What a joke! The guy is so far to the Left he fell off the cliff. What a fool you are, Tooodard, to actually believe you are going to fool anyone with your slick speak. Idiot.
Robert| 10.1.09 @ 9:15PM
I am unable to scan all the posts due to time constraints, so if I repeat someone's train of thought, I do apologize.
The new nuclear arms race has already begun and quite a bit closer than I think many realize.
In the May 25th, 2008 edition of the Huffington Post, it was stated, "Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report obtained Monday by The Associated Press".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....07405.html
If it's in the HuffPo, it has to be true, right???
Earlier this month in the Wall Street Journal, Robert M. Morgenthau wrote, “………..two of the world's most dangerous regimes, the self-described "axis of unity," (Iran and Venezuela) will be acting together in our backyard on the development of nuclear and missile technology. And it seems that terrorist groups have found the perfect operating ground for training and planning, and financing their activities through narco-trafficking”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....inion_main
And finally, a few days ago, according to an Associated Press report, the Brazilian VP, Jose Alencar said "a nuclear weapon has great importance to prevent attacks on Brazil because of its extensive borders and maritime holdings. Alencar tells Brazilian newspapers that Brazil doesn't have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should".
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,555400,00.html)
And so it begins…………
When the “First World” nations of earth began the first nuclear arms race, they were still healing from the horrors of WWII. They had, absolutely, no misconceptions of what man was capable of inflicting upon another man.
The leftists of this generation and, more specifically, President Obama have a skewed view of the world from spending too much time inside the Beltway and/or in the various collegiate strongholds of the leftist intelligentsia around the world. They have, absolutely, no concept of what atrocities a truly desperate dictator with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is capable of committing.
Put simply enough, we are about to be dragged into a street fight. If we approach this thinking all we need to do is leave them alone and show them how to be good global citizens, they will see the error of their ways and join the fight for social justice, we will, in the end, create the perfect storm.
My grandfather always said, “A liberal is just a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet”. I can only hope it will not take the mugging of the human race before the liberals wake up.
Unfortunately, the current leftists in DC have lived their entire lives believing in the party line and they are incapable of deviating from that belief system. To do so would invalidate their very existence, and that will never, ever, be allowed to happen.
S.L. Toddard| 10.2.09 @ 7:31AM
"They have, absolutely, no concept of what atrocities a truly desperate dictator with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is capable of committing."
All one need to correct that is familiarize oneself with the carnage Bush wreaked in Iraq.
Joan| 10.4.09 @ 6:14PM
Tell me, Toddard, do you wear rose colored glasses to bed? Is everything coming up roses to you? Have you made sure to do your daily obeisance to Obama today? Better watch that. If you miss a day you might revert back to a real man.
Yosemeti Sam| 10.1.09 @ 11:54PM
"A Clear and Present Danger ...."
Hmmmmm.
When a forest fire is spreading out of control,
a potential remedy is to fight fire with fire.
Pingback| 10.4.09 @ 10:14PM
A Clear and Present Danger « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim Anderson| 10.5.09 @ 4:09AM
Mr. Ferrara,
I make a point of reading your articles. As always, you are spot on. I found particularly fascinating your insight that Obama believes we do not have the moral credibility to insist on ending Iran's nuclear program. That piece of observation fits neatly into a mental 'hole' that's been bothering me as I try to sort out the puzzle pieces of Obama.
But there's also something I do not understand about the Iran/Nuke debate. Our military experts [supposedly] and various other politicians and analysts say that an attack on Iran would be futile and, at best, delay the development of nukes.
One never hears it proposed [at least I haven't run into it] but a Nuclear Electro-Magnetic-Pulse Bomb [EMP] exploding high over the countryside of Iran would - if I understand the basics of the technology - not result in an inferno of nuclear fission for the citizenry - but would - in fact - literally knock out every single elctrical device from electric razors, to the batteries and wiring in cars, to turbines to nuclear laboratories. I do understand that nuke labs would probably have sufficient insulating protection. But - so what? If the entire country, beyond the few square acres or few square miles of laboratories, was - literally - put back into the seventh century in the space of a one second blast - then its regime would surely fall. The re-building in such a resourceless country would probably take decades. Yes, the effect on the popualtion would be very deadly and harsh due to starvation, lack of transportation, etc. But I don't believe we would be accused of waging true nuclear war. Anyway - I say "One EMP" and afterward - let the Daisy Cutters and Smart Bombs take out the laboratories.
Jim Anderson
Pingback| 10.16.09 @ 2:21AM
Clear And Present Danger | Jamming Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Soldier10TH MTN DIV| 10.24.09 @ 4:59PM
How many of you people that have posted on here ever been shot at? ever put YOUR life on the line for your country? How many of you have earned a status of COMBAT VETERAN? Look up the definition of war. Think FOR A MINUTE about your neighbor's child or husband that have not made it home! Obama doesn't care about America? or are you just blind? why would he initiate a public option if he didn't care for Americans health? Guns and warheads kill people.
If you would only OPEN your eyes, you would see that God is in control of EVERYTHING! ALL OF THE TIME!! you guys sit there at your computer spilling out your OPINIONS on something most of you know nothing about. I respect your opinions, that's part of freedom, but going around in a circular logic with false truths doesn't help anyone out. I hope that God allows you into His love, for only then will your eyes be opened. I am a Combat Veteran that served in Operation Enduring Freedom. I know that ugly taste of war. Of losing friends...True friends. people you can trust. ..you sit there and speculate. We do agree on one thing though, some people need to wake up!! GOD BLESS!
Eva | 11.5.09 @ 10:13AM
Very interesting article! Thank's
70-620 | 11.22.09 @ 10:58PM
Microsoft is a leading provider of advanced technology solutions to organizations worldwide. It is one of the companies in the forefront offering certification programs. Microsoft has introduced a wide range of certification exam for entry level to experienced professionals and for domains ranging from networking, system administration, database management to programming, web development and other advanced technologies. The Microsoft certification exam ensure whether or not information technology professionals have the necessary skills to successfully implement business solutions using Microsoft Technology. Certifications designed by Microsoft take a very important place when people apply for a job in the IT area.Achieve these certifications the proposer should pass the related exam like 70-270,70-620
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 9:29PM
Eunomia » Our Infamous Iran Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ghjhgj| 2.25.10 @ 4:16AM
Mac AVCHD Converter,
Blu-ray to AVCHD for Mac
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:03PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com