All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
If Mitt Romney had given the speech that Donald Trump did today, and if he had followed its strategy during the third presidential debate with Obama on foreign policy, he would have won the 2012 election. Trump’s themes were straightforward: Make America strong again, put America’s interests first. The Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy has strengthened our enemies, disparaged our allies, and earned us global disrespect. It has led to disasters that include the rise of ISIS and the destabilization of the Middle East. The theme of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry years has been the weakening of America – point Trump with maximum bite: “If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.” And of course the Jeremiah Wright-Billy-Ayers-radical-Barack Obama did set out deliberately to do just that. Obama’s agenda is American weakness, which leads to losing. Trump’s agenda: we must start winning.
[...]
For me the most reassuring aspect of the speech was its political toughness, an indication of what is waiting for Hillary in November should Trump win the nomination.
FPM is a non-profit 501(c) and cannot, by law, endorse a particular candidate. As a result, Horowitz chose his words carefully. Read between the lines.
"When is a treaty not a treaty?" Stevenson said. "When it's not called a treaty." Otherwise: "There's no other difference."
Not comforting!
So Congress reached an agreement with Obama under which it can vote to void any deal that is reached with Iran. With the deal now wrapped up, Congress could vote very soon. Obama's pretty safe, though, because as was clear even when he agreed to allow Congress to vote, he can veto any "no" vote if it passes both chambers in the Republican-controlled Congress. At that point, Republicans would need to get many Democrats to join them to overturn the veto. [...] The basic thing we want you to take away from this is the difference between a treaty (which has to be approved by the Senate) and an executive agreement (a treaty-except-not-officially-called-that which doesn't have to be approved by the Senate but that sometimes Congress gets to vote on.)
Iran's Supreme Leader vows no change in relations with 'arrogant' United States
(CNN)Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that a newly negotiated deal on his country's nuclear program would not alter Iran's policies toward the United States.
In a televised address marking the start of Eid al-Fitr, the festival that follows the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei said the agreement signed Tuesday on the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's stance on other regional or bilateral matters.
"Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all," he said.
Khamenei said the negotiations with the United States and other world powers on Tehran's nuclear program were an exception because they served Iran's national interest.
Nevertheless, Obama continues his "campaign" to gain support for the deal struck with Iran.
In fact, the White House Weekly Address of July 18, 2015, presents the Liar-in-Chief's "persuasive argument":
Listen to him brag about how nobody but him has ever been able to solve the problem with Iran.
Like everything else that the Traitor-in-Chief engineers since taking office, he'll get his way. Congress will fold.
Furthermore, the GOP will campaign on promises of nullifying the deal.
Culturism(cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm)
n. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority
cultures.
Culturist
(cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of
culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and
protecting majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists
or culturist policy.
------------------
Culturist foreign policy in a nutshell: bomb those who hurt
us (with an intent to inflict pain); aid our friends, not our enemies; and
otherwise mind our own business.
Globalists think the world agrees on fundamental values and
thus all people can be united: Multiculturalists promote that idea
domestically.Culturists believe
that cultures disagree on, and fight over, values and territory.
--------------------
- Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan -
The US is officially in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn them
into western-style progressive democracies with freedom of speech, separation
of church and state, women’s rights, etc., However, Islamic nations reject
these values; cultural diversity dooms these nation-building missions.
From a culturist perspective, what Muslims do to each other
is not our business.If China does
not have a democracy or gay rights, that is not our business.Our culturist job is to protect our own
western traditional majority culture, not to go bankrupt undermining other
nations’ sovereignty.
- Bomb when you bomb -
That is not to say that culturist foreign policy is strictly
isolationist.If nation attacks
us, we should bomb so heavily and hard that they will remember it for a long
time.Then, the next time a
terrorist group tries to set up camp in their nation, the country might put
some effort into routing them out.
- Iran cannot have the bomb -
Because they are our enemy, Iran cannot have the bomb.If they do not dismantle their means of
production voluntarily, we should use military force to eradicate their
bomb-making potential. After that, we should leave Iran immediately: no trying
to make them a democracy, no rebuilding aid.
The article below discusses the fact that it appears as if Obama is handing over Middle Eastern nations to the control of Islamists. Towards the latter part of the article, it points out those who seem to oppose Obama's plans at this point. It names three individuals/nations: 1) Putin 2) Iranian Islamic Republic 3) Old Guard Nations, specifically Saudi Isn't it interesting that the King of Saudi Arabia died six weeks ago, and in the past two days, rumors are flying that both Khameini and Putin have died. It's almost like that scene in the Godfather, where Michael Corleone settles all family business. Obama’s Surrender to Iran
It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s agenda in the Middle East is to help the Islamists regain the land they once controlled but lost in 1924 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
The Arab Spring was not a movement to replace ruthless dictators with democratic governments. It was an Islamic movement to replace secular governments with Islamic ones.
Step by step, this administration is helping to establish the Islamists’ dream of a revived caliphate, or “Pan Arabic Islamic Union” as it has been called by Islamist leaders recently.
There is a mistaken school of thought that believes such an Islamic Union would function like an Arabic European Union, growing their economies and enabling them to take their place among the other nations of the world as equals.
This school neglects to answer the most salient question: How do you contain a movement that recognizes no borders but its own and is compelled by dint of faith to dominate the rest of the world or die in the effort?
Unfortunately, the primary opposition to this plan isn’t coming from the American people. Sadly, much of America is suffering from confusion, ignorance, self-loathing and a dedication to bending over backwards in an attempt to avoid the confrontation that looms ahead.
Rather than marshaling a strong core of support for the hard choices that must be made, our administration is creating a huge chasm between citizens over trivialities and over-amplified slights. We are far weaker for it.
One might ask then, who is opposing the mighty President of the United States? Who dares stand in the way of the Nobel Peace prize winner “Barack Obama?”
The answer will be something of a shock to many.
In no particular order, listed below are those who are arrayed against the designs of our “Dear Leader.”
Putin
Standing most prominently, is Vladimir Putin, the Russian bear. Putin has designs on the former Soviet satellite nations and he needs a strong economy and the leverage that an oil monopoly over the European market provides to fuel his aspirations.
His Ukraine adventure is proving more troublesome than originally thought, and Obama’s push to topple Assad in Syria threatens Putin’s access to a warm water port for Russia’s oil exports to Europe.
The Russian oligarchs are growing restive under the thumb of Putin, seeing his dreams of Sovietus revivivus as bad for business and potentially catastrophic. Putin’s leash is shortening, and his tenure is by no means a sure thing.
While Putin remains in power, he will oppose Obama’s Ottoman revival. He has no choice.
Old Guard and Monarchies of the Middle East
Next are the old guard and monarchies of the Middle East. We like to call them “dictators” even though in reality, while they are all Sunni Muslims, they are more concerned with maintaining their own wealth and power than in recreating an Islamic caliphate.
Among these were Gaddafi, Mubarak and the others deposed in the Arab Spring, but also numbered in this groups is the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan and both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.All are in danger of being ejected from this game. But just like Putin, they will not go bloodlessly.
Islamic Republic
The final player is also the strongest: Iran.
Iran, a Shiite nation, is a natural enemy to any Sunni Islamic caliphate system. The Iranian rulers know from Islamic history (the same history we completely ignore here in the West) that any Sunni caliphate will soon swallow and erase the Shi’a, destroying all opponents to their well-established ideals of Islamic religious and political structure.
Iran, therefore, needs nuclear weapons to protect itself should it fail to derail Obama’s ambitious plans. Should the Pan Arabic (Sunni) Islamic Union become a reality, the Iranian rulers believe that having the capability of ushering in Armageddon will keep the Sunni’s at bay.
At the very least, the Mullahs in Iran rest better knowing, should they fall, that they can take everyone else down with them. Think “mutually-assured destruction.” A sort of “MAD” amongst madmen.
Don’t let this apocalyptic scenario, however, lead you to think that Iran is going quietly into oblivion. On the contrary, it has tirelessly worked to thwart Obama’s plans.
Iran’s use of terror and terror proxies is on the upswing. It will distract and misdirect, strike and cajole, but it will not permit a Sunni caliphate to appear on its border without a nuclear capability of its own to deter Sunni adventurism.
Obama’s setbacks in Syria and Benghazi have forced him to negotiate with the Iranians. He wants to assure them that they have nothing to fear from a caliphate, while simultaneously keeping the American people from recognizing the monumentally stupid policy objective he is pursuing.
To this end, he tells us he has gotten Iran to agree to postpone its nuclear work for ten years, under the ridiculously naive idea that the dynamics of the Middle East will have changed.
Many believe Obama is in fact a Muslim. In reality, that really doesn’t matter.His administration believes that all conflict can be framed in Marxist terms. Empower those who have little and they will join the community with smiles and slaps on the back.
The administration fundamentally misunderstands the problem and is applying a solution akin to gasoline on a grease fire.Economics are unimportant to the Islamists. Power is their currency and they spend all they have to purchase the world for Allah. The establishment of an Islamic caliphate will not calm the Arab street, it will invigorate it to greater conquests, as Islam demands.
Of course, in the eyes of the neo-progressives in the White House, to speak truthfully about this “Islamophobia.”
To Obama, a nuclear Iran is an acceptable trade-off for a revived caliphate, To Israel, however, both Iran and a caliphate are threats to their very existence.
Iran with a nuclear weapon has no reason not to make good on its long-standing promise to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth.” A reconstituted caliphate modeled after the former Ottoman Empire has no room for Israel, indeed, on Iran’s maps, Israel doesn’t exist at all.
America is negotiating nuclear policy with a terrorist state, and geopolitical hegemony with an ideology/religion that knows no borders but its own.
In 2013, President Obama told us we can all take a deep breath, he was able to wring an invaluable concession out of the Iranians. He breathlessly announced that Iran had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
It appeared that we had been brought back from the brink by the president’s keen ability to negotiate. Notwithstanding the obvious (and wholly inappropriate) grandstanding by the POTUS, there are a few other issues that need to be addressed in relation to this irrelevant fatwa.
Most Americans aren’t aware that the foundation of Iran’s nuclear program was laid on March 5th, 1957 by the United States, under an Eisenhower program called “Atoms for Peace.” Iran established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) in 1967, which was a 5 megawatt nuclear research reactor, fueled by enriched uranium.
In 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ratifying it in 1970, making Iran’s nuclear program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification and accountability.
Following the 1979 Revolution, nearly all international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. With little hope of regaining international cooperation, Iran elected to continue the program on their own, although they thought it best to save face and attempt to “shame” America (and by extension its advanced nuclear technology) by condemning all things nuclear.
It was for this reason and this reason alone, that the fatwa was issued. It had nothing to do with any humanitarian interests held deeply in the hearts of Iranian leaders; they are certainly more than amenable to any method that allows them to more efficiently eliminate their enemies, most especially Israel.
The anti-nuclear fatwa, is fully revealed to be a sham five years later, when we see the destruction of a reputedly “non-existent” Iranian nuclear program by Iraqi forces.
All of this is still occurring under the reign of the same Ayatollah that issued the nuclear fatwa a brief five years previous. Clearly, the Iranians had continued their nuclear program, despite the fatwa.The next time we saw any reference to the 1979 “nuclear fatwa” was in 2003. The IAEA issued a report, condemning the Iranian nuclear program, accusing it of once again, trying to weaponize the technology.
Still, Iran didn’t budge. It wasn’t until the U.S. threatened to get involved militarily (the full might and power of the U.S. military was on display right next door in Iraq under the leadership of President Bush) that the Iranians finally caved.What did this concession look like? Well, as you might have guessed, Iran simply reaffirmed the old stand-by fatwa from 1979, condemning nuclear weapons and promising to play nice.
So, for the record, we have clear evidence that the Iranians consider their anti-nuclear fatwa to be toilet paper, so Obama’s “concession” is more enabling than disarming. Iran had cast the ‘79 fatwa out again in 2013, hoping we’ll bite on it one more time. Obama readily obliged.
President Obama appears willing to do whatever it takes to build his legacy on reestablishing the Islamic state after an 80 year absence. He also appears willing to endanger both the United States and Israel to get it done.European colonization didn’t create terrorists; Islam and Mohammed birthed terrorism in order to spread a brutal and unforgiving ideology.
Absent European intervention, Muslims might yet be centuries further behind than they already are. Islam is a crippling force. Science has never been particularly important to the Islamists.European contact brought Muslim countries out of the Stone Age; the same stone age to which the Islamic jihad intends to return us all.
Senior adviser to Obama for America and former White House official David Axelrod blew off criticisms from Republicans Sunday that the Obama administration’s storyline on the Libyan attack had been inconsistent, calling it “nonsense.”
Axelrod claimed the administration had shared everything it knew about the attacks “in real time” and Republicans’ attempts to portray the situation any differently are “disgreaceful.”
“Well, I think it’s nonsense,” Axelrod told “Meet the Press” host David Gregory. “Obviously, this was a tragic event, and the President did call it an act of terror – not just once, but several times – and asked for and ordered an investigation to get to the bottom of what happened, why it happened, and to bring those who committed this act of terror to justice.”...
Expect Obama to mirror this same position in tonight's debate with Mitt Romney.
Obama will say, "Look!" followed by blah, blah, blah. A snow job, in other words.
Tammy Swofford (bio) has written an excellent commentary about what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2011. Worth your time.
She prefaces her opinion piece in the Daily Times Pakistan with the following:
It is my belief there was both dereliction of duty and gross malpractice in play regarding the denial of needed services as requested by a United States ambassador.
Excerpt from the body of USNR Lieutenant Commander Swofford's essay:
...Ambassador Christopher Stevens needed a more robust security complement. Instead, more than 30 security members were relieved of the mission in Libya in the last six months. What should have been the response of the Commander-in-Chief? When reviewing daily intelligence reports and noting an increase in ThreatCon in Libya, he still allowed his Secretary of State and her chain of command to approve a force reduction. Why were repeated requests for increased security assets by Ambassador Christopher Stevens denied? And why did the State Department try to pass off what was an organised terror attack against the staff at the Benghazi consulate as a mere anti-west provocation by ‘the village people’? Very early on, the images posted on a jihad portal showed scenes that denoted an exceptional use of firepower as opposed to protesters with mere matches and gasoline at their disposal. Who was asleep at the switch? And which analysts did not connect the dots that there was a trigger-pulling event slated for Benghazi?....
Blood on their hands. Diplomatic blood. [T]he death of Ambassador Stevens was not an accidental event. Read my lips. It could have been prevented....
The Obama administration MUST be held to account for Benghazi! Americans need to get angry enough to prevent any more diversions and smoke and mirrors on the part of the administration.
Please enjoy the Presidential debates as I'd like to see them unfurl! This video touches on several aspects of culturist thought. Please enjoy and spread it!
Political expediency? The realization that the Obama administration's foreign policy has failed? I doubt the latter because Barack Hussein Obama is a narcissist of the highest sort. Or should that be "of the lowest sort"? Whatever.
President Barack Obama has quietly cancelled a politically risky plan to meet this week with Egypt’s new Islamist president.
The plan was cancelled amid a wave of riots and attacks in Arab countries that have damaged Obama’s campaign-trail claim to foreign policy competence.
In 2011, Obama had “bilateral” meetings with 13 Arab and world leaders during the annual U.S. summit. This year, amid the foreign policy meltdown, his schedule shows no so-called “bilats” with any foreign leaders....
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made her first visit to Egypt since the Arab Spring regime change that ousted Mubarak. There were taunting chants about Monica Lewinsky directed at Hillary Clinton.
My insights on that, courtesy of my Muslim neighbor in 1999, in a conversation that I'll never forget:
"And that President of yours [meaning Bill Clinton, of course]....He consorted with Monica Lewinsky. THAT JEWESS!"
Information from the above source:
...Tomatoes, shoes and a water bottle were thrown at part of Clinton's motorcade as it pulled up, protected by riot police, although a US official said Clinton's own vehicle was not hit.
The protest appears to have been the result of suspicions that Washington had helped the Muslim Brotherhood win elections in Egypt in the wake of last year's ouster of president Hosni Mubarak after 18 days of massive street protests....
US aid to Egypt is guaranteed by the Camp David Accords, and stopping it would be a violation of that treaty, a high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood lawmaker said Sunday.
Essam El-Erian, who also serves as chairman of the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that should aid from Washington be cut, the Brotherhood would consider changing the terms of Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
[...]
...Last month the US administration announced it would speed up aid to Egypt as the country copes with mounting economic problems during the transition from president Hosni Mubarak’s three-decade term in power.
Congress has already approved $1.3 billion in military aid and $250 million in civilian aid for the current fiscal year. That assistance, however, is conditioned upon Egypt meeting all of its obligations under its peace treaty with Israel....
My prediction: Obama will ignore that last sentence. After all, Obama is Carter on crack.
One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.
“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The Muslim Brotherhood - founded in 1928 to promote a conservative version of Islam in politics, culture and society – has previously had some communication with the U.S. through Brotherhood Members of Parliament who had been technically elected as independents. U.S. diplomats had been instructed only to deal with Brotherhood members in their role as Members of Parliament.
Politico repeatedly attempts to make this controversy all about the Jews, stating:
The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group - which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.
The decision to resume contact with the Muslim Brotherhood group may worry members of the Jewish community and Israeli officials, Reuters reported.
POLITICO’s Ben Smith wrote yesterday about the increasing anxiety of center-left Jewish Democrats who are losing faith in Obama, most recently because of the speech in which he called for the country’s 1967 borders to be the basis for peace talks, with “land swaps.”
But Israel has nothing to do with it. The problem is, the Muslim Brotherhood has made it very clear their goal is the destruction of the United States, and the subjugation of the entire world under the law of Islam:
For those of you curious to the Muslim Brotherhood project here in America and in the West, read this document that was entered into evidence during the largest Hamas funding trial, the Holy Land trial, in US history. In it, all of the usual suspects are named, CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA et al,were named as un-indicted co-conspirators. Their stated goal is "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."
One of the results of the turmoil in Egypt is the rise in influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. In order to understand the implications, Palestinian Media Watch has translated the book Jihad is the way by Mustafa Mashhur, who was the official leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt 1996-2002. The book is the fifth volume of his full work called The Laws of Da'wa (Islamic missionary activity).
In his book, Jihad is the way, Mashhur explains the fundamental concepts of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Mashhur's teachings encompass subjects such as the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing an Islamic state, world domination under Islam, the public and personal religious duty of military Jihad, and the warning not to rush to Jihad until it is prepared and timed for maximum benefit. Click to view full translation in PDF
PMW has selected the following quotes from Jihad is the way to illustrate central ideas of Muslim Brotherhood ideology. PMW's translation of the book follows below. National goal: Islamic world domination
- "...the Islamic Ummah [nation]... can regain its power and be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men , as the leaders of humanity..." - "...know your status, and believe firmly that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation..." - "It should be known that Jihad and preparation towards Jihad are not only for the purpose of fending-off assaults and attacks of Allah's enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world..." - "...Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,..."
Means: Jihad - a mandatory religious duty
-"Then comes the power of arms and weapons,... and this is the role of Jihad." - "Jihad is a religious public duty... incumbent upon the Islamic nation, and is a personal duty to fend off the infidels' attack on the nation..." - "And the youth should know that the problems of the Islamic world, such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, or the Philippines, are not issues of territories and nations, but of faith and religion. They are problems of Islam and all Muslims, and their resolution cannot be negotiated and bargained by recognizing the enemy's right to the Islamic land he stole, therefore, there is no other option but Jihad for Allah, and this is why Jihad is the way." - "The symbol of the [Muslim] Brotherhood is the book of Allah [the Quran] between two swords. The swords symbolize Jihad and the force that protects the truth represented in Allah's book." - "...that is, go out to battle, oh believers, young and old, by foot or with animal, under all circumstances and conditions..."
Timing: Don't rush, prepare carefully for Jihad
- "... despite this, the [Muslim] Brotherhood is not rushed by youth's enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood..." - "... one should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims will repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it." - "Prepare yourself and train in the art of warfare, and embrace the causes of power. You must learn the ways and manners and laws of war. You must learn them and embrace them and adhere to them, so that your Jihad will be the one accepted by Allah." - "... there exists an unavoidable personal duty for every Muslim to equip himself and prepare and gear-up towards Jihad..."
Personal goal: Aspire to Shahada - Death for Allah
- "Allah is our goal, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, the Jihad is our way, and the Death for Allah is our most exalted wish." - "The Jihad is our way and death for Allah is our most lofty wish", this is the call which we have always called,... Many of our beloved ones have already achieved this wish,... We ask Allah to accept all of them,... and may He join us with them, ..."
Jihad against Israel:
- "Honorable brothers have achieved Shahada (Martyrdom) on the soil of beloved Palestine, during the years 47' and 48', [while] in their Jihad against the criminal, thieving, gangs of Zion. The Imam and Shahid (Martyr) Hassan Al-Banna is considered as a Shahid (Martyr) of Palestine, even if he was not killed on its soil."
The British government has appointed Mohammed Shokat as the UK special envoy to the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) (the ‘Muslim UN’) in a major bid to boost ties between the two.
The OIC and the UK have also announced plans to develop a joint framework of dialogue and cooperation in selected areas and evinced keen interest to hold regular consultations on issues of common concerns, said a British Embassy spokesman in Riyadh Sunday.
I was looking through some magazines that had piled up and found this essay by Fareed Zakaria in Time. From "When Terror Loses Its Grip":
...There are, of course, many differences between Hitler and bin Laden. But one great similarity holds. Hitler's death marked the end of the Nazi challenge from Germany. And bin Laden's death will mark the end of the global threat of al-Qaeda.
[...]
[Al Qaeda's] founding rationale has been shattered by the Arab Spring of this year. Al-Qaeda believed that the only way to topple the dictatorships of the Arab world was through violence, that participation in secular political processes was heretical and that people wanted and would cheer an Islamic regime. Over the past few months, millions in the Arab world have toppled regimes relatively peacefully, and what they have sought was not a caliphate, not a theocracy, but a modern democracy.
[...]
Along the way, the efforts at nation building have tarnished the image of the American military. The world's greatest fighting force was shown to be unable to deliver stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, had to deal with scandals like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and saw its soldiers losing their once high morale. May 1 changed all that. The image of a smart, wise and supremely competent U.S. has flashed across the globe. The lesson should be clear. An America that uses its military power less promiscuously, more intelligently and in a targeted and focused manner might once again gain the world's respect and fear, if not affection. And an America that can provide a compelling picture of a modern, open society will be a far more attractive model for Arabs than Osama bin Laden's vision of a backward medieval caliphate.
Apparently, Fareed Zakaria, to some extent, advises Obama with regard to foreign policy:
Newsbusters has more information, including a backpedaling statement from Zakaria.
But here's my point: If you read the article in Time Magazine, you will note similarities between what Zakaria has written and Obama's foreign policy.
Also note Zakaria's reaction to Obama's speech of May 19:
It was his role as educator in chief that came out today. He provided a kind of world view, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.
He touched on the places that we don't like - the regimes we don't like that are having trouble dealing with people, Tehran and Damascus. He also talked about Bahrain and Yemen. But you are right, of course, he didn't talk about the 800-pound gorilla that is Saudi Arabia.
But he also then went on to talk about ways to consolidate these revolutions; he talked about the Arab-Israeli peace process. He was tougher on Syria than he's been. He was more explicit in his - in his support for two states, Israel and Palestine on 1967 borders, plus mutually agreeable land swaps, so very comprehensive.
So, I thought he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus or minor land swaps. He also recognized Israel's legitimate security needs, so I'd be surprised if there is too much criticism out of Tel Aviv tonight....
Please take time to watch the video of Zakaria's statement:
Zakaria has the worst conflict of interest possible -- ego. If an egotistical, ambitious "reporter" thinks his opinions are being considered by the president (and no, I don't believe this was just the White House telling Zakaria stuff; I think they flattered him by asking advice), then he's flattered, and he thinks he's on the team, and therefore he is invested in His Team's success (or perception of such).
[...]
Gee, no wonder Zakaria thinks that every move of Obama's is brilliant. Obama's got him thinking he's implementing the Zakaria Agenda for Success. Of course Zakaria approves of Zakaria.
Should we care what Zakaria says? Yes, insofar as Zakaria is often read by those leaning left. After all, in many circles, Zakaria is a respected journalist and does exert at least some influence on the American electorate.
And if Zakaria is advising Obama to any extent whatsoever, we should care very much what Zakaria believes.
Graphic - Israel and the surrounding area: On May 19, 2011, Obama delivered his second outreach speech to the Islamic world. In his speech, Obama proposed that Israel return to pre-1967 borders as a gesture of peace to the Pseudostinians and to further the two-state solution.
Predictably, instead of a willingness to negotiate with Israel, Hamas has dubbed Obama's speech as "total failure." From this source:
President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech Thursday was a "total failure," Hamas said Thursday evening.
"The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama," said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. "Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel's crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel's occupation."
"We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances," the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: "We object to intervention in our internal affairs.
Congressman Allen West's press release yesterday explains what a return to pre-1967 borders would mean for the nation of Israel:
"Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, andcould be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism...."
Read the rest of Congressman West's statement HERE.
Surely, Obama has read The Charter of Hamas! In part, that charter, the mission statement of Hamas, reads as follows in Article 28:
...The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them.We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims....
According to Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations:
"Frankly, the 1967 lines are not defensible. Israel today is 45 miles wide, you put us back to the 1967 lines, we are 8 miles wide. The state of Israel can’t be defended with those dimensions."
Why in the world did Obama propose that Israel return to pre-1967 borders? What are his motives in making such a statement?
Additional reading: Silverfiddles's essay "Is Obama Stupid, an Israel Hater, or Both?"
On the Sunday news shows this morning, the Obama administration sent signals that Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi could stay in power–despite earlier statements from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama that Gadhafi must go....
The statements came from Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs. Read those statements HERE.
How pissed off is Hillary right now?
I wouldn't be surprised if she threw in the towel and resigned.
Meanwhile, Obama leaves Rio today. On to Chile and El Salvador! With his family in tow, including his mother-in-law.
