Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Barack Braveheart Strikes Again

Recently we were treated to an “open mic” moment during which President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that if Russia could just be patient, after his reelection, the American president would have more maneuvering room to “reach accommodations” with the former Soviet Union. Obama had already agreed to a nuclear arms reduction (likely to be unilateral) and cancellation of plans for a defensive missile shield in Eastern Europe (final agreement pending).

Obama has now been confronted with a fact that anyone with the least sense of history knows—but which he apparently does not. When dealing with autrocratic rulers like Medvedev (and soon his predecessor and successor Vladimir Putin), gestures of good will and offers of compromise are treated as weaknesses to be exploited. At an international conference in Moscow, attended by American State Department officials, General Staff Chief Nikolai Makarov responded to Obama’s overtures with a serious threat that indicated what the Russkies would do if Obama reneged on his cancellation of the missile defense shield.

Said the general of the potential missile defense shield: “A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens.” Translation: “If you do anything to protect yourselves and your European allies via missile defense, we will commit an act of war by destroying your sites.” In just a few decades we have gone from Ronald Reagan standing up to the Soviets in Berlin and saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to an American State Department spokesman saying: “We will rebouble our efforts to seek common ground and to seek understanding.” If you can’t get your enemies to love you, at least you can make them fear you. They feared Ronald Reagan. They laugh at Barack Obama.

In an effort to tamp down the shock and anger felt by a large number of Americans at the Obama administration’s constant capitulation to a resurgent [Soviet] Russian empire, the same State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, attempted to make light of the Russian comment: “I’m aware of this kind of rhetoric being thrown around. [But] I would also just point you to the fact that outgoing President Medvedev also addressed the meeting that was taking place in Moscow, and he expressed confidence that despite differences, we’re going to be able to resolve those differences on missile defense.” Check out your history, Mr. Toner: “There are no offensive missiles in Cuba.”

“This is my last election,” Mr. Obama whispered to Mr. Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.” This development alone points out that America must make this his last election and his first big electoral defeat. In fact, I’m hoping we give him enough flexibility to perform a physically-impossible act on himself. It’s bad enough we have a huge modern Caliphate to face in the years to come, but now we have a president who thinks that Neville Chamberlain did a dandy job of bringing peace for our time at Munich and wishes to accomplish the same kind of peace in Eastern Europe.

Any American general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired. Any Russian general who states loudly and publicly a policy which is not consistent with that of his president will be fired on (as in “firing squad”). If Obama’s amateur diplomats genuinely think this is “just rhetoric” they have no idea of what incoming President Putin has engineered in the past, most particularly as head of the KGB. One has to wonder if the equally naïve and vastly more dangerous weak-spined President of the United States is acting out of foolish trust or merely simple fear.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .

Obama can’t catch a break. He keeps making wrong move after wrong move because he has bad instincts. Not to mention, he apparently doesn’t have a clue how to get himself re-elected. Ha ha. Let’s discuss his most recent bad moves. Consider this the feel good article for the week. :)

El Stupido One: Obama really screwed up this week. While speaking to Vladimir Putin’s mini-me, Dmitri Medvedev, in South Korea, Obama said into an open microphone that he needed more time to surrender our missile shield as Putin demanded because of the election. Said Obama, “after my election, I will have more flexibility.” Whoops.

It is a scandal that Obama plans to surrender our missile shield and thereby expose Poland to an aggressive Russia. But that’s not why this was a problem for Obama. The real problem for Obama is the broader implication of what he said. This statement reminds voters that the only thing keeping him in check is the need to get re-elected. Once he gets re-elected, he will act like “real Obama.” That prospect will frighten conservatives, who will wonder how much worse he can get, and it will turn-off moderates, who had hoped he would moderate his views with a Republican Congress. What this does is rally conservatives behind Romney (now that the primaries are effectively over), and it will cause moderates to see Romney “the moderate” as more likely to be moderate than Obama, who has been using moderate rhetoric in public but is privately promising to go full-retard after the election. This hurts Obama.

El Stupido Two: This Trayvon Martin thing will blow up on Obama. He should have kept his trap shut. Why? For one thing, because it reminds people that Obama is a racist and he only seems to care about the suffering of blacks. . . “what state was that flood in again?” Indeed, people are starting to ask why Obama commented on Trayvon, but didn’t comment on the shooting death of a white Mississippi State student by three black males this week, or why he hasn’t commented on the shooting of two unarmed British tourists by a black Sarasota, Florida teen. Americans do not like presidents who play racial favorites and this reminds people that Obama is such a president.

Further, the misconduct of Trayvon’s exploiters will turn off the segment of the electorate that took Obama at face value when he said he would be the first post-racial president. Indeed, since his election, his allies have smeared anyone who criticized him as racist. Blacks in the Congressional Black Caucus cried racism when they were caught breaking laws. They made up false claims of racism against the Tea Party. Eric Holder has pursued a truly racist “civil rights” agenda. And now, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are busy inciting racial hatred. This is the exact opposite message Obama needs to send to win over moderate whites. And as more evidence comes out that Team Race is trying to lynch a possibly innocent man, the blowback is building. This appears to be Duke Lacrosse all over again. Indeed, we’ve now learned that a 13 year old witnesses says Zimmerman was the one being attacked -- and his wounds were consistent with that, we’ve heard the 911 call which is not at all what it was portrayed, and we’ve learned that Trayvon was a thug. Add in a mother who has trademarked his name so she can profit from his death and you have a recipe for significant blowback.

El Stupido Three: Finally, let’s discuss Obama’s campaign video. Obama has produced a 17 minute video pimping his re-election. The video is narrated by Tom Hanks. And it is fascinating.

First, this was a stupid thing to release because only diehard supporters or opponents will watch a 17 minute video. So there was nothing to be gained here. Then it got worse because right after its release another video was released of Tom Hanks getting caught on stage with a hedge fund manager who is in blackface and who makes racist comments. Hanks now claims that he was blindsided by the appearance of this man, but he wasn’t. He doesn’t leave the stage or chastise the man. Nope. Instead, he launches into an attack on Bill O’Reilly. This has neutered the 17 minute video entirely and raised the question of the double-standard liberals use. And following Slutgate, where the left tried to defend people like Bill Maher, the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Moreover, when you look at the video’s contents, you quickly realize that Obama has no idea how to get re-elected.
● The video itself is dark, depressing and defensive. And it’s crawling with self-pity as it keeps whining about how much responsibility has been dumped on our oft-golfing president. You can’t win the White House being whiny or pessimistic.

● Most of the video blames Bush. That’s not going to work four years after Bush left office.

● He’s terrified of his record. He never says “the stimulus package,” though there is one mention of the “Recovery Act.” He doesn’t tout Dodd Frank. He does talk about the auto bailouts, but he’s defensive as he tries to claim they extracted significant concessions from the unions. He mentions ObamaCare a lot, but only the promised benefits, which is the same sale pitch which keeps ObamaCare at the 40% support level in the polls. There’s almost no foreign policy mentioned except the killing bin Laden, which got Obama a 3% bounce which faded immediately. What the video does contain is a laundry list of promises to his different constituent groups (blacks, gays, feminists, enviros, etc.). That won’t play well if someone puts them all together for a general election commercial. Also, the whole video has been torn apart for being packed with lies and distortions. Even the leftist mouthpiece The Washington Post awarded it 3 out of 4 Pinocchios. That’s bad.
So what does this mean? It means he’s planning to run a depressing campaign. That’s a loser. He’s planning to blame Bush. Good luck. It means he’s afraid of his record. But without a crazed Republican in the race, that’s what this race will be about. Hence, he’s doomed, especially since the only achievements he’s willing to discuss either can’t get above 50% support in the polls or got him no credit with the public.

Add in the above, and you also have the Democrats going out their way to alienate the electorate by stirring up racial tensions, and Obama’s Medvedev comment putting the lie to his plan to run as a moderate. Right now, Obama and friends are doing everything wrong. They are alienating moderates, alienating whites, and energizing the conservative base. This could be one of the least competent campaigns in human history.

Finally, before you say, “don’t underestimate him,” keep in mind that Obama has never won a competitive election. All of his opponents imploded on their own. What’s the one thing Romney has shown cannot happen with him? He won’t implode.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site. Today we resume the Politics of Trek series!

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

News Roundup: Anger, Insanity and Nakedness

Let’s do another news roundup. Why? Because I said so! Just kidding. Actually, because there are several little stories we can’t cover in separate articles so here they are all lumped together in a big old steaming pile of news! Get ready for dogs, sex, and Hawaiian Stalinists!

Item One: Dog Show Gone Wrong. In case you missed it, the Westminster Kennel Club dog show started last night and finishes tonight. I never miss this as I think dogs are great. And much like the Super Bowl, part of the attraction each year is when Pedigree puts out new ads. The last few years have featured David Duchovny talking about dogs with the tag line, “dogs rule.” Here are some samples: We’re for Dogs / Shelter Dogs / Doggie Dentures / Rub My Belly.

Imagine my surprise when these commercials did NOT appear last night. Instead, we got some lame generic commercial for Purina using some nondescript song. Totally forgettable pabulum. Hmm.

So I promptly turned to the internet to discover what had gone wrong. It turns out that Westminster decided to drop Pedigree as a sponsor because they didn’t like Pedigree focusing on shelter dogs. Seriously. Said Westminster’s spokesidiot David Frei:
“Show me an ad with a dog with a smile. Don’t try to shame me. We told Pedigree that and they ignored us. Our show is a celebration of dogs. We’re not promoting purebreds at the expense of non-purebreds. We celebrate all dogs. When we’re seeing puppies behind bars, it takes away from that. Not just because it’s sad, but it’s not our message.”
To quote Bufford T. Justice, “you aaaaasshole.” Over the past few years, Westminster has gotten a bad reputation because of many of the breeding practices associated with purebreds. Specifically, their standards are creating dogs with breathing problems, back problems, bad joints and mental issues. They’ve been protested and some people have even considered legislation against the things they promote.

Pedigree, by comparison, is for all dogs, not just purebreds, and they’ve matched seven million dollars in donations in the last couple years to help the dogs who need it most. Westminster has not.

Westminster is not only stupid, they are shameful. I suggest they fix this by next year or I won’t be back. In the meantime, up yours Westminster, and your little sponsor Purina too.

Item Two: Accidentally Naked? A high school football coach had to resign the other day when he “accidentally” posted naked pictures of himself on Facebook. How does that happen “accidentally”? Between this and Sandusky and the guy in Syracuse and the various women’s coaches who keep getting fired for inappropriate behavior with their players and the NFL assistant coach who got arrested driving naked through a fast-food drive-thru, something has really gone wrong in coaching.

Item Three: Bringing Sexy Back. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin wants Russians to have more sex to halt Russia’s population decline. Maybe they need more coaches? Interestingly, the land of mail-order brides and alcoholism actually has finally stabilized population-wise. In the 1990s, there was speculation Russia’s population would fall by a third by 2050, but that didn’t happen and now they’ve even begun to grow by a few thousand over the past few years. Still, it’s a good political strategy for Putin: how can you go wrong telling people to have more sex?

Item Four: Machete. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer just learned a little something about the joys of law and order when he was robbed at machete-point in his Caribbean vacation home by a masked intruder. Being a liberal, he will no doubt draw the wrong lesson and endorse a seven-day waiting period for machetes. . . or vacation homes.

Item Five: Big Brother Is Watching, Aloha. Finally this item. I’ve said before that Republicans get stupid when you mention terrorists or criminals. Too many “conservatives” will happily throw away all their rights in the name of safety based on false promises and vague assurances that we can trust government not to abuse absolute power. Combine this with the Democratic instinct to monitor and control you and you have the makings for an American police state. Here’s proof.

Hawaii’s legislature is debating a bill which will require Internet providers to keep track of every website their customers visit. Basically, your provider will need to keep a continuing file showing every website you visited in the past two years. In—flipping—sane!

Why would Hawaii do this? Because Republican Representative Kymberly Marcos Pine is being “harassed” by a web designer named Eric Ryan, who claims Pine owes him money. He launched a website called KymPineIsACrook.com where he makes the claim that she stiffed him (but not in a Russian way). She also contends that Ryan hacked her e-mail account. Hence, Hawaii needs “tougher cyber laws.” Of course, the Democrats jumped on this and are pushing this insane bill.

Ok, let’s cut through this.. First, if he’s lying about the money, sue him for slander. Clearly he’s not lying because she’s taken no action in that regard. Secondly, if he has hacked her e-mail, then he’s already committed a crime under the Patriot Act. So no additional laws are needed. Third, even if a law was needed, it is to punish someone for hacking an e-mail account, not a law that requires private companies to spy on all citizens so some messed up Hawaiian legislator can get her Stalin on.

Think about this. One man is harassing her, so she wants the government to keep Stasi-like files on everyone in Hawaii?? How does that make sense? What possible purpose could this serve except to let her see who visited his website. And then what? “Re-education” camps? This is pure totalitarianism, make no mistake. And for those inclined to trust the government’s motives, this should wake you up. This is why government really acts -- because some intolerant a-hole with a grudge and a debt problem decides to use the government to help them in a personal fight.

Government is evil and those who would use the government to control others are evil.


Also, don't forget that it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site (LINK), and in honor of Valentine's Day, might I recommend revisiting the Top 25 Romance Films article (LINK).


[+] Read More...

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Split Personality At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

As the White House and the Democratic czars of political correctness lecture us on "watching what we say" in order to avoid Islamophobia and violence against Muslims, the President continues to treat with Russian leader Vladimir Putin through his puppet president Dmitry Medvedev. While Americans commit imaginary "hate crimes" against Muslims, Russian troops and operatives simply cut to the chase and murder Chechen rebel Muslims outright.

My personal view of the situation is that the best result would be that both sides do each other in and thus kill two vicious birds with one stone. But that's an unlikely result, and I'm not the President of the United States who must, Janus-like, have one point of view domestically and an entirely different one of foreign affairs. The Islamic "nation" of Chechnya isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to America, but Russia considers it important only because its lengthy presence within the Russian empire has produced a consensus among Russian leaders that its departure would be a signal to other provinces to seek independence. Unlike Ukraine and other breakaway republics which removed themselves from the former Soviet Union, Chechnya had almost no autonomy or recognition as a state within the Union, and its exit would be considered a breakup of mother Russia herself.

To add to the mix, Chechnya was originally a region that converted to Islam in order to form an alliance with the Ottoman empire to keep out the encroaching Russian Czarist empire. It was a lost cause, and it resulted in a Russian province populated almost entirely by resentful Sunni Muslims. That didn't set well with the Orthodox Christians and even less so with the atheist communist government that ruled after 1919. Today, Chechnya is viewed with the worst suspicions of both former (?) communists and the Russian Orthodox Church. Today's Russia is under the thumb of former President Putin who was also the former head of the ruthless KGB. In neither position did Putin much care about the sensitivities or religious freedom of the Chechens.

Islamic terrorists have given the Kremlin a very bad headache. But as our liberals say, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Our happy-face President can't decide which they are, so he takes no stand at all. Meanwhile, this is a Russian public relations disaster. Revelations seem to be coming out daily about Russian barbarity during both the first and second Chechen wars and the current rebellion. Endangering their own lives, several Russian commanders have admitted that their troops have committed multiple assassinations and mass murder of Chechen rebels. Major Alexei Potyomkin admitted that a group of Red Cross volunteers was slaughtered in Grozny and made to look like the murders were committed by Chechens. A repeat of the murder of Polish officers by the thousands by communist troops at Katyn during WW II which they blamed on the Nazis.

Another Russian officer gave his "war" diary to the London Times which has reproduced it anonymously with its horrific recitation of Russian atrocities in Chechnya during and since 1999. Meanwhile, the Chechens have been busy themselves. In October of this year, rebels attacked the Chechen Parliament building in Grozny at the same time a high-ranking Russian cabinet official was attending a meeting of the Parliament. They have also attempted several near-successful assassinations of the Russian puppet head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. The most recent attempt occurred while Kadyrov was in attendance at a fully-packed theater performance. Attacks are not limited to the capital and its environs. A mass attack by the rebels occurred at a crowded market in Kabardino Balkaria, an outlying area inhabited largely by ethnic Russians.

So why should we care if two opposing gangs are busily killing each other? A couple of reasons. First, it could be a chance for the United States to exploit Russian inability to control its own territories while at the same time making public hay about Russian oppression of Islamic peoples (of course that didn't work out so well in Afghanistan). But at the very least, we would be taking a stand against wholesale slaughter and subjugation of a people's desire for freedom.

Equally importantly is the fact that despite its constant public pronouncements of peace within its border, Russia has either created (or suffered from, depending on your point of view) a massive retaliation by Islamic Chechen rebels that brings instability to the region and danger within Russia itself. This greatly exacerbates the problems the West already faces with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Russian exploitation of Middle East animosities.

Part and parcel of that mess is the fact that the 2014 winter Olympic games will be held in Sochi, Russia. If this situation is not brought under control, the games could make Munich look like child's play. Sochi is far from Moscow, and in the volatile Circassian region which is as close to Chechnya as it is to the Russian capital. There's bad blood there as well since historically, the Russian empire under Alexander II conquered this Caucusus region, subjugating its Muslim population or expelling them to the Ottoman empire. Its peaceful and prosperous tourist popularity obscures the fact that there are ethnic and religious hostilities seething just below the public surface.

Obama owes it to the American public and the Western democracies to expose the Russian atrocities and call attention to the very real potential danger posed by the Chechen rebellion vis-a-vis the Olympic games and more importantly to its athletes and attendees. But considering Obama's tail-between-his-legs obeisance to the Russian bear, it's more likely he will continue to expand his efforts to ferret out the American terrorist Islamophobes who oppose the Ground Zero mosque.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Bush And Eastern Europe Betrayed Eastern Europe, Not Obama

Do you remember how Obama sold out Eastern Europe to improve relations with the Russians? That would be the same Russians who are now helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. . . er, power plant. Well, it turns out that we got that wrong. Obama didn’t sell out Easter Europe, Bush did. Oh, and they had it coming.

Let’s go over the allegations that the haters are making about Obama’s Eastern European policy:
• First, he scrapped a missile-defense system, which had been promised to Eastern Europe to defend them against missiles from Iran and Russia. But “promised” is an understatement. Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic undertook great national risk in agreeing to become bases for the various components of this system. In fact, in response to Poland’s actions, Russian conducted a war game which involved simulated nuclear strikes against Warsaw.

• Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO applications have ground to a halt. Basically, Russia has been allowed dictate NATO membership and extend its control over its former vassals.

• Nothing has happened on European energy security and, specifically, by letting Russia cut off Georgia, Russia continues to control all supplies of gas to Europe.

• Several Eastern European countries (most notably Poland) sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to curry favors with us, but Obama has refused to relax visa rules for Poles wishing to travel to the United States, even though those rules have been relaxed for everyone other country you can think of.

• There are a myriad of snubs, such as Obama skipping World War II ceremonies, demanding that the Poles invite the Russians to a pro-Democracy gathering, the sending of a “snooty” envoy who treats anyone below the prime minister level as an inferior, and Obama’s constant use of the words “partners” rather than “allies,” which they fear signifies a less protected status.
These matters have so bothered the Eastern Europeans that last year they sent an open letter to Obama criticizing his policies. What? You didn't hear about that? How strange, I wonder why?

In any event, The Economist wants you to know that it’s just not right to blame Obama for any of this. In fact, they present an extensive counterargument that thoroughly proves that Bush is the guy who really sold out Eastern Europe, and Eastern Europe had it coming. Let’s consider that “argument.”

First, The Economist begins by attacking an argument that really hasn’t been raised. It notes that under the weak-kneed George Bush, NATO never made contingency plans to defend the Baltic nations in the event of a Russian invasion. Now, under President Ass-To-Kick, NATO is making such plans. How’s that for tough! NATO is even preparing military exercises in those countries. . . something that happened under Bush as well, if The Economist had checked.

Second, with regard to this “flimsy” missile defense argument, President Ass-To-Kick has actually done more than was promised. Yep. Sure, he cancelled the system Bush wanted to install, but in its place he’s putting together a ship based system that The Economist swears is soooooo much better. Of course, that system can only stop Iranian missiles, and it relies on stopping those in the Persian Gulf. But to make up for this, President Ass-To-Kiss actually took the extraordinary step of sending a patriot missile battery to Poland! Woo hoo! Of course, the Patriot Missiles can’t hit an intercontinental ballistic missile, and this particular battery happens to be unloaded. . . and he’s only letting the Poles have it for training purposes only. But still, it’s obvious the Poles are just being whiny.

Finally, The Economist finished off its stellar argument with some classic blame the victim assertions. Georgia and Ukraine brought their NATO problems on themselves because their politicians are unacceptable. As for energy security, well, that’s really Europe’s fault because they just aren’t attentive enough to the issue. And did you know that those grubby Eastern Europeans don’t spend enough on their own defense? If they had been spending enough on their own defense, then maybe that “would encourage America to turn up when needed.” Yeah, and maybe they shouldn’t dress so proactively either.

So you see, it really is Bush’s fault and it’s those darn whiny provocateurs in Eastern Europe. It isn’t Obama’s fault at all. And anyone who says otherwise just isn’t being honest.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Peace In Our Minds. . .

You don’t have to be stupid to be a member of the Norgie Prize Patrol, but it helps. And you don’t have to be naive to handle Obama’s foreign policy, but that helps too. So what happens when you mix liberal and stupid with liberal and naive? You get nuclear war. Let’s quiz the Prize Patrol. . .

For those of you who missed it, the Norgie Prize Patrol has been under fire ever since giving Obama a surprise Norgie. Many critics asked what Obama had done to possibly warrant receiving such an award. Other suggested it was too soon. To you, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland responds: “We simply disagree. He got the prize for what he has done. Who has done more for [peace] than Barack Obama?”

So what has he done you ask? Well, Jagland is nothing if not prepared to answer that question. First, he singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and Muslim world. Of course, he didn’t seem to know that only 19% of Americans think that our relations with the Muslim world will improve. And he apparently didn’t read the Palestinian memo that said: "All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated." That’s not good right? Maybe he also missed the fact that Israel is planning to bomb Iran before Christmas?

Hmm. I’m gonna have to call bull on that one Jagoff. What else you got?

Obama also eliminated the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe: “[This] has contributed to -- I wouldn’t say a safer world -- but a world with less tension.”

Uh, wow.

So the European view is that being unable to defend yourself from a missile attack by a group of nutjobs who want to turn your cities into slag reduces the tension in Europe? You people must love being robbed. Do your sports teams play to lose? Do you all stuffer from Stockholm Syndrome? Do Norwegians pass out blackmail material about themselves on the street -- “ya, this ist me und mein sexy Schnauzer. . . I love beingk blackmailed.” You, my dear Jagoff, are sick. . . seek help.

But even putting your national masochism aside, let me point out that you also are a stupid, stupid man. Obama gave the Russians exactly what they wanted by showing weakness, by submitting to Putin, and by eliminating the missile shield. He crawled, he begged, and I’m pretty sure he cried. . . “can’t we all just get along?” And what did this get him? A proverbial beat down.

This week the Russians announced that they will not allow sanctions against Iran: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing. So much for Obama’s master plan.

And do you want to hear what this did to your “tensions” Jagoff?

Russian Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev declared Monday that Russia reserves the right to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes on both a “large, regional and even local” scale to safeguard Russia from aggression. But lest you think Patrushev was only talking about smoking Poland or Georgia, he specifically singled out Obama’s United States and NATO as foes who still pose threats to Russia. He noted for example, that
“activity on receiving new members into NATO is not ceasing. The military activity of the bloc is stepping up. U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive training on using strategic nuclear weapons.”
How about them tense apples!

Interestingly, this interview was given at the same time that Hillary Clinton was in Russia prostrating herself at the foot of the Russian bear. Said our naive Secretary of State,
"We have people in our government and you have people in your government who are still living in the past. They do not believe that the United States and Russia can cooperate to this extent. They do not trust each other. And we have to prove them wrong. That is our goal. Our goal is to be as cooperative as we can."
I wonder who in Obama’s cabinet is living in the past? Biden? Rahm? I’m pretty sure I know who it is in Russia. . . some guy called Putin. Apparently, Hillary wanted to meet with this “Putin”, but he blew her off. Oops, sorry, they couldn’t get together. Said a red-faced Hillary:
"I would have enjoyed meeting with Prime Minister Putin and we certainly had intended to do so but our schedules didn't allow us, so I am looking forward to seeing him on a future date."
Yeah, sure Hillary. I’m sure it isn’t a lack respect. I’m sure it’s just that Putin’s schedule is so busy that he just couldn’t make time to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State to discuss nuclear weapons. . . after all, he’s got a lot of socks to sort out before they ease a few tensions on Georgia.

So back to the Norgie. Tell me again Jagoff what Obama did to warrant getting this award? Oh, that’s all you got. Maybe Ms. Aagot Valle, a lefter-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Norgie Committee this year, has something to add?



Aagot Valle, noted idiot.




What do you say about the suggestion that Obama hasn’t earned this award yet madam? “Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama?” No, actually, I think they patronize you, sweetie. Didn’t you think there would be criticism of your stupid vote?

“Where do these people come from?” The critics? You didn’t expect any criticism for this? What kind of liberal bubble do you live in? Oh, that’s right, Norway -- I’ll bet you read the New York Times too, don’t you? “Of course I expected disagreement and debate.” Clearly not, based on your surprised (and very liberal-bubblish) reaction.

“Of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the Peace Prize decision. That's fine.” Great, so lay it on me. Prove this vast army of critics wrong. What say you about this argument that Obama is undeserving? “I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous.”

That’s it? Well that’s stupid. Just because everyone else made the same mistake doesn’t mean it’s not a mistake. Are you sure you're not afraid of debate?

“What I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament.” Sorry toots, no can do. See, when you act like the world’s biggest dumbass, people don’t look beyond your dipsh*tocity and then engage in the debate you hoped they’d have. They talk about how stupid you are. . . and trust me, you got a lot of people talking.

[+] Read More...

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obama Drops A Bomb

President Barack Obama is congratulated by his fellow UN peacemakers for ending the nuclear arms race, bringing love and brotherhood to the world, and starting the final dismantling of the weapons which previously threatened to destroy the planet. Presiding over the UN Security Council, Obama single-handedly brought about non-proliferation and the destruction of all existing nuclear devices. And you thought he wasn't the Messiah!

Don't take my word for it. Here's what the AP had to say about it: "With Obama presiding, the Security Council endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with undiminished security for all." See? I told you. The Los Angeles Times jumped in with: "The vote gave Obama an early, first step toward his ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons after weeks and months of negotiations."

The resident news agency in the White House, ABC World News, said Obama returned to the United Nations today and spoke of his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that aims toward that goal." "Imagine," as John Lennon said. CBS and NBC hopped on the bandwagon to point out that even Russia and China signed onto the resolution that slashes the arsenals of nations that have them, and stopping the spread to those who don't. NBC added: "The President is carving out a sweeping new foreign policy vision." Well, NBC, it's not really new, it's just the first time a President presided over the Security Council and pushed such a ridiculous and dangerous idea in the belief that any dictator was actually going to abide by it. Russia and China signed on, and we all know how trustworthy they are.

Hark! I think I just heard a discouraging word! The Washington Post was a bit more forthright writing about the reactions of some of the other permanent members of the Security Council. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the whole exercise is a charade, and a forceful reminder to the president that for all his grand ideas and plans, a difficult and dangerous world stands in the way." If the president really wanted to do anything practical toward reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, why did Obama personally see to it that the words specifically referring to North Korea and Iran were removed from the final draft of the resolution? You're not going to get very far in arms reduction and non-proliferation by being afraid of offending rogue states.

Bloomberg News says: "The text doesn't cite Iran [or North Korea] by name, an omission reflecting the difficulty [Obama] will have in achieving a similar consensus on pressuring Iran [and North Korea] to avoid creating or using nuclear weapons." But that doesn't stop the deaf, dumb and blind New York Times from gushing that Obama "moved Thursday to tighten the noose around Iran, North Korea and other nations that have exploited gaping loopholes in the patchwork of global nuclear regulations." By purposefully removing the names of the two rogue nations from the resolution? Liberal wisdom is truly strange. And Obama said nary a word about "tightening up regulations," let alone any kind of serious enforcement. I guess his good intentions will have to do.

Once again, Sarkozy laid it out rather well: "How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them (Iran and North Korea). We live in the real world. And the real world expects us to make decisions and enforce them." For all our carping about France, Sarkozy not only makes a good point, but has good reason to say it. America at least has major armed forces. France has only token forces--and the bomb (and effective ways to deliver it). Allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by inaction and cowardice while expecting France to give hers up offends even a Francophobe like me.

The tone-deaf and outrageously arrogant Obama had attempted to prove how important he was when he said: "I called this summit to make sure that we have a clear path to non-proliferation and the elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide." What a twit! He didn't call any "summit." It was the regular opening day session of the Security Council. And all he had done was take the chair, after removing Iran [and North Korea] from the agenda so that it would be an airy-fairy meaningless resolution instead of a real attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear.

Meanwhile, Russia has been a stumbling block in the way of imposing meaningful sanctions against Iran. After the Security Council resolution was passed, neither Putin nor UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov indicated any change in Russia's opposition to sanctions against Iran (it is well-known that those two are the real policy-makers, while Prime Minister Medvedev is just a happy-face nonentity in Russian affairs). So if you thought that this was the "secret trade-off" Obama would get for dumping our nuclear defense shield in Eastern Europe, you were sadly mistaken, and foolishly optimistic (much like Obama).

The US-drafted resolution called for "further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament to achieve a world without nuclear weapons and urged all countries that have not signed the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty to do so." Of course, the resolution failed to include mandatory provisions that would have rquired nuclear weapons states to take concrete disarmament steps.

China is one of the signers of the grand resolution. So I guess everything's OK with them, right? Well here's what Chinese President Hu Jintao said after the resolution passed: "We will continue to keep our nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security, and make efforts to advance the international disarmament process." And perhaps Obama never heard what Barry Goldwater had to say about China before it went nuclear: "The idea of a billion Chinese armed only with their bare fists scares the hell out of me." Which basically explains the problem with the whole disarmament resolution. Assuming that all the nations actually did comply, and nukes disappeared from the face of the earth, America now becomes a beautiful country, loaded with industry and natural resources, just ripe for the People's Army to march on in. No nuclear wasteland to have to deal with, just pristine new territory for the People's Republic to take over by good old-fashioned invasion.

Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom expressed his dismay at the removal of Iran and North Korea from the specifics of the resolution. "If the President intended for this to be meaningful action, why remove the two nations at which it was originally aimed and eliminate the immediate possibility that this resolution will be a work of serious diplomacy instead of a great exposition on a world we will probably never see." Gee, we were asking ourselves the same question way back when Obama's mouthpiece at the UN, Susan Rice, announced that the rogue states were being removed from the wording of the original resolution.

The Great Peacemaker said "the United States refrained from naming countries in the resolution to avoid disagreements with Russia and China." It's a really bad day when England and France both take stronger stands on rogue nations than the United States. And his statement was not entirely true anyway. The resolution, as originally written before Obama got hold of it, did not "refrain from mentioning." Obama purposely and dangerously removed both named terrorist states from the final resolution that he presented to the Security Council.

By the way, Mr. Obama, you love the idea of getting every nation which hasn't signed on to the non-proliferation treaty to do so now. Well then, what about the fact that North Korea did, and then simply announced that it was withdrawing in 2003 when its nuclear development had come to fruition while it was supposedly not doing anything of the kind? Should the United States start dismantling its nuclear weapons on faith? Only to find out that the rogue states were "just kidding?" It doesn't happen, and it's the reason that the original resolution specifically targeted both Iran and North Korea.

And finally, there's the newly-revitalized Russia. Even after the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the spinoff of former satellite states as Russia tried to come back from the brink of total physical and emotional exhaustion, Mr. Putin's nuclear arsenal remains nearly as formidable as ever. The chart to the left shows the growth and diminution of the American-Russian nuclear weapons caches from the beginning of the cold war to today. It's not a comforting picture.

So let's get down to the real nitty-gritty. What exactly did Obama intend to get out of his grandiose plan and successful unanimous resolution? As the Washington Post puts it: "Obama departed New York on Thursday afternoon for the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh with reassurances of his global popularity. His address to the General Assembly on Wednesday was greeted with frequent applause; even long-time antagonists of the United States, includding Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, had kind words for him." In other words, he got just what he wanted. Absolutely nothing concrete, but now his worshippers have spread from little backwards America out to the entire world.

Addendum: After this article was written, more news came to the public attention regarding the nuclear nonproliferation efforts of the Security Council. They obviously don't work. Late afternoon (west coast time), Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarcozy called a special press conference during the G-20 conference to announce (surprise, surprise) that Iran is much farther along in its nuclear enrichment program than previously thought. The tipoff was an entire previously unknown and very sophisticated nuclear lab. Brown said that the U.N. Security Council needed to take immediate and meaningful action against Iran. Sarkozy also added that Iranian assets should be frozen in all banks throughout the world. Obama said "Looky, that isn't really good news."

Reacting to their comments on the discovery and proposed action, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said "Obama will regret it." Do you get it yet, Mr. President? Your weakness and vacillation and dangerous acceptance of the word of dictators is greeted with nothing but contempt. Brown and Sarkozy propose immediate and serious action against Iran, and who does Ahmadenijad threaten? You. Wake up before it's too late. He knows the other two leaders won't cave in to threats, but he also knows you will do anything to avoid a confrontation that might make you unpopular in the Muslim world.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The Dark Ages (Redux)

A few years back, a group of environmentalists decided to see what would happen if you thrust a country back into the Dark Ages. They chose Britain, possibly because the British were too busy stabbing each other and binge-drinking themselves into a stupor to notice. With nary a hint of protest, the environmentalists set their plan into motion. Now the free range chickens have come home to roost.

Here’s what happened. Beginning in the 1990s, the Labor government started a concerted effort to destroy the British power grid in the name of stopping global warming. . . er climate change. . . er the next ice age.

Noting that coal and nuclear power plants account for about 45% of all power generated in Britain, Labor chose those forms of power as the best place to start. So they made it virtually impossible to build nuclear plants. Then they made it unprofitable to run existing coal-fired plants, and finally they all but forbade the construction of new coal-fired plants. And here is what they’ve achieved:

Britain currently gets around 13% of its electricity from nuclear plants. But most of their nuclear plants are simply too old to carry on. Indeed, half of their existing nuclear plants have already been shut down and the remaining plants will soon follow. The last one should be closed by 2023. New nuclear plants are planned, but the earliest one of those could be up and running is 2017, and that’s probably insanely optimistic.

Britain also gets around 31% of its electricity from coal-fired plants, but this will end soon. EU environmental rules require that coal plants be fit with expensive scrubbers or be shut down. But these scrubbers are too expensive to make economic sense. So owners are finding it cheaper to just shut the plants down. Indeed, right now these plants are operating (in a reduced capacity) under an exception that expires in 2015, after which time they will be shut down.

So by 2015, Britain will lose about 44% of its capacity to generate electricity. Alas, they don’t have the capacity to spare. The chart on the left shows the problem. Beginning in 2015, Britain will not be able to generate enough electricity to meet demand. This gap between supply and demand will continue to grow until around 2030, at which point Britain will be able to meet only half of its demand.

What does this mean? Blackouts.

In the 2007, South Africa experienced blackouts because of a moratorium put in place in the 1990s on the building of new power plants. Consequently, the national power company, Eskom, began rolling blackouts, cutting off power for hours at a time. Initially, these blackouts were announced. But they soon discovered that this attracted thieves to the affected neighborhoods, so they stopped announcing them.

Britain will be heading down the same path. So, if burglary is your thing -- and if you live in Britain, we know it is -- you are about to experience a golden age of crime. It will be glorious!

But wait, in all fairness, I don’t want to overstate the problem. The same idiots who caused the problem have a “solution.” They prayed to the Great Unicorn for magical new technologies that will produce the missing electricity without harming the environment. Here is what they got:

Over the next eleven years (fortunately 2015 is more than 11 years away), they intend to build enough maritime windmills to produce 33 Gig Watts of power. Not bad huh? And while many claim that Britains lacks the resources to produce this many windmills, we should not doubt that they can pull this off. After all, Britain is the world’s biggest producer of wind power. In fact, in 2008, Britain produced a whopping 0.6 GW! See, they're almost there. . . only another 98.2% to go!

But there is a catch with this marvelous plan. The government estimates that it’s about to lose 75 GW of power because of all these plant closures (failures). Thus, even if Plan Quixote works, it will still come up 42 GW short. . . actually, that’s not true. There’s another problem I haven’t mentioned yet. It turns out that windmills don’t work on calm days. I know, knock you over with a feather! Even the government estimates that 25 GW of potential from windmills will only be able to replace 5 GW of fossil-fuel fired power. Thus, to plug the gap with wind, the Brits need to produce 375 GW of wind power -- more than ten times what they’re building. It would seem, the Great Unicorn has failed them?

And this doesn’t even account for the fact that their oil and gas fired plants are running out of fuel as their North Sea reserves run dry (they peaked in 1999).

Yet, there is an out. When the darkness and the cold become unbearable and the number of patients dying in the dark in hospitals increases well beyond its currently high levels, the Brits can start building gas-fired plants. And to fuel those plants, they can call upon old reliable, dependable Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, that will be expensive and will wreak havoc on anyone who pays for their own electricity, partly because the prices will vary dramatically day by day, and partly because Putin loves him some predatory pricing. But it should keep the lights on most of the time. And so what if it makes Britain dependent on Russia. Economic slavery sure beats global warming. . . cooling. . . whatever.

Of course, there is something else they could do. They could burn environmentalists and Labor MPs to keep warm.

[+] Read More...

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Gaffes Are Not Just For Vice Presidents

Joe Biden has provided us with considerable comic relief since he first became a Senator. As Vice President, he has improved his skills as a gaffemeister. Yet Crazy Joe is not alone in the heady environment of executive thought-mangling. His boss isn't too shabby when it comes to having occasional brain implosions. The recent visit to Moscow produced a few new additions to the Obama library of oopsisms.

When Mr. Obama slips, it's often a beauty because it so frequently relates to things which are really basic either to him personally, or to any sixth-grader. At least George W. Bush knew that Grecians live in Greece.

In Moscow the President met with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, or Dmitri Medivac, or Dmitri Medicare, or Dmitri MedTheRed, depending on how late in the afternoon Mr. Obama had to say the name. After botching Vladimir Putin's title (he referred to Putin as the President, though he is now the Prime Minister), Obama went on to tell a couple of family stories, a subject vitally important in matters of world diplomacy.

First he told a touching story about his younger daughter Sasha, probably because unlike Malia's name, Sasha's has a certain Russian ring to it. Unfortunately he got her age wrong. But come on, the President has to deal with a lot of people, so birthdays are hard to keep straight. And he does have two children, so confusion is understandable.

And then, as President Medalhead smiled through clenched teeth, Mr. Obama told the romantic tale of how he and Michelle met, dated, and fell in love while in law school at Harvard. That should warm that cold Russian's heart. On the other hand, it probably didn't warm Michelle's heart much (assuming she has one), since the pair didn't even know each other in law school. They met when they each got cushy jobs, without much to recommend them except ginned-up academic credentials, at a Chicago law firm named Sidley Austin. They both became "community organizers," much to the chagrin of the firm, and each left to pursue even more lucrative careers in politics (she working for Mayor Richard Daly, he for the People of Illinois in the legislature). But it is commonly known that they actually fell in love on their first date when they went to see the romantic Spike Lee movie "Do The Right Thing." Apparently, the President gets his information and memories from WikiAnswers (quick reference site for Wikipedia), which also has the answer wrong. We warned you, Mr. President--don't trust Wikipedia.

During the President's seven months in office, he has slipped a few other times. He told a joke about Nancy Reagan having seances in the White House during which she consulted with the dead. He had to apologize, not having realized that the story he was telling was actually about Hillary Clinton channeling Eleanor Roosevelt. Details, details.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and for Obama, one man's window is another man's door. Following a Rose Garden speech, the President made multiple attempts to re-enter the executive residence via White House windows. He finally figured out that the one with the handle was the door. On another occasion, the protocol-conscious President was boarding Marine One (the official White House helicopter), and in keeping with his glad-handing nature, he forced the Marine on duty to shake his hand. The Marine is not supposed to do that. He is to stand rigidly at attention while giving the proper salute to his commander-in-chief. The poor Marine was completely confused, and utterly humiliated. But undeterred, the President proceeded to the door of the copter, whereupon, following Presidential tradition established by Gerald Ford, he cracked his head on the entry door. Somewhat dazed, he finally got aboard.

In foreign matters, Obama has few peers. The President received a pen holder carved from the timbers of HMS Gannett, the commissioning certificate of HMS Resolute, and a seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In exchange, Obama gave Brown a collection of twenty-five pop culture DVDs which don't work on the players in England. His other gift to England was the return of the bust of Winston Churchill which had previously been proudly displayed in the White House.

As a President who wants to keep himself in front of the common man, Mr. Obama appeared on the Jay Leno show on NBC, and showed that he actually does have a fine sense of humor. First he displayed his very meager skills as a bowler. Then, going off-script, he gave America a real knee-slapper by saying that he should be on the Special Olympics team.

At a press conference at the 2009 G-20 meeting in Austria, the President tried to remember the "Austrian word" for "wheeling and dealing," not realizing that Austrians speak German, the most widely-spoken language in Europe (take that, you Grecians). At a meeting with the Mexican Ambassador on May 4, the monolingual Obama stumbled into a play on words for the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo (the Fifth of May). So he joked that the meeting was actually the Cinco de Cuatro, meaning to say the Fourth of May. What he actually said was "The Fifth of Four." It's probably funnier if you tell it in Austrian.

Prior to his Presidency, Obama made a string of campaign gaffes. He lamented "the bomb" that fell on Pearl Harbor (never mind the entire Japanese fleet and aircraft and the torpedoes, conventional bombs and machine gun fire that rained down on Hawaii on December 7, 1941). He falsely claimed that his father had served in US Forces during World War II and that he had gotten "the services he needed" from the V. A. after returning from the fighting. He took financial wisdom seriously because he was on the Senate Banking Committee, which he referred to as "my committee." He never served on the Banking Committee.

Continuing his proud warrior theme, Obama told the story of his great-uncle Charlie Payne participating in the liberation of the death camp at Auschwitz. Unless his great-uncle served in the Soviet Army (not unlikely, given his family politics), that was impossible. At first, Obama corrected his mistake by saying he had erred, and that it was actually Treblinka (also in Poland, and also liberated by the Red Army). He finally got it right by naming Buchenwald.

Other gaffes included calling Brownsville, Texas "Brownville," Sunrise, Florida "Sunshine," and Sioux City, South Dakota "Sioux Falls." He gave a lengthy lecture on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in which he said "The Defense Against Marriage Act was, was, a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage." He thus had the Act exactly bass ackwards.

And then there was, of course, his excited enumeration of the states in which he had already campaigned--all 57 of them. With five left to go at the time, our future President had increased the size of the Union to 62 (or 61 if he was including the District of Columbia in his count).

Are these world-shattering errors? No. Do they indicate that Obama, like many other Presidents before him, is gaffe-prone? Yes. Do they indicate that he is unfit to serve as President? Probably not, although the outright lies are problematic. So I'm guessing that by now you've figured out that his column isn't about gaffes or non self-activating mistakes. It's about fairness and this President's treatment by the mainstream media.

Many of the incidents mentioned above never appeared in the MSM. Others appeared in newspapers like the New York Times in paragraph nine of an article on page ten, or as filler on CNN and MSNBC at three o-clock in the morning as amusing anecdotes. Those which could simply not be hidden were finessed as errors made by a hardworking President who was tired at the end of the day, or simply a misfire, or an understandable human error. Occasionally they would air the gaffe on offense, in order to make Republicans look petty for catching them. What would the MSM have done had G. W. Bush, G. H. W. Bush or Ronald Reagan made the same egregious mistakes? Just read newspapers from the time, and you'll know. Don't consult Wikipedia.

The MSM have touted Obama as the most thrilling, intelligent, learned, brilliant, well-spoken, erudite, thoughtful, nuanced and articulate President of all time. Yet Franklin Roosevelt, who is alleged never to have made a grammatical, syntactical or factual error in any public appearance during his entire lengthy presidency, was still criticized by about forty percent of the press and radio for pretty much everything he did except the conduct of the war. Never before has the vast bulk of the MSM been so utterly and willfully blind to the apparent flaws of a sitting President.
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Obama And The Russian Bears

President Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday. The two signed a framework for reducing nuclear weapons. Obama probably hadn't noticed that the breakup of the Soviet Union produced a major reduction in Russian weapons because a large number of them ended up in other former Soviet republics such as The Ukraine and Belarus. But that's another story.


This is really three stories which are intertwined. Let's call it good news, bad news, and Omigod.

First, the good news (well, maybe). There are a whole lot of nuclear weapons floating around in the world, but there is no doubt that the United States and Russia have the largest number of them by far. Many of these weapons are Cold War era, and are deteriorating. Others are simply supernumerary. If four or five hundred nukes will destroy the world at least once, why do we jointly need nearly two thousand five hundred? Now all we have to concern ourselves with is how well Russia observes agreements as compared with the predecessor Soviet Union (anybody remember "we do not have any nuclear weapons in Cuba?).

But it was a wonderful sight. Obama smiled. Medvedev smiled. Charm fairly oozed throughout the entire meeting. Together, they built a framework for a formal treaty by the end of the year. We'll cut the total weapons down to around one thousand five hundred. We'll cut the number of missiles capable of delivering the nukes to somewhere between five hundred and a thousand. With Obama's love for reducing our Air Force budget, how the extra nukes would be delivered in case of war remains unclear. Perhaps in the trunk of a GM solar-powered tinfoilmobile. But since nobody wants a nuclear war anyway, what need is there for delivery? Even Democrats came to agree that MAD (mutually-assured destruction) had worked, however terrifying the prospect. But, what the heck. This happy-happy diplomacy just feels so darned good. Diplomats and State Department bureaucrats are awaiting instructions on whether the framework will be modeled after the highly-successful framework pioneered by President Clinton and North Korea.

Ever watchful of the American economy, President Obama saved us $133 million dollars by charming Medvedev into picking up the navigation costs for American military overflights of Russian territory for emergency deployments to Afghanistan. I think the savings amounts to about ten seconds on the Obama "how fast can we spend the taxpayers' money" clock. But at least we won't be flying blind over Russia. Medvedev was also beaming when he agreed that he would not only cover the navigation costs (leaving American flights under the control of Russian air traffic-controllers during any crisis in Afghanistan), but he would also guarantee that Russian air defenses would promise not to shoot down any American planes making those overflights. Finally, peace for our time.

Now, for the bad news. President Obama is "examining options" for ending the Bush plans to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The two nations sit in ideal positions to fend off any missile attacks on Europe originating in Iran (or any other Middle East nation adhering to the religion of peace). Stanford physicist Dean Wikening has been advising the President's staff on more optimal sites for downing the incoming missiles--particularly Turkey and Romania. Unfortunately, Wikening is neither a history nor foreign relations expert, so he is obviously unaware that the two sites are in places semi-hostile to America, and one is nearly in open support of Islamic hegemony. Someone needs to tell Wikening that the optimum location to blow up Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles is in Teheran, but I don't think the Iranians would be amenable to that solution.

Could there be a connection between the good news and the bad news? Don't forget the smile-fest in Moscow. Russia has maintained that anti-missile defense weapons in Poland and the Czech Republic would be more likely to be used against Russian than Iranian missiles. Why would we need to do that, since President Medvedev has declared America a partner in defense of the free world? Then again, if Russia didn't have any contingency plans for attacking America or Russia's European neighbors, why would Medvedev care about where we put our defensive system? Perhaps Medvedev's people also consulted with Dr. Wikening about where the defense system would be most effective.

If the United States insists on placing those systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama might not be invited back for any more Moscow kumbaya moments with uber-smiler Medvedev. Love makes the world go 'round, and Obama doesn't want to miss a moment of that love. So it became incumbent on the smiling Presidents to undo all that suspicion and distrust created by the evil and unsubtle George W. Bush. How to explain that Obama is even still considering the Poland-Czech Republic option? He forthrightly told Medvedev that "there is no scenario from our perspective, in which this missile defense system would provide any protection against the mighty Russian arsenal." Well, if Obama goes through with his plans to end the missile defense systems, he is then absolutely right, and it wouldn't matter where we had planned to put them.

And finally, for the Omigod news. The meetings in Moscow are not yet over. After meeting with the mugging Medvedev, Obama will be meeting with the real power behind the throne--Vladimir Putin. To understand the Russian power structure, it is important to remember that the system doesn't work anything like the systems of the West where similar titles are given to government leaders. The President of France has real power. The President of Germany has ceremonial duties only as the head of state, but the German Chancellor has the real power as the head of government. And for that matter, the President of the United States is both the head of state and the head of government, while in England the Queen is the head of state, but the Prime Minister controls the government.

If you're not confused enough by now, let's visit the Russian system. Medvedev is the President. Putin is the Prime Minister. In the Russian system, the head of government is the man with the most guns and loyal party members. That used to be the President of Russia--V. Putin. Now it's the Prime Minister--V. Putin. Obama's highly-competent Russian translators (the ones who sent Hillary with the red button gift) translated Putin's latest statement prior to the meeting with Obama as "we wish to work closely with America." One anonymous source in the State Department thought he recognized the Russian words from a previous Russian leader, so he looked them up. What Putin actually said was "we will bury you." (OK, I made that last part up)

Putin is not a smiler. Putin is not a diplomat. Putin is immune to the greasy charm of the American President. Putin attempted to bully Bush into giving up the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, but failed. That damned cowboy stood up to him. But Putin has already taken the measure of Barack Obama. Like Hitler with Chamberlain, Putin threatens, demands, gets his way, then holds out the promise of eternal peace.

There will be more smiling announcements and holding of hands before this is over. Obama and Medvedev will declare that they have reached agreement on the framework. Putin will barely be mentioned, and since he loves power not publicity and photo-ops, that's just fine with him. But we will not know for sure what Obama agreed to or what he may have given away until the treaty is prepared for Senate approval at the end of the year. I would like to hope it will be a good thing, but so far change of any good kind has not come out of the Obama administration. The best we can probably hope for is that Medvedev and Putin taught Obama a little something about capitalism. They obviously understand it better than he does. Karl Marx must be very confused in his grave.

Note: Subsequent to my writing of this article, the Putin-Obama meeting went forward. Obama was given a fifty-minute lecture on the Cold War and all of the mistakes America made during that period. Obama smiled, incessantly. Putin frowned most of the time. Obama later acknowledged who the real power in Russia is (Putin). Putin neither confirmed nor denied the earlier agreement(s) between Obama and Medvedev. Beyond that, the substance of the article is not changed in any appreciable way.
[+] Read More...

Monday, July 6, 2009

The Barack Doctrine: Status Quo, Status Quo Ante

Teddy Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. James Monroe declared that the United States would not interfere in Europe, and warned Europe to stay out of the Americas. Harry Truman believed in containment, Jimmy Carter in human rights, and Ronald Reagan in engagement. . . trust but verify.

Is there a Barack Doctrine? Indeed there is. President Obama has shown repeatedly that he desires to vote “present” in foreign policy, and that his administration will toss aside all of their principles to maintain the status quo (as things are) or, where the status quo has been shattered, to return to the status quo ante (as things were).

Status Quo

During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of engaging the world in dialog. He promised to improve America’s image and to defend human rights. He criticized modern soft-dictators like Chavez, who were elected as democrats, but ruled as tyrants, and he talked of breaking with the past. But that was then.
Observe that in each of the following instances, Obama subsumed his principles to maintain the status quo. . .

• China. . .

The first test for the young administration was China. Candidate Obama criticized China for its human rights, for their failure to fight intellectual piracy, for their suppression of Tibet, for the safety of their products, and for their currency manipulation. He swore he would hold their feet to the fire and might even ban some of their products.

But President Obama wants China to buy his debt. So his first official act was to send Hillary Clinton to bow and scrape and to assure China that he would never pressure them. When this was not enough, and China threatened to stop buying U.S. debt, Obama sent Tim Geithner to plead for the status quo.

• Russia. . .

Next came the Russians, who had invaded Georgia, cut off natural gas supplies to Europe, worked tirelessly to help Iran develop nuclear power, and threatened several NATO allies. Candidate Obama boldly proclaimed that he wouldn’t “shy away from pushing democracy, transparency, and accountability.”

His efforts to date? Obama sent Hillary Clinton with a gag gift (a reset button) and otherwise refrained from any actions that might upset Russia. End result: status quo maintained.

• India. . .

George Bush was roundly criticized by the left for allowing India to make a mockery of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that Treaty, all signatories must withhold civilian nuclear technology from any regime that has not ratified the Treaty. Even though India refuses to sign the Treaty, Bush negotiated a deal with India, whereby the United States would transfer nuclear technology to India. Obama’s party called this despicable and said that it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korean.

President Obama claims that non-proliferation is a primary focus of his foreign policy. Yet, not only did he publicly state that he is “fully committed” to implementing the Bush deal, but Hillary Clinton even voiced the hope that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.” Again, the status quo is preserved.

• North Korea . . .

Candidate Obama promised “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea. He called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the imposition of “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. He even stated his belief that the United States needs a missile defense system to counter North Korea’s threat.

President Obama has warned that North Korea is a “grave threat” and said that he would “not tolerate” North Korea’s strategy of extracting rewards with belligerent behavior.

But beyond that, no amount of nuclear tests, missile tests, threats to rain a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” on South Korea, or seized journalists has resulted in anything approaching a “strong sanction” or “sustained, direct, or aggressive diplomacy.” Again, Obama avoids disturbing the status quo.

• The Arab World. . .

The Arab world is a mess. The “good” countries are run by tyrannical dictators. The poorly run ones are run by the theologically insane. They support terrorism world wide and hate America for things we have never done and never will, and they use their hatred of America and claims of victimhood at our hands as a crutch to justify their own failures.

Candidate Obama told us that he was uniquely suited to travel to the Arab world and change this. Unlike honkus maximus, he could gain Arab sympathy. He was a fresh start, and that would let him set the record straight -- America has no interest in a crusade, he would proclaim, and all would be good.

President Obama traveled to Egypt, birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood (an old guard member of the terrorism fraternity) and home to a repressive Egyptian regime, and from his mouth did come the words: (and I paraphrase) “it’s not you. . . it’s us. We need to change. Give us time. Don’t do anything until I get back to you.” And thus, the status quo was preserved.

• Guantanamo Bay. . .

Candidate Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore habeas corpus for the detainees before his rear hit the Oval chair. When President Obama learned this would cause problems, he opted for the status quo.

• Iraq. . .

Candidate Obama promised to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” and to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2009. President Obama plans to remove only “combat” troops, by the end of August 2010, though this will leave “30,000-50,000 troops in advisory roles.” Once again, he opts for the status quo.
Status Quo Ante

But what will Obama do when the genie has left the bottle and shattered the status quo? In that event, Obama’s policy becomes one of status quo ante -- the quest for the peace before. Thus, if you want to know which party Obama will support in any conflict, do not look for his stated principles, look to see who caused the issue to become of international interest, he will oppose that party.

• Iran. . .

Candidate Obama promised “tough, direct presidential diplomacy” with the Iranian regime to solve the misunderstanding that had vexed Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He extended his open hand, and Iran spit in it. Obama quietly slunk off.
Then in 2009, after a rigged election, the people of Iran flooded their streets in a budding revolution akin to those that crushed the tyrants of Eastern Europe. Obama, the human rights candidate, the man who thought he could solve everything with words, found himself strangely silent. Indeed, he barely raised a peep as the regime shielded the eyes of the outside world and crushed their own people.

Why did he not even speak out for the protection of these people? After all of his talk about human rights and supporting democracy around the world, would it not seem to make sense that he would support the people of Iran? I would, except that it was the people attempting to overturn their government that were disturbing the status quo. It was their actions, not the rigged elections, which brought this issue to a head as an international issues, rather than just an intranational issue. Thus, he remained silent in the hopes of restoring the comfort of the status quo ante.

• Honduras. . .

The final piece of the puzzle came last week. Obama sided with the repressive regimes in China and Iran, so giving a quick nod to a “military junta” should be no big deal. But it was. Why? What was different? This “junta” was disrupting the status quo.

By arresting Zelaya and throwing him out of the country, the Honduras Supreme Court and military elevated their dispute with President Zelaya from an intranational issue to an international issue. It did not matter that Zelaya acted illegally or that he provoked the incident, or that the Honduran government acted in accordance with the rule of law. . . they forced the issue to rise to the level where Obama had to become involved. Thus, he chose the side of Zelaya, in the hopes of restoring the status quo ante, so that he could return to ignoring the country.
Whether you call Obama’s policy supporting the current world order or the policy of hope for no change, it is clearly guided by a strong desire to avoid anything that disrupts the status quo. And as this becomes more and more obvious, look for foreign governments to learn that they can exploit his desire to vote present to extract amazing concessions.

Indeed, this week, India and Russia both proposed ending the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Neither country is likely serious because the effects would be disastrous on the vast reserves of dollars they hold, but it will get concessions from Obama.

Russia is demanding the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missile defense system and the abandonment by NATO of Georgia and the Ukraine. North Korea wants money. And everybody else is getting their wish lists ready.
[+] Read More...