According to Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy, The Washington Post) the video “cuts together clips of Obama quotes and outside commentary to put forth the narrative that Obama has made statements and taken actions as president that have put him out of step with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters.”

Will this deepen the crack in Obama’s DNC-Jewish voter alliance?

The US military is accused of burning the Muslim holy book, the Koran. Virtually no press or coverage has been expended on why the U.S. military would have done such a thing. Has the general public been left to think that perhaps this was a wanton, indiscriminate act of reckless, disrespectful destruction on the part of our military? Has a reason been given by the Mainstream Media as to why this occurred?

Apparently, our military had reason to believe that Al Qaeda operatives were exchanging clandestine messages written in these Korans, so we confiscated them. The military then asked Muslim religious officials for their recommendation as to the proper way to dispose of them. The military was told by Muslim clerics that burning was a proper method of disposal, along with burying the items in the ground, wrapped in a shroud. One can only presume that the military thought that burying them whole didn’t offer a sure enough method to prevent their reclamation and reuse—terrorist messages intact—so they opted for the equally-acceptable method of burning.

It was very hard to find a mainstream Western news report where it said that the very act of writing in the Koran—as the Al Qaeda operatives supposedly did—also constitutes an act of desecration, with commensurately severe punishment.

So once again, the U.S. military is presented by the President and the liberal media as the villain, having committed unprovoked acts of insolence and unjustified arrogance. If ever the over-used, misplaced phrase “taken out of context” applies, it is here.

But President Obama, true to his well-shown behavioral pattern of weakness and disdain for all things military, apologizes to the world for his military’s actions. He doesn’t attempt to put the entire matter into perspective, to try to explain how and why this might have occurred, to get the full story from his military people on the ground before he says, essentially, “We’re wrong, we’re weak, we apologize, please forgive us, and we’re leaving your country as fast as I can get us out of there.”

Then several Administration officials—Hillary Clinton included—fell over each other with apologies in rapid succession, one after the other.

“We’re sorry.”
“No, we’re sorry.”
“No, we’re really sorry.”

Was there an actual episode here for which to apologize? We took our actions because we thought there was terrorist communications activity. We took these actions to protect the lives and well-being of other Americans, based on our interpretation of the information as we understood it at the time. To hear the news reports, one would think the U.S. military just arbitrarily decided to disgrace some highly-sensitive religious material for fun.

This matter appears to provide further evidence that President Obama’s “default mode,” so to speak, is to presume that the U.S. is at fault, that we’re in the wrong, that the norm, the rule—not the exception—is that our actions and responses are to be questioned and their motives doubted.

There is a fine line between confidence and national pride on the one hand and arrogance and unbridled hubris on the other hand. Seeing how George W. Bush’s Southern ‘Cowboy’ aura and lone wolf demeanor played so poorly to the soft, delicate, oh-so-sophisticated Western European sensibilities, President Obama has gone out of his way to portray America and the office of President as being incredibly cognizant and sensitive to the perceptions of the rest of the world. “American exceptionalism is no different than British exceptionalism or Greek exceptionalism,” he said early in his term (never dreaming, obviously, how incredibly ironic the “Greek” example would become.)

But there is just as fine a line between sensitivity and awareness on one hand and the perception of weakness, indecision, and otiosity on the other.

Americans want a leader who inspires pride in their country and a can-do attitude, not a humorless national misanthrope who is constantly asking for the forgiveness of others for ills more imagined than real.

Will any of this matter come Election Day? It’s doubtful. If remembered in November at all, this incident will be blithely dismissed by those who are firmly supportive of President Obama, just as those who oppose him will see this as yet further proof of his unfitness for high office.

It’s surprising, then, that has he committed damaging unforced errors in the areas of foreign policy/national security and domestic policy (the Catholic contraception/insurance issue) in recent days.

One can only blindly guess as to the impetus behind the Administration’s latest foreign policy misstep. As NBC so proudly trumpets,

“Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News”

What is going on here? Apparently, Israel has teamed with an Iranian group that 33 years ago was anti-U.S, but broke with the mullahs in 1980 and is now anti-Iranian. This group, called The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has killed seven Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 (under Israel’s direction and guidance, one presumes) and has inflicted untold damage and delay on Iran’s frantic efforts to become a nuclear-armed factor in the Middle East.

But why tell us this? Why do Obama Administration officials seem so eager to tell NBC News that Israel has teamed with a former Iranian terror group to assassinate several Iranian nuclear scientists?

There are several possible intermediary reasons. Let’s explore each one. While they’re all plausible, some are likely dead-on.

1. The Obama Administration is looking to embarrass Israel on the world stage.

This one probably has a grain of truth to it. It’s no secret that Israeli-American relations have been strained during the Obama years. Netanyahu and Obama obviously don’t mesh well on a personal level, and the Administration has taken a consistent, publicly-critical “It’s mostly Israel’s fault, so they have to move the farthest” position with regard to the Mid-East peace process. Having what they feel must be a “gotcha” moment on Israel, Obama is exploiting it in order to justify their (the Obama Administration’s) critical stance on Israel and to push Israel into making further concessions for the sake of peace as the Obama Administration thinks “peace” should be achieved.

2. The Administration is outraged over the assassinations

It’s possible that on some level, the Administration wants to show the world that the U.S. is outraged (“Shocked….shocked!”) over actions that it considers to be in clear violation of international law. As a matter of long-term policy, the U.S. does not condone the assassination of Heads of State, and the Iranian scientists could very broadly be thought of as falling into that category.

3. The U.S. is trying to curry favorable world opinion by taking the moral “high road”

This one likely has more validity than some people are willing to admit. By publicly condemning these actions, the Obama Administration is probably attempting to demonstrate its fairness and correctness in dealing with all countries in the world, not just those widely-known to be our close friends and allies. By publicly criticizing Israel’s actions, we’re demonstrating to Iran in solid, tangible, unequivocal terms that we can be fair, that we deserve their trust, that our two nations can cooperate with mutual respect towards a worthy goal, for the world’s benefit. In your heart, you know there’s some truth to this one.

What of NBC’s decision to run with this story? Did the bigger picture ever occur to them? Is there a bigger picture to them? Or is NBC News now so far Left that it functions simply as a direct conduit through which the Obama Administration can get out any message it wants?

Much of this controversy hinges on the concept of Absolute Values vs. Relative Values. To the Absolute side, the idea of good and evil is concrete. There is a definite good and a definite evil. To use the over-used cliché of Hitler, most would agree that that is an example of Absolute evil.

To Relativists, everything is, well, relative. As Reuters News said after 9/11, “One man’s terrorists are another man’s freedom fighters.” They refused to call the 19 highjackers and OBL terrorists.

Certainly there is gray area in between those extremes. But is there so much gray that black and white don’t exist at all?

Another question that NBC News and the Administration don’t answer is, “Who benefits from this revelation?” The public disclosure of Israel’s actions likely puts an end to the assassinations, at least by that method, for the foreseeable future. Who, exactly, benefits from this story? What greater good does it serve? Does derailing and delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions benefit the world or not? Does a nuclear-armed Iran benefit the world or not? Is there an absolute good to be served here or not? Were those notions taken into consideration before the Administration willingly released this information and NBC News willingly reported it?

Probably not. The Obama Administration and their liberal MSM ally NBC News appear to have focused only on the small picture, for what will amount to a petty gain at most and a potentially huge opportunity loss, in the absolute sense.

Nobody can like that.

Well, according to Obama administration officials, it’s because the Iranians are not imprisoning alleged Al Qaeda militants well enough. Which, by their bizarre logic, means that they are in league with Al Qaeda. “Change we can believe in” has turned back into “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

Has Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan so he can plunge the nation into a new war? Will he be able to resist foreign influence from Israel if they ask for American intervention? And, most importantly, doesn’t the allegation of a Mid-East nation maybe harboring terrorists and possibly wanting weapons of mass destruction sound terribly familiar? Sound off in the comments!

Among some of the potential flashpoints is the continuing possibility that Israel could strike Iranian nuclear production facilities, the U.N. considering its options in Syria despite Russian warnings to stay out, and more outbreaks of violence in Egypt.

Which of the remaining Republican candidates is best equipped to handle these potential issues and why?

Romney’s ingenious policy? Wait for the Castro brothers to die. That’s literally the height of his creativity. Granted, this has been the policy of the United States since President Castro kicked out our sugar plantations and fruit companies for essentially using the islands rural populace as slave labor, but it’s bound to work eventually! Romney went on to claim that Obama’s policy, which he dubbed appeasement, of letting Cubans visit their relatives in Cuba and send them money for food has, somehow, helped President Raul Castro stay in power.

Yes, it’s appeasement to permit families to be together and help each other. The alternative to appeasement? Hope someone dies and assume everything will be OK thereafter. This policy was outlined in Winston Churchill’s stirring memoir “I hope this Hitler chap dies, and then I suppose everything will work itself out!” No, I’m sorry, Romney, that still sounds an awful lot like appeasement, except with the additional devotion of scarce resources to continuing to attempt to fight the cold war for no logical reason other than to be able to say that we won it.

A newsflash for the Republican primary candidates, – minus Ron Paul, of course, who seems to have a reasonable understanding of the concept – Cuba does not want to be part of the United States. They were a U.S. protectorate for years, and what did it get them? The right to cut sugar cane for a penny a day, and a dictator named Fulgencio Battista, who was infinitely worse than President Castro in every way. Cuba will not ever negotiate with you on the issue of their basic sovereignty, and right to choose any government system they please, no more so than the U.S. would negotiate with another country on such an absurd issue.

Italian Premier Mario Monti formed a government of bankers, diplomats and business executives Wednesday, saying the absence of politicians in his Cabinet will spare political parties the “embarrassment” of taking the tough decisions needed to steer the country from financial disaster.

I find this fascinating! Could this really work? It makes sense on the surface- a group of people whose careers are not dependent upon public opinion, working for the greater good of the country. However, what are the potential unintended consequences? And, when given the positions of authority, do the business men and women on this panel become politicians, based on the constant scrutiny? And if it does work, will the TEA party take notice and try to copy the experiment here in America?

If it does work, how many countries will follow suit?

Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul criticized President Obama Friday for “assassinating” al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that the American-born Muslim cleric should have been tried in a U.S. court.

Al-Awlaki, who preached terror as the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was killed in Yemen Friday when an airstrike hit his motorcade, a Yemeni government official said. A “successful joint intelligence-sharing operation” between Yemen and the United States led to the attack that killed al-Awlaki, a Yemeni government official said Friday.

This position will appeal to the 6% of GOP voters who support him, and no one else.

This will, of course, turn into a discussion about why Paul is right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who doesn’t understand the constitution. My point, however, has nothing to do with the right or wrong. The point is that you can’t win with positions outside the mainstream.

The U.N. nuclear agency said Friday it is “increasingly concerned” about a stream of intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said “many member states” are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, “extensive and comprehensive.”

The restricted 9-page report was made available Friday to The Associated Press, shortly after being shared internally with the 35 IAEA member nations and the U.N. Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfilled a pledged made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location – an underground bunker that is better protected from air attack than its present enrichment facilities.

This is not Canada that we are talking about. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said, amongst other things:

“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene” (June 2, 2008, AFP).

“The main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime” (August 3, 2011, Washington Post).

Referring to Isreal: “Do not assume you will be boosted with a (U.N.) recognition of a Palestinian state. There is no room for you in the region” (August 26, 2011 Fox News).

And of course, what is perhaps the most well-known, concise, and straight forward of Ahmadinejad’s statements, made early in his Presidency:

“Israel must be ‘wiped off the map’” (October 27, 2005, NY Times).

Are you comfortable with a President Ron Paul who would resume the pre-1900 US position of non-interventionism? Would Ron Paul be dangerous as President of the United States, not working to prevent opening the doors to outright nuclear war? Or does it matter anyway, since Iran has continued to develop its nuclear capability despite all that has supposedly been done by the “international community”?

Here is another prediction that will come true: The Administration will trumpet Gaddafi’s exodus out of Libya as the ultimate example of this administration’s deft, nuanced, sophisticated handling of a sensitive foreign-affairs matter that ended up going in America’s direction.

In Iraq, George Bush’s ham-handed, contrived war of personal convenience was nothing more than a shallow attempt to cover himself in easily-achieved military glory while also providing a huge financial windfall to Dick Cheney’s former company, Haliburton, and giving the US the ability to exercise control over Iraq’s huge oil resources. We went in alone, acted unilaterally, and disgraced ourselves in the eyes of the world. Even worse, we lost over 4000 American troops on what was nothing more than a personal indulgence of President Bush’s. Our dalliance in Iraq also meant we took our eye off the ball on the “real war,” the War in Afghanistan.

What a contrast to the brilliance and sophistication of the eloquent, mellifluous President Obama.

He wisely let France and our other European allies take the lead in Libya. They flew the actual manned bombing missions. We provided logistical and tactical support, but no American lives were risked or lost.

The allies ousted a terrible dictator who’d threatened the region and created world-wide mayhem (like the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, which claimed the lives of over 200 Americans) for decades. America showed the world that we can be a force for good without being a bully, without claiming center-stage, and by engaging our allies around the globe.

This is the brilliance of the man we so fortunately elected President in November 2008. First, he kills Bin Laden, which his Republican predecessors were unable to do for 7 years. Now he shows the world how to get rid of a murderous dictator and bring hope to a country, its people and an entire world. We are fortunate indeed.

If MSNBC doesn’t run this story today, I’ll submit it to them myself.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards said they had fired 14 missiles in an exercise, one of them a medium-range weapon capable of striking Israel or US targets in the Gulf….

Iran had also announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium….

Western governments fear Tehran is seeking to develop a ballistic capability to enable it to launch atomic warheads under cover of its civil nuclear programme.

Read the rest here.

This being the case, why do politicians continually rail about jobs leaving the US (or going to ATMs? Yup should have subsided the stagecoach and kept it around too) when corporations are continually taxed more for having employees?

Have a look below at how the makeup of corporate taxes has changed over the years from Political Calculations:

If you want to see less outsourcing, then your policy should be to reduce payroll taxes, which are costs of having employees. When I have worked on labor reduction efforts at a few different companies, we always add 35%-40% to the affected employees’ salaries to account for taxes and benefits for the saving calculation. It is exceptionally expensive to employ Americans.  So the questions is, what behavior do you want your policy to drive? As economist Mark Perry has written: “Build it and they will come; tax it and they will leave.”

One of them explained it this way: “I thought he was so great because he would be the first black president, and I thought he would be able to change how we were seen in the world, and it would make things better.” She went on to explain that she thought that President Obama would sit down with world leaders, and when they saw that we elected someone who had a different attitude toward the role of the USA in foreign affairs, those countries would like us and be willing to listen to us.

Essentially, the youth thought that the old ways were dumb. Now the youth are confused. They both admit that they think the President’s handling of current Middle Eastern matters has been bungled. Both feel confusion as to why we are helping Libya and not Syria (join the club). But some of the liberal message has penetrated. One is upset over the treatment of Israel. The other, who spent time in Israel, feels that we need to fulfill our obligations to Israel, but that Israel is essentially an occupying force. An occupying force that was transplanted by the U.S., when we should have butted out. Well, not exactly. She thinks that we should have accepted the refugees here in the U.S. instead of turning them away after WWII. She may have a point there.

I have wondered what, if any, affect the President’s handling of the Arab Spring would have on his re-election bid. I have also wondered whether the President could pull the youth vote again. It did not occur to me that the two could be tied. Maybe they are. It is hard to make wide-eyed, somewhat innocent and definitely sheltered children understand that evil exists in the world, or even that differences in culture can prevent peace.

It is difficult to teach them that just because they want justice for all, doesn’t mean that all world leaders do. There are distinctly American ideals that color their vision, and they can’t seem to remove the rose colored glasses to see that most policy comes in shades of grey. However, the last two years have had an effect, and I do think that the President has lost a large share of the youth vote. The Republican candidate will most likely not garner that vote, they will probably just be no-shows at the polls. However, if the Republican candidate wins, and if he/she does the job of statesman, the Republican party may see a huge surge in young adult support in the 2016 elections.

One more thing to think about. If the Prime Minister of England suddenly told the U.S.A. to “give back Texas” so we could discuss peace with Mexico and the Mexican drug cartels, how would we react? I think I know how Texas would react, but I am afraid I don’t know how Washington would react. Not knowing, is part of what is losing that all important youth vote for the Democrats.

Agree or disagree with his idea?

You know, if the Republicans wanted to get out in front on the issue of Libya, they would draft up an approval for President Obama and the actions in Libya.

And they would name it something like, “America’s Defense of Freedom and Democracy in Oppressed Libya”…

And they would have the preamble says something like, “Given the avowed support from American Presidents past and present for the spread of liberty and freedom, and given the sacrifice of the American in giving the blood of their sons and daughters to give this freedom to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq who have served as a beacon of hope for those throwing off the chain of the oppressors in this Arab Spring, and given that we are starting to see blossom the first fruits of the Bush Doctrine’s tenant that so eloquently stated, ‘that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity,’ we hereby blah, blah, blah boring authorization language…”

And close with something along the lines of, “And we further encourage President Obama to recognize that the spread of freedom and democracy as first started by President Bush in those two oppressed countries, and now spreading from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya by your administration, should be the first priority for America’s foreign policy… blah, blah, some kind of language shaming him over Syria but not authorizing him to do anything yet…”

1) The Bush Doctrine is the right thing to do. It was right when JFK said, ” Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty… To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required…”

2) They put the President in the unenviable position of accepting their support for his foreign policy, coming from his opponents and sheathed in language that is a bitter pill to swallow.

3) They can turn the election to the fact that Obama found Bush’s foreign policy to be the realpolitik that is actually needed by an American president. They can throw “hope and change” right into his face and make him run far to the left, alienating the country for the next few media cycles. And they can tout how he is a “constitutional scholar” and how they agree with his policy… he knows that this is the right thing to do.

4) They’re “bipartisan”. Hurray. Everyone hold hands. And every Sunday news show they can say, “look — when it counts for the big issues outside our country’s borders, we’re one nation and we support our president,” and watch his own party (except Hillary) hold their noses and vote.

If I had someone I knew up on the Hill, this is what I’d advice them to do…

Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose. 

Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn’t have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would’ve been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would’ve fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would’ve been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid. 

Capturing bin Laden wasn’t an option either. Obama couldn’t send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn’t a political option. Osama had to die. 

Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would’ve been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn’t love to have issued the “Go!” command to SEAL Team Six? 

A “gutsy” call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto’s plane during World War II was a difficult choice. “Gutsy” is the media’s latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology. 

Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But “gutsy” describes Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. “Gutsy” describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service. 

Thanks to Political Derby editor Jason Wright for inspiring this column.

Could this be the foreign policy victory he needs to jump start his reelection campaign?

What say you people out there in PD land?

Most of the time, it’s regarded by the general electorate as a “luxury” topic, something they care about and pay attention to only if everything else in their life is going along reasonably well.

Right?

If your job is secure (assuming you’re even employed!), you make decent money, you can pay your family’s expenses, your kids/parents/family are pretty healthy, the car is running reasonably well, your toilet isn’t leaking, hamburger isn’t $2.62/lb, gas isn’t $4.12/gal, your kid’s elementary school isn’t having an “alternative lifestyle” field trip, and the Red Sox aren’t in last place, then–and only then–do most people pay any real attention to “foreign affairs.”

Even then, it’s regarded by most as a theoretical interest, something without actual moment-to-moment impact in their lives. When they do pay attention, it’s only for feel-good reasons, to take satisfaction in seeing our “image” abroad being raised (or lowered, depending on your proclivities), to enjoy or not seeing a foreign country or people or leader or uprising being defeated or affirmed, etc.

The real link in people’s minds between what we do or how we act in relation to overseas happenings and how they might affect domestic developments is lost on most people.

(The big exception to all of this is when we commit American military personnel to battle. Then everyone has an opinion.)

But demonstrations in the streets of Cairo? They’re simply not relevant to most people and our President’s actions are viewed academically, if at all.

All that being said–and true, no doubt–why does President Obama have the foreign policy outlook he has? Why does he seem to regard his own country not as the singularly-important motivator of international circumstances, but rather as just another player in the international cast?

Arguably and plausibly since 1918, we’re had the starring role in the world’s play. Top billing. And yes, many jealous understudies resent our status. But that’s been our role, nonetheless.

Why is Obama seemingly relinquishing that role? (One of his own advisers describes Obama’s actions as “Leading from behind.”) He doesn’t like the “pressure” of the top spot? He feels “guilty” that it’s ours? He has such an altruistic, idealistic kumbaya vision of the world that that’s the direction towards which he wants everything to move?

There could be some truth to any or all of those possibilities.

There is also something amazingly simple to consider when trying to ascertain Obama’s worldview and philosophy:

Not only has he never truly been in the private sector, clawing his way up the competitive, dog-eat-dog career ladder like the rest of us, not only has his “community organizer” (Anyone: accurately define that position in 10 words or less. Can’t be done. I’ll give you 20. Bet you still can’t.) background been paved with Gov’t money and guaranteed attention, not only has his status as an intelligent, well-educated minority afforded him a certain level of automatic acceptance in liberal educational, social, and political circles, but consider this point as well–

Obama is our first president whose background and growing-up mindset and emotional environment did not involve either a World War, military service, or the Cold War (and the threat/struggle of competing nuclear nations).

President Obama is 49. When Reagan was elected in 1980, Obama was 19, a universe away, mentally, from even thinking about Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war, the “Domino Effect,” fallout shelters, the draft, or anything else that affected the U.S. on such a fundamental level during the years from 1918-1980.

He’s the first President to grow up totally independent of these influences, he’s very young as Presidents go, and he’s the first one to have not been shaped by these experiences to anywhere near the degree that we were, if he was shaped at all.

Add to that his non-participation in (and therefore his non-first-hand awareness of) the “real” work world, and you have an individual who just doesn’t approach world developments/events from the same mental stance as our past presidents, whether Democratic or Republican.

This doesn’t mean that Obama is “evil.” He’s not.

It doesn’t mean he’s “out to sabotage the country.” He’s not.

This is simply an analysis and explanation of why he looks at things the way he does, and why his governing aims are so seemingly incomprehensible to so many people. He is a strikingly–shockingly–different individual than most older Americans, in a way that past presidents were nowhere near as different from their constituents, regardless of their respective ages.

A few weeks ago, President Obama said that Gadhafi must step down. Now, just before the action commenced, he amended that to something along the lines of “We must protect the civilians of Libya.” In so doing, he has undercut the earlier position of his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was originally in the regime change camp.

So, which is it? Regime change or humanitarian protection? The two are very different. Both are laudable, worthy goals, but don’t you have to pick one? And isn’t it just a bit questionable when the President of the United States can’t stick to a tougher, higher standard (regime change of a terrorist who orchestrated the murder of 200+ Americans) and instead defaults to the softer, squishier level of simply “humanitarian protection”?

There are obviously two things at work here:

1. Expectation Management:

By lowering the expectation from regime change to simply humanitarian protection, Obama gives the US mission (and therefore himself) an easier ‘get.’ He’s not promising to turn Libya into a democracy, or to transform their society or establish a beacon of openness in Northern Africa. He’s simply saying he’ll protect a few lives. Nothing more. If more good results from our actions, he gets to take the extra credit, but he doesn’t get penalized for falling short.

2. Image Management:

This is the big one. By stalling and waffling for several weeks until the UN finally got around to ok’ing something and getting the Arab League (What is that, anyway? Does anyone really know?) to say ‘yes’ to a no-fly zone, Obama gets a two-fer: He gets to show he’s the Un-Bush to the rest of the world (“See? I got the whole world’s approval. I didn’t go it alone, like that dope cowboy did in Iraq and Afghanistan.”), and he gets to show–in his mind–that America is not the arrogant ‘our way or the highway’ bully that it was a few years ago.

Will his delayed action and change of goal result in a better outcome in Libya or simply an improved image for himself? It’s fine and dandy that France and Qatar are flying combat missions and shooting at Moammar’s tanks, but presumably the US could carry out those combat missions more effectively–if the successful prosecution of military objectives was the primary goal.

It’s not. The Obama Administration now freely admits that Gadhafi, even if weakened, may remain in power, at least in a sector of Libya, and that apparently is fine with them. The U.S.’s primary goal is image enhancement, and for that Obama is to be congratulated for his deft political handling of the entire matter. This is not something you’re likely to read elsewhere or be admitted to by anyone else.

There has not been one whit of criticism of our involvement by the liberal MSM, and just enough publicity of the always anti-war statements by Congresspeople like Nadler of NY and Kucinich of Ohio to make the MSM coverage appear ‘balanced.’

But for committed Dems and liberals like Obama and the MSM, US national security interests are never a reason to commit US forces to action. Only humanitarian reasons will do. Removing a murderous dictator who has the blood of 200 Americans on his hands, was (and would be again) pursuing WMD, and threatened the stability of the entire region was not sufficient. But discovering the newly-essential humanitarian needs of the Libyan rebels was all we needed.

Let’s watch this all unfold.

Apparently we are only going after his compound, and we are not actually engaging in acts of war. We are also fighting the “real” war in Afghanistan, though it never ends, and closing Gitmo. When does this all blow up in our faces? How many wars are we going to enter? What if there is another uprising that becomes violent? Where does it end?

Edit: Jake Tapper is asking the relevant questions a not receiving an official response from the White House

ABC News also asked the official three questions about the nature of this military engagement for which we had yet to hear answers:

1) Why Attack Libya But Not Other Places Where the Government Is Attacking Its Population — Such as Bahrain?

2) Why Not Seek Congressional Authorization Before Beginning This War?

3) What Does the Endgame Look Like — Can Gadhafi Stay In Power?

Gaddafi is no doubt the perfect thug. But he falls short when it comes to image. Gaddafi has ruled in Tripoli since shortly after Thomas Jefferson’s forces persuaded the Barbary pirates to give up the ship. Yet the highest rank he has attained is that of colonel?

No disrespect intended toward colonels, mind you. Some of America’s greatest military leaders wore the silver eagle at one time or another: Pershing, Patton, Ridgeway, McArthur, Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf. But each one moved on to general before making their reputation and securing their fame. Few are the colonels who are household names.

Sure, there are some. Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077^th M.A.S.H. comes to mind, as well as Colonels Hogan and Klink from Stalag 13. A colonel managed Elvis Pressley, at least for a while, and Col. Sanders is famous worldwide. There were also the Kentucky Colonels of the defunct American Basketball Association. Yet “Colonel Gaddafi” lacks the requisite pizzazz we would expect from an iron-fisted dictator who has ruled for half a lifetime.

Col. Gaddafi, your grip on Libya is tenuous at best. Still you’ve vowed to die rather than surrender. If the time is nigh for your departure to the land of seventy virgins grant yourself a promotion before you go. I assume you possess that authority, and it’s only fitting for a tyrant to outrank his military generals.

Pick a new title, Colonel. Call yourself a Six-star General, or High Commander of the Libyan Revolution. How about Exalted Excelsior or Perpetual Potentate? Or you can go the acronym route. How about the Sympathetic, Understanding, Caring, Knowledgeable and Excellent Ruler of Libya (S.U.C.K.E.R. for short)?

Chose anything you like. But don’t die a colonel. You don’t want to be the lowest ranked despot gathered around Satan’s fireplace. The other dictators–the ones with cool titles–will laugh at you. “Hey, Col. Gaddafi, fix me another cup of brimstone.”

Your boasts are bold, Muammar. You’ll fight to the last drop of blood. Judging from the mobs in your streets, the defection of senior diplomats and air force pilots, and the fall of one city after another you’ll probably get your chance. Don’t disgrace history’s great dictators by checking out of here a mere colonel. Go out with a new title, something grand, eloquent and memorable.

Libya’s Supreme Sultan of the Ceaselessly Shifting Sands. Now there’s an epitaph any tyrant would envy, and it’ll look great on your tombstone. What’s more, a Supreme Sultan won’t spend his eternity fetching cups of brimstone for Chairman Mao.

I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world, and that’s confirmed by polls.

I wonder what “the polls” have to say today as we are being openly mocked internationally. Indeed, the UK’s Daily Mail ran a piece on Saturday that began with this indictment:

Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.

While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance. . . .

The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented.

You read that correctly, the British, world leaders in over-done “pomp” and “grandeur” are mocking our President for just that. Further, they are openly saying the President places himself above the Pope and the British Crown. I thought this was a new age of hope and change, where the United States of America would not act like it was better than the rest of the world, where in the President’s own words:

To those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Yet the President travels around the world as if he were the greatest king of all-time, spending a reported, though not confirmed, $200 million per day of the “the world’s resources”, or $2 billion for the entire trip. Now I understand that the President’s security is of utmost importance, and I wholeheartedly agree that it must be. But if security is the reason for such an exorbitant expenditure, then why take the trip? America is suffering, the government is spending $1.35 trillion more than it takes in, and the President can blow $2 billion dollars over 10 days. Real leaders lead by example.

Meanwhile, China also does not look highly upon the United States of late either:

Cui Tiankai, a deputy foreign minister and one of China’s lead negotiators at the G20, said on Friday that the US plan for limiting current account surpluses and deficits to 4 per cent of gross domestic product harked back “to the days of planned economies”.

So if by “restoring America’s standing in the world”, President Obama really meant “being mocked by communist China for being more communist than China” and “being mocked by the British for holding himself up as greater than the Pope or the Crown”, he has accomplished his goals. Let’s consult the polls.

Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI’s encouragement she has become something of a non-person.

No, Molly didn’t witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.

Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer’s depiction on Comedy Central’s South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn’t trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell’s fire.

Actually, it’s al-Awlaki who should be pricing asbestos underwear. But that’s a topic for another time.

What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled–at the behest of our government–because some Muslims don’t like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can’t, or won’t, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!

Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we’re doomed where we stand. But it’s doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris’ demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it’s being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She’s not even allowed to exist.

Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.

I know techncially the Saudis are our “allies” but it’s only because they sell us a lot of oil. I like petroleum. I like driving my car and filling it with gas and having electricty and cosmetics and fabrics and styrofoam cups at a picnic — all of those things come from oil in one way or another. Oil is a part of modern life, and I have no desire what so ever in living a Little House on the Prairie life. So I’ll keep using oil. I just have to wonder though, if we were acutally using the oil we have in our own country and also using nuclear energy and other technologies would we need to be selling arms and weapons to people that hate us? Somehow I think not.

Finally, once upon a time the USA sold weapons and arms and planes that shoot things to a little country called Iran. At the time they were an “ally” but soon they became an enemy. Will the same be true of the Saudis? I hope not, but I’m planning on it.

Frankly, it’s the best article I’ve ever read getting inside the mind of Barack Obama and incorporating all the elements: socialism, private enterprize disdain, religious experiences, quirky policy moves, etc. You will not forget this column. I guarantee it.

It explains his bent towards marxist tendencies.
It explains his willingness to apologize for America to the world.
It explains his willingness to redistribute wealth from those who have to those who have not.
It explains his tendency to look more like FDR than LBJ.
It explains his name calling and labeling tendencies towards the private sector (fat cats, greedy, etc).
It explains his sympathies for the Ground Zero Mosque without labeling him as a closet muslim.

“We have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama’s own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years–the first 17 years of his life–off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa. A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King’s dream? Or something else?”

Let me be clear: this has nothing to do with being a Birther at all. This is not some rabid nitwit arguing about fake birth certificates. This is a reasoned article, derived from the President’s own words from his books, that shows the similarities between father and son.

Remember the adage that armies are usually equipped to fight the previous war? This profile gave me the clear impression that Obama is fighting a previous war, like a throwback to classic liberalism of the 1930′s (or in this case, social democracy efforts of the 1960′s).

It makes it even more compelling that we get this man out of office as soon as possible, and strip him of the abilities to carry out any more of his cursed agenda that he envisions for the US until 2012.

D’Souza says it better:

“But instead of readying us for the challenge [of the 21st century], our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist [Obama Sr], who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done.

America today is governed by a ghost.”

Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).

Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.

A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).

Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.

Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.

As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.

In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement–the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993–there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.

The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.

Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.

- Professor Henry Jones as played by Sean Connery

Let me say first, that I completely understand that Rev. Terry Jones and his ilk have the right to burn copies of the Quran, just like the Muslim group in New York has the right to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero.

It doesn’t make either a good idea.

I know I battled with a few on here over the Ground Zero issue, but the fact remains they have the right to do it, regardless of the poor judgment in even proposing it. I personally don’t care, but the fact of the matter is, it rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and I guess I get that.

But Rev. Jones apparently doesn’t get it. When just about everyone, everywhere is telling you something is a bad idea, chances are maybe you should rethink some things. But I don’t believe “thinking” is a strong suit for this guy, man of the cloth or not. Even a church he once founded, which kicked him out a couple of years ago, has sounded off against the idea.

One of the most respected military figures of the last 10 years, Gen. David Petraeus, is on the record with his opinion that this act will endanger the lives of American soldiers. If nothing else, this, above all, should be the reason not to do it.

Let it go Rev. Jones. Let it go.

Of course, Russia’s presence may not quell the angst within the prudent Westerner’s soul. Cold warriors will remember Russia as the black heart of the defunct Evil Empire. The Soviet Union won no prizes for transparency and square dealing when it came to nuclear arms. So trust the “Russkies” if you like. But believing Russia will prevent Iran from going nuclear is akin to trusting Bill Clinton to safeguard both your girlfriend and your finest cigars.

Nuclear technology isn’t the only area where Iran is advancing. The ruling ayatollahs, mullahs and imams are instituting social reforms, too. Thanks to their foresight and open-mindedness, Iran will soon be only a millennium behind the civilized world, give or take a century.

Take the case of Sakineh Ashtiani. Like the woman the Pharisees brought before Jesus, Sakineh is charged with adultery. Also similar to the biblical story, her accusers presented no co-conspirator. Even so, Sakineh has been flogged, imprisoned, denied access to family and counsel, convicted and sentenced to death by stoning; all in a manner that makes the biblical Pharisees seem like America’s Founding Fathers.

Ironically, this is where Iran’s Islamic courts prove their nation’s cultural development and social advancement. In response to international pressure Iran has rescinded Sakineh’s stoning sentence. You heard right, no state sanctioned stoning for Sakineh. They’ll hang her instead.

I’ve nothing against a good hanging, mind you. The gallows served our own country well in dealing with murderers, rapists and other assorted ne’er-do-wells. But adulterers? We’d have to hang half of Congress. Okay, so that’s another point in favor of the noose. But in Iran, exchanging the stone for the rope is decided progress.

If Iran continues down this road they may achieve Genghis Khan’s level of genteel sensitivity, Medieval Europe’s social harmony and King George the Third’s regard for the rights of man. Who knows? With a little coaxing Iran’s ayatollahs might even become as enlightened as the 20th Century’s greatest humanitarians, men like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Who could’ve foreseen, just a few years ago, Iran becoming so contemporary that they would forego stoning for hanging. At this rate, Tehran is destined to become a tourist haven. Can’t you envision the sign in the travel agent’s window? Visit Iran: Gateway to the Dark Ages.

“Israel pelted with criticism for flotilla raid”

The Chronicle’s story, originally carried in the LA Times, begins with the same insinuation that most stories floating in the media are leading with, which is essentially “Israel attacked a humanitarian ship”. Of course this implication leads to questions as to why Israel would do such a thing.

Well, as Mona Charen of the National Review put it, “Don’t members of the press ever resent being so used?” The Palestinians have for years successfully used the international press as their propaganda arm, which has happened here.

Charen sheds much light on the situation in her article this morning. Among the truths in this matter are:

-Humanitarian relief is delivered to Gaza from Israel on a daily basis. During the first three months of this year, 94,500 tons of supplies were transferred to Gaza from Israel, including 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; and 553 tons of milk powder and baby food for the strip’s 1.5 million inhabitants. Representatives of international aid groups and the United Nations move freely to and from the Gaza Strip.

-Upon learning of the intentions of the Gaza flotilla, the Israeli government asked the organizers to deliver their humanitarian aid first to an Israeli port where it would be inspected (for weapons) before being forwarded to Gaza. The organizers refused.

There is also visual evidence as well that this was not a humanitarian mission. Here you can see video of the weapons on board the flotilla and another video showing the Israeli Navy being attacked upon boarding the vessel.

I fear that one day this type of misinformation–really propaganda–will lead to an excuse to “wipe Israel from the planet”, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would gladly do, especially considering signals given to the world by our present lack of diplomacy toward our only true ally in the Middle East. If the world no longer believes the United States backs Israel, many of the events foretold in the Bible are closer than perhaps even the greatest skeptics realizes.