Items on this page are archived alphabetically . . .
A New America
That's the
message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed
to participants in the first World Policy Forum,
held at this French lakeside resort last week.
He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy -- saying
America must "heal wounds" it has caused to
other nations, revive its alliances and
apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush
administration."
The most important change would occur in the
Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's
interests first" would end.
Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who
have controlled American policy for decades"
remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of
their clout when Barack Obama enters the White
House.
"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a
wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that
Obama promises is not limited to what we do in
America itself. It is a change of the way
America looks at the world and its place in it."
Ay Mi Cuba
Calling for a new direction when it comes to Cuba, Obama today said
as president he would allow unlimited family travel and remittances to
the island.
"It's time for more than tough talk that never yields
results. It’s time for a new strategy," he said. "It's time to let
Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and
brothers. It’s time to let Cuban American money make their
families less dependent upon the Castro regime."
Obama on Cuba (01:37
Cowtowing
For an entire week, Americans watched as Senator Barack
Obama took his act on the road, courting the European elitists and
cowtowing to an endless array of foreign politicians. At this
point it may be easy to take Obama’s "celebri-plomacy" lightly.
Yet, his trip highlights a dangerous threat to America’s national
sovereignty in the form of his globalist policies that will diminish
America’s role in the world and outsource decisions of vital national
interest to the United Nations.
Obama's Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress,
is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title,
the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s
"Millennium Development Goals" as official U.S. policy. This means
outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the
use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for
allowing the U.N. to play the "middle man" in our global war on poverty
would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product.
That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator
Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America
(and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years.
Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national
sovereignty since the War of 1812.
How’s That Apology Thing Working Out?
Ken Blackwell
says that as a candidate, Barack Obama wowed the world. He
went to Berlin and gave a speech at their victory monument. It was
a curious venue for such a speech. But a million Germans came out
to hear him. It was a phenomenal scene. No one remembers
what he said there, but it was quite a show. A year later, when he
returned to the continent, he spoke at Normandy. No one can quite
recall what Obama said, but everyone remembers what Newsweek’s Evan
Thomas said: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above
-- above the world, he’s sort of God."
If you are hailed as a
"sort of God," it’s no wonder that your head gets turned. You
don’t want to seem puffed up, or succumb to the sin of pride. So
you start apologizing. Not for yourself, but for your country.
America has been arrogant, you tell the world. America has tried
to go it alone. America has not sufficiently respected the rest of
the world. And you bow. You bow a lot.
You decide you
should "re-set" relations with Russia. Back in America’s sinful
past, those evil days B.O., Before Obama, the U.S. objected to Russia’s
invading neighboring Georgia and ripping of a piece of South Ossetia.
Well, who really cares who runs South Ossetia, or North Ossetia, for
that matter? What a little Ossetia between friends, anyway?
So you send your defeated rival, Hillary, out to face the press with
a misspelled Russian "reset" button. She humiliates herself and
her country in front of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov by apologizing
for that late unpleasantness over Russia’s naked aggression. Then,
to make nice even more nice, you ditch the Anti-Ballistic Missile system
that had been promised to the Poles and the Czechs because it annoyed
the Russians.
Not to worry, though, all this apologizing is going
to bring the Russians around on the really big thing: Iran’s nuclear
ambitions. They are going to express their gratitude for all the
apologizing, re-setting, and abandoning of our East European allies by
helping us out with Iranian sanctions. The Russians will line up
for "smart sanctions," "sanctions that bite," even, if we’re really nice
to them, "crippling sanctions" against Iran.
Not so much.
Russia has just poured cold water all over Obama and Hillary. Read
it and weep:
MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on
Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its
nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.
Lavrov issued this cold blast while awaiting the
arrival in Moscow of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.
Lula, a South American leftist, was apparently unimpressed by Obama’s
embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez at last year’s Latin summit.
Brazil’s vote on the UN Security Council will now go against the Obama
administration’s No. 1 priority -- Iranian sanctions. Just to put
an exclamation point after his resounding vote of não, Lula is headed
from Moscow -- to Tehran.
There, Lula will buddy up with the
anti-American mullahs, the rulers of the leading terrorist regime on
Earth. He will certainly not meet with any of the Iranian
dissidents, the green movement of democracy advocates who were shot down
in the streets last June.
What we are seeing is a nation standing
into danger. We are watching as the United States is publicly and
internationally humiliated. Our idol worship of an inexperienced
and ill-equipped leader has blinded us to the mounting dangers in a
world of dangers.
It would be hard to say which specific foreign
policy of the Obama administration is worst. Iran sanctions?
Russian relations? Attacks on Israel for Jewish settlements in
Jerusalem? Trashing the special relationship with Britain?
Insulting the Canadians in their own capital? Failure to secure
the border with Mexico? We have an entire menu of foreign policy
disasters to consider. Maybe if your perspective is from above it
all, standing up there as sort of God, it looks better. For those
of us with our feet firmly on the ground, it looks less heavenly.
Israel Is An Infection
In an
interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, Barack Obama
presents himself as the best friend Israel ever had.
Then he proceeds to call Israel a "constant sore" that "infects all of
our foreign policy:" Obama on Zionism and Hamas.
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is, that this constant wound, that this
constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.
Obama’s Global Failure
Daniel Greenfield says our allies hate him.
Our enemies are laughing at him. Nearly two years after Obama’s
World Tour in which he did his best to convince voters that he
understood global challenges with a high profile tour of a lot of
foreign countries (a approach that if it worked should convincingly make
every internationally famous rock star a foreign policy expert), his
biggest global accomplishment is still his ability to travel around the
world to high profile destinations on the taxpayer’s shrinking dime.
His attempts at diplomacy consisted of delivering vicious slaps
across the faces of longtime allies, from England to Israel, and
pathetic love notes to tyrants in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, who
responded by openly mocking him.
Last week, in a scene almost
worthy of the Godfather, Russia decided to stage a coup in Kyrgyzstan at
the same time that Obama was signing a nuclear arms reduction treaty
with Russia’s Medvedev. While Obama was exchanging good wishes
with the titular head of the regime backing Iran’s destabilization of
Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia was recognizing their own coup’s takeover,
with their newly installed puppet leader, Roza Otunbayeva, a Moscow
educated Soviet diplomat and top ranking former member of the Kyrgyz
Communist Party.
A few hours later, the second secretary of the
Lenin regional council, thanked Russia for its "significant
support" in the takeover.
Kyrgyzstan’s self-proclaimed interim leader
thanked Russia on Thursday for its significant support in exposing
what she said was the nepotistic and criminal regime of President
Kurbanbek Bakiyev. Separately, a senior Russian official said
Bakiyev had not fulfilled a promise to close a U.S. base in
Kyrgyzstan and Moscow would advise the new government there should
be only one military base in the former Soviet state, a Russian one.
Which of course is exactly how it will be.
And though Kyrgyzstan may be nothing more than a series of odd letters
to Obama, it’s home to one of the US bases that serves as part of the
shrinking supply line for the Surge in Afghanistan. And Putin has
just drawn a knife over one more artery feeding supplies to Allied
soldiers on the front lines, while Obama preened and posed for the
cameras with Medvedev.
The same Administration which threw a
global tantrum over the menace of Israeli houses, had nothing to say of
course. Just as it had nothing to say when after that, Hillary
Clinton was humiliated by the Russians by being subjected to extensive
public tirade. It is of course just one of those things that the
media can’t be bothered to report when faced with truly important
stories, like what Michelle Obama wore on her latest foreign trip.
CNSNews.com
is reporting
that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich characterized this week’s
nuclear summit in Washington as a "charade" that reveals the Obama
administration’s "fantasy foreign policy."
"When you can give a
speech on nuclear disarmament while the North Koreans are proving on the
same day -- deliberately -- that they have no interest in your policy"
-- that’s fantasy, Gingrich told journalists at an Americans for Tax
Reform gathering in Washington on Tuesday.
"When you can have a
big, giant summit in Washington while the Iranians hold a press
conference laughing about the concept of sanctions" -- that’s fantasy,
Gingrich said. He also mentioned China’s reluctance to go along
with another round of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Since leaving
Congress in 1998, Gingrich has been an outspoken advocate for Reagan
conservatism. In recent months, his name has surfaced in
connection with a possible presidential run in 2012.
On Tuesday,
Gingrich described Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy as reminiscent of U.S.
foreign policy leading up to World War II. While U.S. diplomats
were meeting in Geneva to sign an anti-war pact, Adolph Hitler took the
reins in Germany, he said.
"It’s hard to believe how disengaged
the diplomatic world was from reality in the period leading up to World
War II," Gingrich said. "You’re seeing a similar pattern.
This entire charade this week (the nuclear summit) is an absurdity in
terms of the real world."
Gingrich said the Obama
administration’s approach to the Middle East also reflects a misguided
foreign policy.
"You have an administration which is angrier
about Israelis building apartments in Jerusalem than it is about
Iranians building nuclear weapons," Gingrich said.
Ronald Reagan
was successful in ending the Cold War and the nuclear threat from Russia
by standing firm against giving up ballistic missiles as part of an arms
treaty, Gingrich said: "What Reagan wanted was to be able to stop
nuclear weapons rather than sign a paper document. Reagan had
lived through the '30s. Reagan had lived through World War II.
Reagan understood that when democracies lie to themselves, dictatorships
take advantage of them."
When asked the role the Tea Party
movement would play in upcoming elections, Gingrich praised the
grassroots group as a "very healthy and very powerful" movement made up
of mostly educated people who are loyal to the U.S. Constitution and
limited government.
Gingrich said the attempt to demonize the
movement reveals the mindset of liberal politicians and members of the
media.
"Every time the left attacks the Tea Party, it reminds you
of how alien the left is from most Americans," Gingrich said. "If
you go to the average American and say, 'Doesn't the Tea Party people
frighten you?' they will tell you, 'Not nearly as much as big
government.'"
Obama Is Building A Post-American World
James G. Wiles says two different pictures come
from the recent nuclear summit in Washington, and they perfectly sum up
the success of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy of building a
post-American world.
One
shows Obama speaking
with Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister and a Conservative.
Mr. Obama is gesticulating and pointing his index finger in the PM.
Mr. Harper is frozen in place, staring at the finger. Eloquently,
however, his right fist is clenched.
Thus to our allies.
See also Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s gestures to
Britain’s Gordon Brown and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. American
allies whose national security interests and status as American allies,
which the Obama Administration has deliberately dissed, now include
India, Honduras, Poland, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Australia and
Ukraine.
The other
image, flashed around the world, shows Obama bowing to the Chinese
President. We have, of course, seen this before. Obama is a
serial bower.
But only to America’s adversaries. So far, by
the standards of FDR, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and LBJ -- Democratic
presidents all -- the results of the Obama foreign policy are nil.
Obama’s offer of an open hand to our enemies has so far left him holding
only a bloody stump.
Reuters is
reporting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the
United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing
unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news
agency reported.
The European Union has said it may impose
unilateral sanctions if a U.N. Security Council resolution fails.
Obama's administration has been lobbying Western companies not to do
business with Iran, but has not imposed sanctions against them.
Countries facing Security Council sanctions "cannot under any
circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or
other government bypassing the Security Council", Lavrov was quoted as
saying by Interfax. "The position of the United States today does
not display understanding of this absolutely clear truth."
Russia
is in talks with the United States and other U.N. Security Council
members on a fourth round of sanctions. Moscow has indicated it
could support broader sanctions but has stressed they must not harm the
Iranian people.
Washington has not publicly warned of unilateral
sanctions but has made clear it wants tougher measures than
veto-wielding Security Council member Russia is likely to accept.
Permanent Security Council member China has joined Russia in
opposing Washington's plans to impose tough, wide-ranging sanctions on
the Islamic Republic over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium
enrichment activity and open up fully to U.N. nuclear inspections.
You’ve Got To Be Kidding
Jay Nordlinger,
commenting on the United States human-rights talks with China, says
our side is apparently led by Michael Posner, an assistant secretary of
state. I will quote from an Associated Press
report:
Posner said in addition to talks on freedom
of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials
also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human
rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial
discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the
American record and in fact raised on its [their?] own a new
immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a
person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in
the country illegally.
I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am
interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to
a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic
rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new
immigration law in Arizona? Really, really?
And that is to
leave to one side, for the moment, the question of whether issues of
crime, poverty, and so on truly belong in human-rights talks.
You remember the old line, taught to us by our dear Marxist professors:
"Here in the West, we have political rights: of expression, worship,
assembly, etc. But you can’t eat those! In the East Bloc,
they have economic and social rights: to food, shelter, health care, and
the like." Of course, free countries do better by material
measures, too -- better than those countries that have "economic
and social rights." Infinitely better.
A month ago, Obama
told the leader of Kazakhstan that we were still -- you know:
working on our democracy. An Obama national-security aide, Mike
McFaul, said, "[Obama has] taken, I think, rather historic steps to
improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United
States." "Historic steps"? I suppose he meant national
health care, socialized medicine. I suppose, by "democracy," he
meant social democracy. Hard to tell. I don’t think he meant
that the Justice Department was going
to make the New Black
Panthers stop intimidating
voters.
Do you ever get the idea that our government is a bunch
of left-wing undergraduates come to power?
Obama's Domestic War On Democracy
Noemie Emery
says Obama kicked off his reign as the Free World's main honcho by
dissing the British, which was an unpromising start. First, he
sent back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill. Then there were the
tasteful gifts to the queen and prime minister, dug out of a sale bin at
Wal-Mart. So much for Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and
Thatcher, JFK and his sister's relation-in-law, Harold Macmillan --
see why.
Special relationship? What special
relationship? You must be out of your mind.
He dissed
Poland and the Czech Republic -- to make Russia happy. He dissed
Israeli -- to make Hamas happy -- making its prime minister cool his
heels somewhere while he stalked off to have dinner.
The outlines
of the emerging Obama Doctrine had begun to be obvious: He would engage,
indulge, and look kindly on the likes of tyrants like Iran and North
Korea, who armed to the teeth while threatening to eviscerate Israel and
South Korea. But when it came to democracies and political,
strategic, and historic allies of this country, their welcome and luck
had run out.
Having run out of allies to annoy or embarrass, it
seemed only a matter of time before Obama turned on his country, and
began aiming at one of its states. This would be Arizona, which
tried to check a crime wave caused by illegal immigrants, setting off a
flood of outrage not heard since Tea Party members held their last
peaceful rally, and were blasted for hoped-for but unperceived violence
while walking around bearing signs.
Obama said that his
administration was studying Arizona's law "very carefully," just before
Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano (Arizona's governor until fairly
recently) said they hadn't read it, but opposed it on general
principles. Mexico's president blasted the state from the floor of
Congress, while Obama nodded in assent, and Democrats burst into cheers.
Arizona joins Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic on the
list of democracies dissed by Obama. "Arizona might as well be an enemy
nation," says columnist Debra Saunders. And so it does seem.
Not only is Obama now in a war against his own people, he seems to
be abetting a species of civil hostility not seen here in 145 years.
Some states -- or some neighborhoods, which consist of your
brie-nibbling Metro-Americans -- want to wage civil war in the form of a
boycott of the state's hospitality, and/or of its goods.
A
boycott is perfect for this demographic, as it provides the maximum
amount of self-satisfaction at the minimum amount of effort required,
and no cost at all to themselves. Los Angeles wants to suspend
economic relations. To show they mean business, they are now
wearing bracelets: Red and blue bands designed by Rep. Joe Baca,
D-Calif., who refuses to travel through Phoenix while flying to and from
Washington.
Next, they'll roll out the big guns, and don lapel
ribbons, like actors on Oscar night. Unless all the best colors
are taken, of course.
Fortunately, in Civil War II, Arizona is
not without weapons, one, it would seem, being polls. By
substantial margins, Americans support Arizona's laws and its governor:
As November draws near, some Democrats may come to regret their members'
cheers for Mexico's president.
Outside Metro America, this may
not play well. And, Arizona supplies Los Angeles with about 25
percent of its energy. A surprise power cut might make the lights
go out in a numbers of neighborhoods, and go on in a number of heads.
As for Los Angeles, Arizona should pull the plug, pronto. Let
them sip warm chardonnay in the dark.
Obama's Islamic Poll Dance
The Washington Times
says Obama's Middle East appeasement policy has failed.
Obama
took office with a mission to transform America's image around the
world. In particular, he was determined to extend the hand of
friendship to Muslims whom he felt had been slighted during the George
W. Bush administration. Some of his efforts were substantive, such
as his attempt to close down the terrorist detainee facility at
Guantanamo Bay. Others were symbolic, such as removing all
references to Islamic extremism from U.S. national security strategies
and refusing to use the word "terrorism" when referring to jihadist
attacks on the homeland.
Despite his best efforts, Obama has
failed to woo the Muslim world. After an initial burst of
enthusiasm in 2009, America's favorability ratings sagged. A
Gallup poll on opinions of the leadership of the United States released
last week shows declines in each of six Muslim-majority countries
surveyed. Approval in Lebanon is 25 percent, a 5-percent drop back
to 2008 levels. Approval in Egypt fell by about half since last
fall, from 37 percent to 19 percent. Approval in the Palestinian
Territories is 16 percent, a drop of 4 percent and just three points
better than it was under the Bush administration. In Iraq,
approval is at 25 percent, compared to the 35 percent rating in 2008.
Polls in Israel show confidence in Obama's policies in single
digits, and American Jews are deserting him at a rate seldom seen for a
Democratic president. A McLaughlin & Associates poll released last
month showed that Obama's support among Jews plunged from 78 percent in
the 2008 election to around 40 percent and that a plurality of 46
percent would consider voting for another candidate in 2012. Two
weeks ago at an emergency White House meeting with Jewish-American
religious leaders, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted that the White
House had "screwed up the messaging" about its support for Israel.
He said Obama was a friend of the Jewish state and urged the assembled
to "watch what the administration does."
This week, the United
States broke 40 years of precedent to back a United Nations resolution
calling for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel as a
problem without even mentioning Iran. It is one of the worst
diplomatic blows the United States has ever dealt to Israel, and it will
be hard to explain away as simply more incompetent messaging.
Obama's weak response to the crisis over the boarding of the Mavi
Marmara is symptomatic of the leadership vacuum Obama has created.
He issued no strong message of support for Israel, no criticism of NATO
ally Turkey for its threatening language and bellicose attitude, no
condemnation of the attempt to run supplies to Hamas through the Gaza
blockade, and no suggestion that the United States would take any action
to prevent future such flotillas from fomenting other crises, which the
Free Gaza Movement has pledged to do. Obama seems to be watching
the crisis unfold as helplessly as he watches oil leak into the Gulf of
Mexico.
Niccolo Machiavelli counseled that it is better for a
leader to be feared than loved because love is fickle and can change but
fear will endure. Obama wanted the world to love him, and the
world did, seemingly, for awhile. But love is turning to
disappointment and contempt as the world realizes that Obama is just a
charming empty suit. As he grows weaker, America's adversaries are
realizing that there is no need to fear him, either.
Palestinian Aid Package
Breitbart is
reporting that Barack Obama said Wednesday the United States was to
unveil a $400 million civilian aid package for the Palestinians, as he
called the situation in the Gaza Strip "unsustainable."
That's your money. It's
reparations to foreigners -- and many of them are terrorists.
Related: Obama pushes Israel to limit Gaza blockade.
The Most Unpopular Man In Britain?
Niles Gardner
says what a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In
January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the
Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British
media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010
however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since
Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London
paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a
leader who famously boasted of restoring "America’s standing" in the
world.
When even Obama’s most ardent political supporters in
Britain, including Boris Johnson, are on the offensive against the White
House, you know his halo has dramatically slipped. It’s hard to
believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than
Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as
Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is
well and truly over.
The key catalyst for rising anti-Obama
sentiment in the UK has been his disastrous handling of the BP issue,
and his relentless desire to crush Britain’s biggest company.
There is no doubting BP’s responsibility over the Gulf oil disaster, and
it is right that the firm is being held to account for its failures.
But the brutal, almost sadistic trashing of BP by the imperious Obama
administration, which has helped wipe out about half its value,
threatens its very future, as well as the pensions of 18 million British
people and the jobs of 29,000 Americans. There is now the very
real danger of the bankrupting of a great British enterprise, and the
prospect even of a Chinese or Russian takeover.
Instead of
adopting a constructive, statesmanlike approach, Barack Obama’s decision
to launch a "boot on the throat" campaign, while adopting a thinly
veiled Brit-bashing agenda, has generated significant bad blood in
America’s closest ally. At the same time, Obama has inexplicably
rejected offers of help from the UK and an array of European countries,
no doubt out of both pride and protectionism.
As I wrote
previously, we are witnessing one of the worst exercises in public
diplomacy by a US government in recent memory, one that could cause
significant long-term damage to the incredibly important economic and
political partnership between Great Britain and the United States.
And for those who say this is minor storm in a tea cup, I would point
out that it is highly unusual for a British Prime Minister to have to
stand up to an onslaught against British interests by an American
president, as David Cameron has just done. In fact the prospect of
a major confrontation between Downing Street and the White House grows
stronger by the day.
But this is not the whole picture. Obama’s
handling of BP is part of a far bigger problem. This is an
administration that has
consistently insulted Britain, and has even sided with her foes in
some cases, most notably in its wholehearted support for Argentina’s
call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position
that has been strongly backed by Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez.
Time and time again, the Obama team has undercut America’s key allies,
from London to Prague to Jerusalem, while kowtowing to the enemies of
the United States in the name of engagement. It is a disastrous
foreign policy that not only weakens American global power, but
generates resentment and anger in nations that have traditionally stood
shoulder to shoulder with America.
The Anglo-American Special
Relationship, the most successful partnership of modern times, will
survive long after Obama departs the White House. It is far bigger
than any one president or prime minister. But there can be no
doubt that it is being significantly damaged and weakened at this moment
by Obama’s sneering approach towards Great Britain, at a time when
British and American soldiers are fighting and dying alongside each
other in a major war in Afghanistan. Obama needs to see the big
picture and understand that his anti-British posturing is hugely
counter-productive and highly offensive. He is already one of the
least popular US presidents of modern times, not only in the eyes of the
American people, but now the people of Britain as well.
Obama To Host 18 Leaders In August
Kemo Cham, is
reporting that Barack Obama has
invited 18 African leaders to celebrate the 50th anniversary of
independences of their countries. An anonymous senior U.S.
administration source, speaking on the sidelines of the just concluded
G8 Summit in Huntsville, Canada, that the Marxist gathering is scheduled
for August in Washington.
A report by French magazine, Jeune
Afrique, said that Obama embarked in an extended engagement during the
first day of the Summit in Canada, holding sessions in the afternoon
with several African heads of states, including the presidents of
Senegal, Malawi, Algeria and Ethiopia.
Alongside those of
Nigeria and South Africa, the leaders of these African countries were
among other non G8 member countries invited to the Huntsville meeting of
the 8 most industrialized nations in the world.
It is at this
meeting with African leaders that Obama reportedly made the invitation
announcement, Jeune Afrique said.
Obama, who is said to be
looking for a "fresh start", was quoted by a second Jeune Afrique source
as saying since independence, "there were many disappointments, much
frustration, and now 50 years later, we want to make a fresh start."
The G8 Summit saw a number of key issues discussed, among them the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), maternal, newborn
and child health, food security as well as aid to Africa.
"...maternal, newborn and child
health, food security as well as aid to Africa" -- there goes billions
more from the American treasury.
What Are You Going To Do About This, Obama?
Breitbart is
reporting that Venezuela's legislature has voted to nationalize 11
oil rigs owned by the US firm Helmerich & Payne.
The rigs,
located in Monagas, Anzoategui and Zulia states, will be taken over by
state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the official news agency
AVN said.
PDVSA had asked the legislature controlled by
supporters of leftist President Hugo Chavez to take over the rigs after
the US firm declined to negotiate a new service contract, unlike 32
other foreign firms.
The oil giant is South America's top oil
producer.
Since 2007 Caracas has nationalized companies in
industries from oil to utilities, to telecoms, cement, steel and
banking.
Obama Chases His Tail
Paul Mirengoff
says
Syrian president Bashar Assad has declared that the Obama
administration's failure to facilitate change in the Middle East shows
that it is weak. Assad made this statement during a visit to Latin
America, which has become a region of interest to both Assad and Iranian
president Ahmadinejad.
Assad's statement provides further
evidence of the dangers that arise from Obama's obsession with forcing
Israeli concessions in the name of "peace." Try as he might, Obama
will not be able to force enough concessions to satisfy the
Palestinians, and by extension Assad. Thus, he enables Assad and
other enemies of the U.S. to portray Obama as weak and ineffectual.
And the claim is plausible because Obama is failing to meet his own
objectives.
Weakness, or even just plausible claims of weakness,
can only make Obama an object of contempt in the Middle East and
elsewhere.
Nor can Obama cure this perception by pushing harder
on the Israelis. First, once the Israelis perceive Obama as
placing demands on them in response to criticism from the likes of
Assad, he loses whatever credibility he might retain with the
government. Obama can succeed in inducing Israel to make
concessions only if the government somehow believes he's urging these
concessions based on Israel's interests, not his own desire to save
face.
Second, as already mentioned, each concession Obama
extracts from Israel under pressure from Arab states will lead to
pressure to extract new concessions. This puts Obama in the
position of chasing his tail. There are few surer signs of
weakness than that.
Assad is playing Obama, and who can blame
him? Why should he treat Obama better than Putin, Ahmadinejad,
Chavez, etc., do?
Related: Obama has declined to publicly
affirm commitments made by President Bush to Israel in 2004 on the final
borders of the Jewish state.
