Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Secures $1.5 Billion for Libyan Rebels

The Secretary of State’s office released a statement on Libya Friday morning. In Clinton’s statement she announces that $1.5 Billion in funds previously frozen by the United States would be made available to the transitional government – the TNC or Transitional National Council.

Today, the Libya Contact Group held a meeting in Istanbul to demonstrate our continued commitment to Libya and to focus on the urgent financial needs of the TNC. The Contact Group called for an expedited process to lift sanctions on Libyan assets. The United States supports this call.

Today, we have secured the release of $1.5 billion in Libyan assets that had been frozen in the United States. This money will go toward meeting the needs of the people of Libya. We urge other nations to take similar measures. Many are already doing so.

 

 

Tim Pawlenty Releases Middle-East Foreign Policy Statement

Governor Pawlenty gave these remarks in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Tim PawlentyI want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility.

Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.

Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past — at the end of World War II, in the last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror … and we can do it again.

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the opportunity is simply too great.

No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring – but the freedom deficit in the Arab world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable oppression.

President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy – whose fruit we see now ripening across the region – he adopted a murky policy he called “engagement.”

“Engagement” meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.

While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was “waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes.” She and the president waited long enough to see the Green Movement crushed.

“Engagement” meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was “perceived by Egyptian democracy activists as signaling a lack of support.” They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.

“Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them?

The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt — the pro-democracy, secular political parties — these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.

The Obama “engagement” policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a “reformer.” Even as Assad’s regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan to give Assad “an alternative vision of himself.” Does anyone outside a therapist’s office have any idea what that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.

By contrast, I called for Assad’s departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As President, I will not.

We need a president who fully understands that America never “leads from behind.”

We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.

Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring — and we should seize it.

As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different strategic approach.

The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy – the formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its journey toward democracy.

For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.

Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and toward efforts to build good allies — genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.

We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the region’s emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American interests.

Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade—not subsidies and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth.

In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.

Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.

The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some – like Jordan and Morocco – are engaging now in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.

But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.

The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has significantly weakened it.

The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The 2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.

We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.

To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.

When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.

The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the region’s diversity of religious, ethnic, and political groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty, secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regime’s tyranny.

So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and expose Teheran’s regime for the pariah it is.

And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.

Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to independent courts and all other democratic rights.

Nowhere has President Obama’s lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.

It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.

President Obama could not be more wrong.

The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. They’re about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.

Today the president doesn’t really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And let’s be frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more pressure on Israel.

I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it because I know the people of Israel want peace.

Israeli – Palestinian peace if further away not than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not have to be a permanent situation.

We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands strongly with Israel.

I would take a new approach.

First, I would never undermine Israel’s negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.

Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step towards global legitimacy.

Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.

Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.

The Middle East is changing before our eyes—but our government has not kept up. It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.

All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now wonders where we are and what we’re up to.

The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges. While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.

In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.

It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obama’s military leadership in Libya. There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petreaus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.

Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed.

That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must carry around the world.

Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer, more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress.

Obama Sides With Communists / Turns Back on UK in Falklands Issue

Just when Americans are realising that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact an anti-American Socio-Marxist at heart, Mr. Obama shows us that he has deep Communist sympathies in an announcement from the UK Telegraph:

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands.President Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington signed on to a “draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands” passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua. (emphasis mine)

While many South American and Central American history experts that Socialism is indeed once again creeping into the region just south of the American border, many also agree with the theory that this is indeed Soft Communism. For many readers uninformed with the aspects of Communism, its history, and it’s true meaning, please DO NOT IGNORE that very informative link. This gives us some very deep insight into some of Barack Hussein Obama’s actions. Socialism is in fact, the basis for the injection of stealth Communism and despot dictatorships onto unsuspecting or uninformed citizens throughout world history. This is also the root anti-Americanism that now threatens America from within. Socialists/Marxists.Communists hate capitalism, the very same capitalism that has made America the freeest, greatest, most prosperous nation on earth for over 200 years!

For the doubters out there that do not see this as Obama siding with South American  Communists like Hugo Chavez against our main ally in Europe as a pattern that shows Obama’s true ideology, I point you to his recent trip to Brazil, where I wrote about another Marxist Rebel, the newly installed President of Brazil:

Obama should feel right at home with the new president of Brazil, as she is an extreme form of community organizer in which she was a Rebel, a left of center politician, is a former guerrilla, who was reportedly a torture victim, and also somehow considered to have been an economist. First and foremost, she is a hand-picked Lulu President and his former chief of staff, and there is no valid reason to think this isn’t just an extension of Lulu’s rule.

There is a South and Central American pattern emerging and it is not good for America. During Obama’s trip to Brazil, the media played up the economic partnership theme and largely ignored just who the Barack Obama’s new adoring friend, the President of Brazil really is. Concerned Americans from what the Liberal media constantly calls “the right wing extremists” such as Glenn Beck and citizen writers like myself did in fact report on the Marxist Rebel, Dilma Rousseff, who was imprisoned for trying to overthrow the government of Brazil, and who has now been inserted as the new President by the previous dictator LuLu.  President Rousseff also has a past that mirrors a long-time American terrorist, Weather Underground leader and Marxist, one Bill Ayers, who just like Rousseff, bombed buildings and robbed banks, while all the time calling for the overthrow of their respectvie governments. Bill Ayers is also a long-time pal and mentor of Obama, whether either of them admit it or not today. Obama’s first run for big-time political office within the U.S. Senate was announced from… Bill Ayers living room! There is an undeniable pattern developing here of proven Marxist ideology worship being proven to be the core beliefs of the President of the United States.

Secretary of State, Liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton, also sided with Ortega and Chavez, who also have direct ties to Iran, Russia, and China,  in this issue in 2010, in a speech in Buenos Aires as The Heritage Foundation reported upon here:

Washington backed a similar resolution last June, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear in a joint press conference with Kirchner in Buenos Aires in March 2010 that the Obama Administration fully backs Argentina’s calls for negotiations over the Falklands, handing her Argentine counterpart a significant propaganda coup. The State Department has also insultingly referred to the islands in the past as the “Malvinas Islands,” the Argentine name for them. (emphasis mine)

Back in 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and captured 1800 British citizens. That is a lot of people considering that the population was said to be 1813 in 1980. The citizens themselves want nothing to do with Argentina, and yet the propaganda machines in the U.N. Human rights divisions along with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are slapping the U.K., the U.S. ally right in the face over this issue. What could possibly be behind this push to let Argentina take over the Falkland islands? This just might blow some Liberal minds here, along with the rest of the world that isn’t aware of the facts behind the current attempt to take over the Falkland Islands. Wait for it…. the Liberal Democratic party’s much hated big oil! That’s right, there have recently been big oil deposits discovered off the coast of the Falklands said to contain 60 Billion barrels of oil under the seabed surrounding the Falklands islands!  So there we see the truth.   Liberal Socialist Big-Oil hating Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are in bed with South American Despots Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega to enable them to steal the oil around the Falkland Islands! There in fact, was a signed agreement between Argentina and the U.K. all the way back in 1995 that Argentina unilaterally withdrew in 2007, once they realised how much oil was really there.

A 1995 agreement between the UK and Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including oil reserves[97] as geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the sea bed surrounding the islands.[98] However, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.[99] In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves.[100] Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress.[101] In February 2010, exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum,[102] but the results from the first test well were disappointing.[103] Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that “it may have struck oil“.[104] On Friday 17 September 2010 Rockhopper Exploration released news that a flow test of the Sea-Lion 1 discovery was a commercially viable find.[105] In February 2011 Rockhopper Exploration commenced an appraisal programme of the Sea-Lion discovery. An update of the first appraisal drill were released on Monday 21 March 2011 indicating a significant reservoir package with a downhole mini Drill Stern Test flowing oil at better rates then the September 2010 flow test: confidence in the commerciality of the Sea Lion discovery has been increased by this first appraisal.[106]

If you will notice the dates I have emphasised above, we see the direct correlation between the uptick in bigger oil deposit discoveries and Hillary Clinton’s announced support for Hugo Chavez to take over the Falkland islands, and then again in March of this year when Barack Obama’s administration announces adoring support for Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega’s blatant attemp to steal the oil from the citizens of the Falklands. So there we have it, Liberals that basically stopped American oil extraction and production for the past three years, in bed with Communist-Socialist South American dictators to allow them to effectively steal another country’s oil deposits!  Is this what the Liberals mean when they chant, “This is what Democracy looks like ?”  Some people may try to spin this escapade into saying that Obama and Hillary just want to be a “good customer” of Daniel Ortega’s and Hugo Chavez’ future oil exports, just like he announced in Brazil recently. Yet one has to wonder just how that would fit in with Obamas constant statement of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Could it be that Obama and company are finally realising that alternative energy currently can not even supply a meager 10% of America’s energy? Maybe the Liberal eco-terrorists finally realised that the electric cars they say will save the world actually have to have oil and coal based electricity to charge them up? Where are all the liberal hypocrites demanding a moratorium on oil drilling around the Falkland Islands ? What is that I hear? Crickets.

Is This What “Democracy” Looks Like ?

COLD-blooded murder and assassinations, the bombing of a country that attacked no one, and the U.S. participation in three wars that have no defined mission. Is this what Democracy looks like ? Americans seem to have severe cases of selective memory loss when it comes to the very same war crimes that many people have accused George Bush of committing years ago with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, people seem to forget the freedom that was won for the Iraqi people from the murdering dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime that they enjoy today, mainly because of the war in Iraq. They were freed from Hussein’s oppression and brutal dictatorship, yet many people still call this a war crime today.

While leftists around the world and even Republican RINOS in DC today have called the Iraqi war an illegal action, I,d like to point out that we are still there losing brave Soldiers lives. What say you Obama,and your radical Liberal mouthpieces? Where is the cry to pull out of Iraq today? There isn’t one, simply because leftist ideologues are nothing but pathetic hypocrites pushing an anti-American Socialistic agenda, period ! War is only illegal when a Republican is waging it.

How about explaining to the nation how we waged an illegal war on the leader of Libya, all based on your fake cries of Democracy there?  Leftist Democrat Hillary Clinton gave the ragtag radical rebels in Libya 25 million dollars of our tax payers hard earned money, all the time saying it wasn’t for “lethal military equipment.” Well just yesterday the Rebel spokesman was demanding more money to fund the civil war in Libya. We are simply giving aid and comfort to a group of people to topple their government. Of course the leftist propagandists in the media, who get their orders from the Obama regime, seem to have missed this little fact, as there has not been one word written, or one report on TV asking where in the hell did the Libyan Rebels get all the new military equipment from?  Obama and company do not want the American public asking that question. One minute the Libyan Rebels are a ragtag group of 15 – 20 men without uniforms, guns, radios, rockets, etc., and the next thing we see after Hillary gives them 25 million dollars, is that they have all of the afore-mentioned military equipment, including radios, guns, shoulder fired rockets, uniforms, etc. Here is some new information on the illegal funding of the Libyan rebels to promote the overthrow of their government, even though no one knows exactly what kind of government the rebels intend to install if they succeed. Is this what Democracy looks like? From BBC News Africa:

The international contact group on Libya has agreed to create a temporary fund  to assist rebel groups, during talks in Rome.

The rebels’ Transitional National Council says it needs $2bn-$3bn (£1.2bn-£1.8bn) in the coming months for military salaries, food, medicine and
other basic supplies.

Anyone thinking that this money will not be used to buy weapons is in denial of reality here. The propagandists just do not want anyone to be held accountable when it gets proven that NATO and Hillary Clinton in particular, are funding the weapons that will be used to overthrow the Libyan government here. Notice the cutsey name being used for the group funding the rebels now ? ” The International Contact group.” When the U.S. and the U.K, along with NATO are proven to be funding weapons for the rebels, who will be held accountable for it? Nobody, thus the fake “group” mantra being used.  Again, the U.S and the U.K. are funding the rebels to overthrow the government in Libya, as we see again in the above-mentioned BBC article:

British Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted that any financial assistance to the rebels would not be spent on weapons.

Do you mean just like the idiots that “monitored” the pathetic U.N. Oil for Food scandal that you jackasses enabled back in the early 90’s that let Saddam Hussein swindle billions of dollars from you incompetent, Socialist globalists ? Oh yes, we believe you will “monitor all that cash” to make sure it doesn’t buy weapons. It isn’t like your types have been proven to be incompetent buffoons before is it? Oh wait, the Oil for Food thing…

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (far left) and the foreign ministers and representatives of countries and organisations in the Libya Contact Group meeting in Rome - 5 May 2011 The Libya Contact Group has been looking at ways to fund the Libyan uprising against Col Gaddafi

“This [money] will help them to keep basic services going… because in the east of Libya they still need to be educating people, to keep public services
moving and they have to meet the expenses of all that and they don’t have much tax revenue at the moment,” he said.

Just like U.S Liberals, the rebels in Libya have picked a fight that has caused a disruption in their tax revenue, and now the rest of the world is being asked to fund their fight. Ever hear of actions have consequences ? People are now seeing the ignorance of the illegal war in Libya with no stated mission or plan, and now they want others to fix the problems they created. Zero personal responsibility, just like the liberal ideology of the Global Socialists. Is it any wonder the Liberal Nanny-State worshipper Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of this fiasco ? Maybe Hillary and Bill can buy some property in Libya and stay there for the rest of their pathetic lives, instead of continuing to infect America with their Socialistic ideology. One minute it is a war crime to invade another country that hasn’t attacked us, the next it is U.S. policy to have the Secretary of State over there to fund the uprising. Is this what Democracy looks like?  Damn hypocrite fake Democrats disgust me more every day.

In conclusion, we have learned that Libyan President Gaddafi’s son and three grand-kids, all under the age of fourteen were blown to pieces by a NATO bomb. Innocent bystanders murdered in cold blood and no one can be held accountable because they are now hiding under the NATO umbrella. Is this what Obama and Hillary’s Democracy looks like? After all, this is their stated reason for waging an illegal war on Libya. Looks more like murder and war crimes to me.

Is the Next Libyan Dictator Mahmoud Jibril?

Pictured at left is interim Prime Minister of Libya, Mahmoud Jibril (courtesy of Vincent Kessler/ Reuters.)  He was originally educated in Egypt and then later received his PhD  from The University of Pittsburgh. He is also a former member of Khadafy’s  regime who was working with his son Saif on economic reforms in Libya. While in college Jibril studied under a former U.S. intelligence official in Iran, one Richard Cottam, who later on became a political scientist who’s specialty was the Middle East.  That is a very interesting combination of skills we see there, politics, intelligence, and science. At this point one has to wonder if the intelligence agency employing Mr. Cottam wasn’t the infamous CIA.

When looking at the volatile situations across the Middle East and North Africa today, we hear very little about CIA involvement, but make no mistake, these types of situations have always involved the CIA, in one way or another. Therefore, I find it very interesting how a former Khadafy regime member who was schooled by a U.S, intelligence operative and political-science master has become the  *Interim Prime Minister of Libya* today with obvious American Leftist support.  At least we now know who our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was talking to, when she stated she was in serious talks with the Libyan rebels who had yet to be identified by the rest of the world.  While this guy appears to come out of nowhere, his background proves that he has deep ties to certain American factions, most notably our most left-leaning politicians. Take note to date, that Mr. Jibril has yet to meet with the third most powerful representative of the American people,  the Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner.  Thus the numerous serious questions about our true agenda in engaging in the Libyan civil war illegally.  To get  Congressional approval for the Libyan war action, it would have to go through the Republican controlled House of Representatives, so President Obama just bypassed that Constitutional mandate completely.  So much for real democracy in America today.

Another interesting fact is that while studying in the United States, Mr. Jibril, who in fact went by the name Mahmoud Gebril ElWarfally when he lived in the United States, is in many ways an unlikely leader of rebellion. Also of note is that Mr. Jibril has problems spelling his own name properly or consistently, as in his own company in which he is the President, ” Gebril for Training and Consultancy.” Americans do not trust people who change their identities  in an attempt to hide their past actions, just look at Barry Seotoro, AKA  Barack Hussein Obama, for a good example of that.  Add in the fact that he has been mentored by a U. S.  intelligence operative, and had initially only been talked to by leftist Democrats John Kerry and Hillary Clinton when this whole charade started, and we see a distinct pattern emerging in the Libyan Civil War scenario.

Mr. Jibril , aka Mr. ElWarfally, has some interesting plans for Libya, which include nationalizing the oil industry, drafting a new Libyan constitution, and starting a new Central Bank, similar to what Mr. Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela. Mr. Jibril also has visions of  installing a new television station in rebel-held territory,  while calling for the dismantling of Khadafy’s own television stations.  To deny anyone, even a ruthless dictator, the right to defend himself in the free speech arena is a very troubling sign indeed. Those plans are more  in line with installing a Socialistic Dictatorship than a true Democracy.

We also see what happens when the United States enters into a Civil war that is none of our business and becomes responsible for meeting the demands of the ragtag rebels seeking to overthrow Khadafy. To keep the rebellion afloat, opposition members are seeking aid including heavy artillery, cash, and the jamming of Khadafy’s television channels. Gene Cretz, the US ambassador to Libya, said his team is still deliberating what kind of support to offer the rebels as it tries to figure out exactly who all the people on the interim council are.

Will Libya end up being a true Democracy when this all plays out, or will it still be in the hands of just another Dictator similar to Khadafy?

Update 1: If you thought it was a conspiracy theory in the connection of Jibril/Libya war to the CIA here, check this out: Covert action coming.

Update 2:  NATO takes over air operations as CIA works the ground in Libya http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/31/libya.war/

Clinton/Gates Prep Nation for Obama’s Libya Spin Tonight: Fox left out again

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit in a seemingly weak attempt to explain to the nation our unexplained involvement in the Libyan Civil War of 2011.  Let’s see here, they were on ABC’s ” This Week, ” NBC’s ” Meet the Press ,” and CBS’s ” Face the Nation. ”  Wait a minute, isn’t there a Sunday show on Fox ? Isn’t our Government supposed to be accessible to all major media networks ?  Then why would they refuse to go on Chris Wallace’s ” Fox News Sunday ” show ?

To say the least, Chris Wallace was somewhat surprised at the blatant unfairness in the Obama administration’s decision in not making Clinton/Gates available to ” Fox News Sunday, ” and its millions of viewers.  I personally caught the slight right away, and refused to give my viewership stat to the MSM Obama puppet propagandist stations, instead I was relegated to reading about it on the internet. However I did catch the following video clip from Fox News, explaining it :

This is typical of the Obama administrations pattern of picking and chosing  just who gets access to the important governmental officials of the last two years. How the entire American population can sit around criticizing other nation’s dictatorial treatment of the press, while allowing this kind of  denial of access to Fox News is beyond rationalizing. This also goes against the promise that this administration will be the most open and transparent in our history. Apparently that open government, now means open, only to those who fail to hold this administration’s feet to the fire for engaging in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress. Open only to those who get all tingly when Obama speaks, while ignoring the blatant lies and misinformation coming out of the Whitehouse today.

These kinds of  pathetic manipulations of our media should not only be condemned by all Americans today, but also by the cronies that Obama is favoring here. Think about this after we take over the U.S. Senate and Whitehouse in 2012:  How about our new Republican President denying all the Obama media puppets access to anyone in our government for four straight years and only letting them go on Fox News ?  Maybe we will let  ABC, CBS, and NBC show reruns of all the Fox News  Sunday interviews during the following week, when it is already yesterday’s news. Think about that.

Air Traffic Controller Not the Only One Asleep in the Tower

An air traffic controller has been suspended for having fallen asleep in the tower on Wednesday night. At least two planes were forced to land at Reagan National Airport as if it were an uncontrolled airport. Perhaps we should treat the White House the same way.

President Obama started another war, I mean overseas contingency oper.. oh.. wait, now it’s kinetic military something or other.. whatever – he started a damn war, but he did it without consulting Congress and still has not fairly addressed the American people. In fact, all appearances are that Hillary Clinton has actually built the coalition, hammered out the U.N. resolution, organized the NATO handover, and even handled the press conference that finally told Americans some of what’s going on.

It could be a mistake, maybe the President got locked out of the White House again. Perhaps he just has jet lag after the long vacation he took right after unilaterally declaring war on Libya and fell asleep in the oval office?

Nope, not there.

In a surprising statement today, Obama actually admits he’s not all that aware of what’s going on in his administration.

Under fire for an operation that allowed smuggling of U.S. weapons across the nation’s border with Mexico, President Obama said in an interview that neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the controversial “Operation Fast and Furious.” [1]

Another serious international matter and the President is where? Doing what? Well, a tweet from the White House official twitter account tells us that he’s going to be doing some warm fuzzy talk on Univision  (the spelling mistake is theirs).

@whitehouse: Bacck from Latin America this week, the President does Hispanic education town hall on Univision Monday night at 7EDT [2]

The air traffic controller got suspended, any chance we can suspend Mr. Obama? Would we notice the difference if we did?


Sources:
[1] http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/03/25/obama-claims-he-didnt-know-about-operation-fast-and-furious#ixzz1HcZADUdf
[2] http://twitter.com/#!/whitehouse/status/51273934489927680

Democrats Discover that One-World Government Doesn’t Include Them

One-World Governance Caution SignThe new World order and One-World governance: all countries participating in and living by the policies and rules of a single global government body. Recent history suggests that the United Nations is intended to be that governing body and Democrats in Congress just found out what that really means .. to them

In considering the Presidents decision to attack Libya, several Democrats  questioned the process Obama used in a Saturday conference call.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Source: Politico

With the ultra-left well-represented on the call, this was a call between the Dem-ist of the Dems and one would not have expected to hear requests for the impeachment of President Obama. As the Politico article makes clear, the reason for their anger is not the disregard of the Constitution – they got side-stepped and aren’t happy about it.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

One-World government is happening and the Democrats in Congress can’t believe they would be unnecessary in the New World Order. Did they not understand the implications of decades of cow-towing to the U.N.? Have they only just now understood the vision of their great President? Have they finally grasped the fact that their Liberal Utopian fantasy would first require them to become useless and all governing power ceded to the U.N.?

Hillary certainly has no qualms with it. Congress is in the way of her and Bill’s dream of a “new world order” and the U.N. is the gateway.

Mrs. Clinton has been trying to get the United States to abide by the U.N. Small Arms treaty as a way to disarm our populace and Bill was Mr. U.N., global governance, new world order ..

The U.N. is just one more global body for Obama to bow to and Congress is finally seeing that perhaps it is not the best course of action for them – but as far as Congressional Democrats are concerned, the affect on the country is irrelevant.

 

Sources:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1H9pWJtmv

State Dept. Spokesman Crowley Resigns After Comments

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today accepted the resignation of the State Department Spokesman, P.J. Crowley.

Crowley had been critical of the Pentagon on the detention of Private Manning, the service member that illegally delivered thousands of United State secrets to WikiLeaks.  While attending an MIT event, Crowley responded to an audience question on the treatment of the accused traitor:

[O]ne young man said he wanted to address “the elephant in the room”. What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, “torturing a prisoner in a military brig”? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He paused.

A few minutes later, I had a chance to ask a question. “Are you on the record?” I would not be writing this if he’d said no. There was an uncomfortable pause. “Sure.” So there we are.[1]

During the Egyptian overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, Crowley used twitter to say that Mubarak’s proposed actions were nothing more than a “reshuffle the deck chairs” – a reference to a popular Titanic euphemism. The White House expressed displeasure with the Spokesman as his comments had not been approved and were not appreciated.

P.J. Crowley seems to have misunderstood the role of a Spokesperson. It is not a role of one that wishes to affect policy or disseminate  opinion. The spokesperson is the mouthpiece of the entity which they represent – nothing more.

Mr. Crowley, what went down in your head.. [2]


Sources:
[1]- http://philippathomas.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-state-department-spokesman-and-the-prisoner-in-the-brig/
[2] – Lyrics – “Mr. Crowley” – Ozzy Osbourne

Political Infighting ripping Obama Administration apart at the Seams

The White House has mostly kept its internal turmoil under wraps in recent weeks but the lid is starting to come off the pressure cooker that is boiling at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Obama set in stone

President Barack Hussein Obama faces a rocky future, which appears to be set in stone.

It is another sign that Obama has lost control not only of the public narrative but that of his inner circle as well. It is common for senior political appointees at the White House to stay for at least until the end of the president’s first term in office. There is usually a natural turnover at the end of the first term. Old hands fade back into the woodwork and new blood is brought in to kick-start the administration’s second term.  However that is not the case in the Obama Administration. Indicative of a sinking ship, the rats are fleeing the ship as fast as the can – some voluntarily and others not so willingly. The mass exodus is well underway as evidenced by the following:

  • Larry Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council has announced his resignation, which will take effect following the midterm elections.
  • Christina Romer, who was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors resigned back in September of 2010.
  • Retired Admiral Dennis Blain, the former Director of National Intelligence, resigned in May 2010.
  • Peter Orszag resigned in June, 2010. He was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It is likely he felt pressure early on as he learned that the Democrats in Congress had no intention of even passing a budget for the current fiscal year.
  • Greg Craig, the White House Counsel, was forced to resign nearly a year ago, in November of 2009.
  • David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, resigned in February, 2010.
  • Mark Lippert, a Deputy National Security Advisor, left the White House in October 2009. A member of the United States Navy Reserve, he chose to move to Active Duty status. This is a telling move because Lippert was particularly close to President Barack Obama as evidenced by the fact that he was a regular pick-up basketball player with Obama during the course of his presidential campaign.
  • Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, resigned in September, 2009 after Fox News commentator Glenn Beck skewered Jones for his ties to radical leftists and leftist organizations.
  • Ellen Moran, White House Communications Director, left in April 2009. She started it all off in the resignations game since she lasted barely three months on the job.
  • Retired General James Jones, the National Security Advisor, resigned on October 8, 2010. There is ample evidence that he was forced out of his position.
  • Rahm Emanual, Chief of Staff. Emanual held the most powerful position in the White House, but it wasn’t enough to save him. There is evidence that he was forced out by Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett.
  • David Axelrod has announced that he will leave the White House early in 2011, ostensibly to return to Chicago and work on Obama’s re-election campaign.
  • Robert Gibbs – White House Press Secretary may very well be on the short list. There are rumors circulating within the Washington D.C. elite circles that Gibbs has been told to look for another job.

The Wayne Madsen Report, (WMR) a political operation in the spirit of the legendary Jack Anderson’s Merry-Go-Round,  reported two months ago that Obama is under extreme pressure from many heavy-hitting Democratic financial donors, to change his economic policies or else they will withhold future funding in the next presidential election – choosing instead to back a different candidate – presumably Hillary Clinton.

“Informed sources in Washington, DC have told WMR that President Obama has been personally told by a delegation of top Democratic Party financiers that unless he radically changes his economic policies they will bolt from him for another Democratic candidate in 2012. The Democratic money moguls conveyed the warning to Obama in Martha’s Vineyard, where the president and his family are spending their vacation. There are various factions within the Democratic Party that see different scenarios to bail out what many Democrats see as an administration in deep trouble with the electorate. One would have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton move up to replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Senator John Kerry becoming Secretary of State. However, WMR has been told that Clinton personally loathes Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and may not want to be part of the 2012 president ticket playing second fiddle to Obama. WMR has also learned that Obama’s reported ‘severe narcissism’ has a number of his cabinet officials and top Democratic fundraisers perplexed. Obama’s refusal to change course because of his ego was discussed at the recent annual Bohemian Grove conclave in northern California, which brings together influential businessmen and politicians from both parties. Top U.S. business leaders openly complained about Obama’s economic policies, with some stating that Obama is, for the business community, the worst president in anyone’s lifetime. They also complained about White House gatekeepers like Emanuel and policy advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod who are preventing access to the Oval Office.” – Wayne Madsen Report

This development has got to be exerting great pressure on Obama since he is a fanatical ideologue in terms of the economy – religiously adhering to Keynesian economic theory that decrees economic growth comes only through increased spending. It appears that these large Democratic financiers, though also ideologically to the left, are also pragmatic businessmen. It could be that they clearly see the effect that Obama’s economic policies are having on (1) their own bottom line, and (2) the public’s reaction to Obama’s destructive policies, which is going to manifest itself on November 2 in the midterm elections. If predictions of the Tea Party’s tsunami come true, the power of the behind-the-scenes Democratic financiers could be severely curtailed.

WMR is also reporting that Obama has chosen to ignore the demands of the aforementioned financiers who represent the leftist money machine. That is why we see Obama stubbornly pressing full ahead with his redistributive agenda, including both proposed legislation and anticipated Executive Orders which will further damage the economy. Obama has even let it be known to the Republicans that if they take one or even both chambers of Congress that they, the GOP, will be forced to deal with him. Obama blithely ignores the fact that the GOP will be perfectly happy to play a stalling game – preventing any more of Obama’s Marxist agenda to be passed through Congress while simultaneously preparing Obama’s downfall in the 2012 elections. The Republicans are perfectly aware that Obama would veto any legislation they attempt to pass that would curtail or repeal his signature achievements. Therefore, they are already planning a repeat of the midterms of 2010 in 2012. Due to the nature of the Senate, with only 1/3 of the senators up for election in any given election cycle, the Republicans are already calculating that it will take at least two election cycles to fully regain control. Furthermore, the Republications are calculating that the public also realizes this fact. Therefore, they are expected to trumpet their firewall against any further Obama legislation, willing to endure the darts and arrows from the mainstream media who will surely label them as obstructionists.

Speaking of the media, the Obama White House, according to WMR, is seeking revenge for media criticism.

WMR has also learned that rather than change course, the White House staff, who is keenly reading anything that is critical of the president, are more interested in exacting revenge for criticism than in changing course. ‘The White House staff are voracious readers who are obsessed with favorable coverage,’ one source said. – WMR

If that be the case, the White House public relations flacks, led by Axelrod, must be up in arms over the recent firing of Juan Williams from National Public Radio (NPR).

Juan Williams

Juan Williams

Convinced that they did the right thing to muzzle Williams, who is also a liberal, the executives of NPR and their bosses in the White House, have got to be beside themselves with the news that Williams has just signed a contract with Fox News. In effect, the White House flacks have done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot – having given Williams a much bigger platform from which to criticize the Obama Administration. This will have the effect of furthering the political infighting within the White House as the buck gets passed, people run for cover, and Obama is left, once again, with trying to find a scapegoat.

With the swift removal of Emanual, the Crisis Management team in the White House, i.e., Obama’s inner circle, now consists of Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Axelrod (though his influence is on the wane), and Vice President Joe Biden’s circle of Thomas E. Donilon (the incoming National Security Advisor) and Peter M. Rouse, the interim White House Chief of Staff. But given the news report from WMR that Obama now considers Biden to be a rival, this inner circle, with members already divided into two camps: (1) The Obama Camp – Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett and Axelrod, and (2) The Biden Camp – Biden, Rouse, and Donilon – is already set up for some viscous infighting.

And then there’s the Joker in this political house of Cards. Hillary Clinton is patiently sitting on the sidelines, enjoying the destruction of the man who denied her the presidency.

Political rivals

Obama offered Hillary Clinton the Vice Presidency...but Hillary has other plans.

She is dangling the possibility that she might oppose Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries. And she is well-positioned to do just that. She would be the beneficiary of those redirected campaign funds that have been threatened to be removed from Obama’s stash of cash. She has remained virtually silent on Obama’s major agenda items – leaving her open to fashion popular campaign planks once the chips fall on November 2nd. It very well could be that once the midterms are history Hillary Clinton will consider all of the chips to have fallen and thus Obama’s buffalo to be empty. If Hillary Clinton is going to make another run at the presidency, she is going to have to make her move early next year. So she has from November 3, 2010 (when the results of the midterms are known) until about the February to April of 2011 timeframe to make the announcement. Expect Hillary Clinton to continue to torment Obama with the uncertainty of her intentions. Obama, it has been reported, attempted to short-circuit any such primary challenge by Hillary Clinton by offering to dump Biden and ask her to join him on his 2012 ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. Reportedly, Hillary Clinton has already declined that invitation. This move on the part of Clinton will have to be tormenting Obama because it is a pretty good sign that Hillary intends to oppose him in the Democratic primaries of 2012. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe Biden has got to be feeling rather bitter since Obama chose to throw him under the bus in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Newsflavor.com reported earlier this month that Obama did indeed offer Hillary the Vice Presidency.

In an attempt to deal with increasing concerns over a possible Hillary Clinton run for President in 2012, the Obama White House has quietly made overtures to Clinton to replace Joe Biden as Obama’s Vice President:

There has been speculation of just such a deal for some time now.  The speculation has proved to be accurate.  The Obama White House is very concerned with the possibility of Hillary Clinton seeking the nomination in 2012.  Very-very concerned, and for good reason.  Democratic Party supporters – I’m talking some very deep pockets and very considerable influence, have been engaging in some speculative chatter of that nature for a while.  When that happens, it’s a warning shot at the White House that says to them you better get things back on track or we are going to try and replace you.  And Hillary Clinton has done nothing to diminish that chatter.  The opposite in fact.  She is considering the possibility herself. – Newsflavor.com

In typical Clinton fashion, Hillary outmaneuvered Obama on this issue. The combination of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton is an extremely powerful combination in liberal political circles. It appears that the Clintons have determined not to tie themselves closer to what they perceive as damaged goods. Hillary has somewhat of an albatross around her neck since she is the Secretary of State in Obama’s Administration. But she has done a very good job of distancing herself from Obama simply through her inaction and her silence.

The progressives are about to have their Come-To-Gaia moment on the morning of November 3, 2010. There isn’t going to be any more guessing about Obama’s coat-tails. Obama’s weaknesses will be all too visible to both professional politicians and the public alike. And members of the public are waking up to that fact. One reader, commenting on a Mediaite story concerning Obama floating the possibility of Hillary Clinton joining his ticket, said:

“After the November election, the Left won’t be able to remain in denial. They will start exploring alternatives to Obama in 2012. Obama’s smartest move would be to try to create a real alliance with Hilary Clinton. But as even Woodward has admitted, Obama and Clinton are not on the same page, and she is not one of his trusted advisers. So this would be a move of pure political expediency. And probably not enough to save an administration that the vast majority of Americans now see as incompetent and extremist.” – felixw

All of these factors are intertwined into the maelstrom that is the Obama White House. Alliances are being sought; supposed friends are being stabbed in the back (i.e., Biden vs. Obama); and lone wolves are circling Obama, looking for a weakness and an opportunity to strike. And there are plenty of lone wolves. One of them is Nancy Pelosi. Rumor has it that White House staffers asked Pelosi, to her face, to keep quiet until after the midterm elections were over. She was apparently told that she was a political liability. Pelosi apparently complied for a matter of weeks since she generally disappeared from view. But recently, with it becoming increasingly apparent that she would face a fight for the Speakership on the House floor in the event the Democrats retained control of the House, Pelosi has become vocal once again. Pelosi is in a battle for her own political survival and apparently she considers Obama to be a liability – just as he apparently considers her to be the same. It has been said that there is no honor among thieves – and Pelosi vs. Obama vs. Biden vs. Clinton, vs. Axelrod vs. Jarrett, vs. Michelle Obama is evidence that this contention could very well be true. The infighting is growing. It is spilling out into public view. Hangers-on are being pressured to take sides – which makes for a perilous choice for assorted low-ranking Democratic members of the House, political consultants, and members of the professional left.

Pelosi has indeed become a political liability for the Democrats, as evidenced by the liberal Guardian newspaper story out of Great Britain earlier this week:

“Republicans have put Pelosi front and centre of their campaign, trying to turn her into a rallying cry and a hate figure. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is on a “Fire Pelosi Bus” that is touring the country from coast to coast. Pelosi has been used in Republicans attack adverts in an incredible 47 different congressional seats, most of them many miles away from San Francisco. She has been portrayed as extreme, out-of-touch and elitist; a sort of uncaring liberal ogre forcing unwanted legislation down the throats of ordinary Americans. “She is the featured devil this year,” said Republican pollster and political consultant Adam Probolsky “She is solid in her hometown, but outside of that it is a very different picture.”

“That is Pelosi’s problem in a nutshell. Her home district voted 85 per cent for Barack Obama in 2008. Pelosi herself romped home in her last election with 72 per cent of the vote. But that will not matter if the Democrats lose the House. She will be ousted as Speaker, after being hailed only four years ago as the most powerful woman in American politics. If that happens, it will be a spectacularly swift fall from political grace. “Her career will be over. At that point she will have no political future,” said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in Los Angeles.” – Paul Harris

So Pelosi has no choice but to return to the stump. It is do or die for Pelosi. But Pelosi is between a rock and a hard place.

Pelosi between a rock and a hard place

Pelosi and friends - all dressed up and nowhere to go.

Told by Obama to shut up, she has ignored his command and is pressing forward, regardless. So even if she wins her fight to retain the Speakership of the House of Representatives, she has strained, if not outright broken her relationship with Obama and his cohorts within the White House.

The infighting within the inner circle of the White House, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, and with various party hacks and financiers, threatens to completely unravel what is left of the Obama Administration. Less than two years ago Obama was cheered on as the new Messiah, come to save the planet. Oh, how the mighty have fallen – and they can’t get up. Allowed to run amok with the Republican Party in no position to rein in the revolutionary element of the Democratic Party – the Democrats have totally imploded – in a manner kind of like inserting a straw into a pile of JELL-O© and sucking. The JELL-O© implodes upon itself, quivering from the internal pressure until it collapses and disappears into the straw – never to be seen from again. Such is the fate of the Democrats in general and the White House in particular. The American voters have shoved in the straw, guided by the massive Tea Party rebellion. Every poll showing the Democrats losing ground in the resurgent conservative tsunami is tantamount to another suck on the straw. White House staff is getting sucked up through firings and resignations. Wolves such as Clinton are circling the bowl, waiting to lick up whatever quivering bits remain behind. And there, at the bottom of the bowl, are the midterm elections.

The Democrats are also kind of like a football team. Less than two years ago the Democrats won the political Super Bowl. They reigned supreme over the universe. Winning does that to a team. But so does losing. Now the Democrats can’t get a first down. Coaches are being fired. Players are on the chopping block. Everyone is looking for a scapegoat. The fans are depressed. Advertising revenue is way down. The momentum is with the other team. Dissension is destroying the team from within itself.

The game is almost over, White House Democrats. The rats are abandoning the ship.

Tea minus 11 and counting.

T-minus 11 Days and counting until the Tea Party takes off in the 2010 midterm elections and a mission of rediscovery, going where no liberal has ever gone before - back to sanity.

Was the Communist Party USA behind Obama?

In order to answer this question, I simply visited their website and did a keyword search for Barack Obama. Lets look at some of the results here in chronological order.

February 22, 2008 Newsletter: Labor Upfront

“Buffenbarger election speech could strip gears of labor unity” By Scott Marshall

Getting carried away with your own rhetoric is rarely a good thing. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the Machinists’ union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), did just that in a “warm-up” speech for Hillary Clinton the night of the Wisconsin primary win by Barack Obama. (Necessary disclaimer: I have great respect for the Machinists’ union and president Buffenbarger, a tough industrial union that goes up against some of the biggest multinationals. So this incident is all the more worrisome from a seasoned labor leader.)

Ironically Buffenbarger’s main point was to ridicule Obama’s oratory. John McCain made a nasty attack on Obama’s speech-making that same night, but Buffenbarger’s was even more mean-spirited.

Besides the unfairness and shallowness of this attack on Obama, Buffenbarger’s speech also rudely, and with rightwing stereotypes, attacked Obama’s supporters. Ridiculing supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies” ignores the large number of union members and their families, of all races and nationalities, who are supporting Obama. Not to mention that I know lots of steelworkers who appreciate a good latte now and again, and who would like to drive a hybrid car to save gas and the environment.

Working people sorely need to defeat John McCain in November. That can only be done with the full support and unity of all the labor movement. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, there will be millions of labor households who were once supporting the other candidate.

Most of those in the labor movement, both AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions, who have endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination are campaigning positively on the strengths of their chosen candidate. Most recognize that all of both Clinton’s and Obama’s supporters in labor are vital sections of the democratic coalition that it will take to end corporate, rightwing domination of our political life

March 22, 2008  CPUSA 2008 Electoral Policy

The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clintons campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administrations policies.

Barack Obamas campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our countrys renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

In the long run, we see the need for an independent peoples party — an electoral party that will unite labor and all democratic forces. We also are working for a political system and government whose priority is to watch the backs of working families, not fill the pockets of the corporate fat cats. Our slogan, people before profits and our goal of Bill of Rights socialism say it all.

April 11, 2008 Report: A Labor and People’s Landslide is Necessary and Possible

INTRODUCTION

This election presents an historic opportunity to breakthrough and change the political landscape.

The grand coalition of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win along with National Council of La Raza, Womens Vote, ACORN, MoveOn and Rock the Vote has launched the biggest ever independent voter mobilization, which is at the heart of winning a massive turnout on election day and after.

The purpose of this report is to discuss how we contribute to the remarkable movement growing in our country, how we can help build the unity needed to defeat the ultra-right with a landslide vote, and how we can build the movement and the Communist Party and YCL to achieve bold and sweeping gains in the post-election period.

LANDSLIDE

Mobilizing a landslide win against the ultra right, necessary to turn the country around, is at the center of our tactics.

A landslide vote that changes control of the White House and improves the balance of forces in the House and Senate and in the states will create a new political dynamic in our country and the possibility to win gains far beyond the current platform of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

We do not yet know who will emerge, but with each new phase of the campaign Obama is proving to have the greatest potential to bring out a landslide vote to defeat John McCain, and the greater openness to working with mass movements. His recognition of the role of the people in moving history forward, and his message of inclusion not division inspires youth and all generations to get involved It reflects his own life experience.

In response to right-wing media attacks and the Clintons dangerous and opportunist negative campaigning, Obamas profound speech tackling race and racism in America opens a new door to uproot the legacy of slavery and the devastation of the era of ultra-right domination. He makes a deep contribution to unity in the way he addresses white people and shows that racism holds everyone back and the progress made in overcoming racism benefits everyone. Bill Richardsons response, embracing Obamas vision and addressing racism against immigrants and Latinos further uplifts the level of unity.

But whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton the landslide vote must be fought for as a necessary first step to winning a different direction for our country. Neither candidate is of the left. But history teaches us that when mobilized, labor and peoples forces can push through and win progressive gains in a climate like today.

Labor

The community affiliate Working America is active in 14 states with 2 million members. Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the battlegrounds.

The primaries have been challenging because of the different union endorsements and the need to keep unity for November while at the same time building support for Obama. Change to Win has activated their member-to-member operation for Obama. Twelve AFL-CIO unions have endorsed Clinton with different amounts of activation, six have endorsed Obama and the rest are waiting until the nominee is decided.

A remarkable 30% to 40% of voters who turned out so far in the Democratic primaries are union members. The media plays a negative role in promoting the idea that wage workers are Clinton voters and professionals are Obama voters. A deeper look is required. For example, in Rhode Island Change to Win union members voted 56% for Obama, but the union vote reported was 59% Clinton and 40% Obama. Clearly wage workers were among those voting for Obama, as in other states.

African American

The Obama campaign has moved the African American community in a special way, expressed in the turnout and vote. The African American vote has been the most consistent progressive voting bloc over decades, 90% Democratic. We have noted if African Americans vote the proportion of their population in South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia those states will flip from red to blue. That process is underway, starting with the large primary turnout. Massive voter registration drives are taking place . Participating in community mobilizations will deepen our ties and contribution on an ongoing basis.

The media and the right-wing have been working overtime to diminish the African American vote. Constant distortions by FOX News and others combined with the Clintons slash-and-burn negative campaign has been damaging for future unity and must be challenged.

Attempts by anti-immigrant groups to split the African American and Latino people are being rejected in many instances at the local level. If such fissures are left untouched it will endanger the potential of a landslide vote and movement that can chart a new course. Obamas speech on race made a great contribution in this regard and can be drawn upon..

Latino

There has been a big increase in Latino voters in the primaries, with the largest number of young voters. Latinos represented 10 percent of the voters (up from 6.7 percent in the 2004 general election). They voted 79% Democratic (up from 60-63 percent in the 2004 general election).. The vote was in majority for Clinton, but it is fluid as Obama becomes better known. Outreach to all Latinos on all of the issues is crucial for unity in November.

Women

Women voters have been turning out in large numbers for the Democratic primaries. Clinton has the overall advantage, reflecting the possibility of the first woman president, and the endorsement of NOW. But women are voting for both Clinton and Obama. African American women are voting overwhelmingly for Obama. Single women have voted overwhelmingly for Obama in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri and Utah, while Clinton carried single women in the remaining ten super Tuesday states.

Youth

When young people began flocking to vote in the Democratic primaries it galvanized the overall turnout. Young people want to impact these elections, and they want change. They want jobs, affordable education and an end to the war in Iraq. They are concerned about health care and the environment. (Rock The Vote 2/08) The number of under 30 voters in the democratic primaries tripled (3 million) from 4 years ago. My space and face book sign-ups on the internet show youth support for Obama who has 1 million friends compared to Clintons 330,000 and McCains 140,000. (NYT 3/27/08)

Progressives for Obama just formed. Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Jr.,Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover are calling on those in the peace movement who have been sitting out the election to join the grass roots upsurge around Obama and build the demand to end the war. This call to action should be useful locally.

CONCLUSION

We do not know all the twists and turns that the campaign will take. The great democratic spirit spreading through the country will hopefully prevail in a big way for a transformative election. If we stay on top of new developments we will be able to play our unity role. .

The movement for a landslide victory is the beginning. The more decisive the victory, the greater the possibilities for that movement to keep going and growing to win big new gains in a new stage of struggle.

It is clear to me they are more behind Obama than Clinton by the smearing of her “negative campaign” and citing how Obama has more support, and can pick us more of the Latino vote as he becomes more “well known.” While they refuse to endorse a candidate, demanding unity and showing Obama has more support, and smearing Clinton’s campaign is pretty close.

April 26, 2008 UNITY & THE STRUGGLE OF POLITICS

Erica Smiley’s Bi-Annual Report to the National Council April 12-13, 2008; Chicago, IL

POLITICAL CLIMATE

Who was the last national Democratic leader you heard blame greedy corporations for dividing workers along racial lines?

And have you ever heard a presidential candidate acknowledge the role of discrimination in the disproportionate numbers of Black youth in prison?

The movement surrounding the candidacy of Barack Obama is epic.

What makes this candidacy epic is what it has come to represent. This campaign has wrapped up in it all the hopes and dreams for the betterment of our country and the working people it belongs to. This campaign isnt about a man so much as its about whats possible if we are able to take our country out of the tight grip of the Ultra-right.

Is Obama a Communist? Is this upsurge around Obama a Communist movement?

Of course not.

But who dare say the upsurge around his campaign does not have a working class character? These elections are a pivotal battlefield for us to turn a corner in our struggle for socialism.

No where else would we be able to struggle for such broad unity within the working class in this specific moment.

No where else would we be able to struggle and persuade on our vision for the country and our understanding of the current barriers on so many issues.

In this period, we dont have to wax profound about all of our advanced demands in order to advance the struggle for peace and equality, as some have suggested. Our task is to build and maintain unity in this surge against Bush and the extreme right. We fight for the most advanced demands of our movements center, the most unifying demands against the Right.

And right now, there is unity in struggling within the movement surrounding Barack Obama, especially given the divisive attacks on Obama and the speech of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is where the forces of unity are mobilizing.

Labor and people from every walks of life see hope in the Obama presidency, and they see someone who will be responsive to the demands of the broader peoples movement more so than Wall Street. This was exemplified when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi got a letter from big Democratic donors demanding she take back her support of Super Delegates switching their votes based on their Districts.

Its not simply that Obama is a great leader. It is the recognition of the key role between leaders and the movements they represent. The Clinton campaign made some divisive remarks earlier this year, claiming that even Dr Martin Luther King needed a Lyndon B Johnson. What was missed in this remark, which was designed to de-legitimize Obama as more of a great speaker and repeater of rhetoric than a great leaderwas the fact that the movement benefited in having a president that would take a phone call from Martin Luther King, and President Johnson benefited from taking that call.

Forget that little red phone commercial! The united front of American workers, Black communities, immigrants, women, and youth needs a president that will answer the phone when we call.

You might ask yourself how Smiley could possibly give a report like this when our policy is not to endorse any candidate outside of the Communist Party and YCL. You might even think that this is an over-simplification.

Its true. We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.

And the post-election struggle will probably be more complicated than it is now.

Now I have said a lot about the campaign of Barack Obama. But there is one thing I do not want to get lost in this discussion.

Even if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the Ultra-right will suffer a massive defeat.

A Clinton Administration would still govern to the Left of McCain, and arguably further to the Left of the first Clinton Administration. By necessity, it would be more beholden to the will of our movement. Even if the Wall Street interests within the Democratic Party would rather see Clinton over Obama, they dont want to see a landslide victory of either. They want business as usual, and a landslide victory would be a mandate for change.

Therefore, a landslide victory by either Obama or Clinton would be a striking blow against racism and sexism in the United States; it would be a blow against the Ultra-right. We have to make this clear, especially if Clinton wins, in order to ensure unity against McCain and the extreme right wing.

The enemy for us remains the extreme right, and it is our responsibility to build unity in the struggle against them. If we stick to this, the McCain supporters will eventually join us. If we hold unity above all else in our discussions, it will not be as difficult for us to win Clinton supporters over to Obama if he wins the nomination and vice versa if Clinton manages to pull it off.

This election is not about progressive Democrats vs Blue dogs, and it isnt even about how progressive Barack Obama is or can be. This election is about an overwhelming majority of Americans frustration with the direction the Ultra-right has taken our country into. This election is about turning a corner in the fights for working people. And working people understand we can do that best with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

Isn’t this one interesting. Completely sings Obama’s praises and the power of his campaign while giving the catch phrase, “We do not endorse Obama or any other presidential candidate.” While saying Clinton has some potential, this report is, in my opinion, a clear endorsement of the Obama campaign.

The Communist Party USA’s publication “Peoples World” published an article on every union endorsement for Obama throughout the election, heres a link to the Search Page, there’s too many to post.

Then came this report

A Landslide Mandate For Change – Report to the National Committee Meeting 11/15/08

Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!

We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-peoples movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all peoples movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.

The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and peoples unity.

There are thousands of experiences that we all have had in these momentous days, some large, some small, all of which express the enormity of change in thinking and readiness for involvement that is underway and that steels us for the battles ahead.

The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.

Noting that self-identified moderates and liberals agree with Obamas program, Robert Borosage concludes that this election marks the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform….in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

The beginnings of a qualitative shift took place in the 2006 Congressional elections. The broader movement that emerged this year around Obama represents the biggest progressive ideological shift since the 1930’s. The rejection of red baiting, racism, and tax baiting against Obama by the voters shows a new majority in opposition to basic Republican right wing ideology.

People are angry, hopeful and ready to go. Our program to rebuild America should be strong and decisive. There is no other way to meet the emergency needs of this moment as the economic crisis spirals through every sector. We should call for taking the profits out of health care and energy which are basic human rights, and explore public ownership including of the finance and automotive industries .

This was a transformative election for many reasons. The vote for Barack Obama and the conversation on race which he opened up at Independence Hall. The rejection of 30 years of ultra-right horror. The emergence of new grass roots involvement and participation and a shift in thinking. The leading role of the multi-racial labor movement. A renewed respect for our Party and some growth. All point to the process of a rising consciousness and struggle for democracy and equality. All are part of moving forward the progressive arc of history.

As Obama said in his acceptance speech, ‘This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.’

And so the hard work begins. Obama is going to include many people in his cabinet and advisors that we would not pick, but protesting that will not build a movement. Our energy and focus should be invested in building the labor and peoples broad movement at the grass roots. That is how we can give a constructive push in a united way.

They were clearly overjoyed with the Obama victory and instantly sought to promote Communist solutions with Obama’s Presidency. The only dissent was on perceived future cabinet picks not on resistance to Communism. Whether or not they ever said that they endorsed Obama really doesn’t matter, they were clearly behind him throughout the campaign.

Recent Entries »