Israel, Get Ready for More Obama Leaks

By John Bolton via Family Security Matters

The Obama administration appears to be conducting an organized campaign of public pressure to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s well-developed nuclear-weapons program. So intense is this effort, and so determined is President Obama to succeed, that administration officials are now leaking highly sensitive information about Israel’s intentions and capabilities into the news media.

The president’s unwillingness to take preemptive military action against Tehran’s nuclear efforts has long been evident, notwithstanding his ritual incantation that “all options are on the table.” Equally evident is his fixation to ensure that Israel does not act unilaterally against Iran, a principal reason why Washington’s relations with Jerusalem are at their lowest ebb since Israel’s 1948 founding.

Indeed, the only conclusion to be drawn from Mr. Obama’s actions and rhetoric is that he fears an Israeli military strike more than he fears Iran achieving nuclear-weapons capability.

Current and former Obama advisers have repeatedly contended that a satisfactory negotiated outcome is possible, one where Iran will continue to develop a “peaceful” nuclear capability under international monitoring. How they can cling to this belief after years of Iran deceiving the International Atomic Energy Agency, going so far as to demolish buildings and excavate and remove thousands of cubic yards of rock and soil to try to conceal traces of radiation, is hard to fathom. Nonetheless, Team Obama still believes that Iran’s military-theocratic regime is capable of holding Pandora’s box but never opening it.

Equally disconcerting, administration officials, past and present, argue that a nuclear-capable Iran can be contained and deterred. Although Obama himself insists that containment is not his policy, I believe that assertion is true only in a limited sense: It is not his policy today. It is his policy for tomorrow, his Plan B, after the current sanctions and diplomacy fail to stop Iran. This is perhaps even more delusional than dreaming about Iran benignly pursuing “atoms for peace.”

Deterrence against the Soviet Union worked precariously and unnervingly at times, with some very narrow escapes from catastrophe, only because of a confluence of calculations between Washington and Moscow. There is no realistic prospect that Tehran’s religious autocracy will develop the same calculus of caution.

Still worse, even if Iran could be contained and deterred, there will undoubtedly be wider proliferation in the Middle East once Iran achieves nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton herself has said that a weaponized Iran certainly means that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and perhaps others will seek their own nuclear capabilities. Thus, in a relatively short period, five to 10 years, there could be half a dozen or more nuclear-weapons states in the region.

Accordingly, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place must be America’s top priority. The prolonged failures of diplomacy and sanctions have brought the United States to the point where, realistically, there are only two alternatives: Either Iran’s mullahs get the bomb, or someone stops them militarily beforehand. This is the dilemma that leads Obama to pressure Israel against even thinking about the second alternative.

Three years of merciless private pressure against Israel having obviously failed to extract a commitment not to use force, the Obama administration looks to have determined two months ago to go public.

The first salvo was Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s assertion that Israel might well strike Iran between April and June of this year. Nothing like letting the target know when to expect the attack.

Next came leaks to an author at Foreign Policy magazine’s Web site that Israel had secured basing rights from Azerbaijan, on Iran’s northern border, for possible use during a campaign against Tehran’s weapons program.

Launching strikes just a few hundred miles away from several likely targets — such as the Isfaham uranium conversion facility and the Natanz uranium enrichment plant — rather than having to attack from domestic airfields would give Israel both enormous tactical surprise and a critical leg up logistically.

One can assume with some confidence that Iran was not focused on the risk of Israeli bases in Azerbaijan, so hearing about it from US administration sources is a gift almost beyond measure. And one can also confidently assume that if that leak is not enough to make Israel bend its knee, more public revelations directed by the White House are only a matter of time.

Even now, Obama advisers could be revealing additional information to other governments behind closed doors. Perhaps we could ask Dmitri Medvedev.

Not only is this not the way to treat a close ally facing an existential challenge, it is directly contrary to America’s national interests. Israel is not the threat, Mr. President: Iran is.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as US ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06. This article also appeared in Jewish World Review.

For more click here.

Obama’s war on individual liberty

By William Murray via WMD  H/T Leslie Burt

The mandate drafted under Obamacare which forces church organizations to purchase health-care policies that provide for contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacient pills is just one small step toward Barack Obama’s hard-left goal of establishing a centrally planned society. The effect of the health-care mandates is more far-reaching than even critics first reported.

Under Obamacare, standards are set by bureaucrats, and all insurance policies must supply mandated services. Most likely the issue of contraception was the opening shot for Obama and his administration to soften up the opposition. The goal is rationing of care according to the “quality of life.” The quality of life concept is a leftist central planning goal that calls for “defective” babies to be aborted and care to be withheld in end-of-life situations to save government funds. As with central planning in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, health care will be available only for those who can continue to contribute to society. Moral issues are forgotten as they are not central to government.

Most conservatives point to Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in the context of defending free enterprise. For example Rep. Paul Ryan is an expert on the works of Hayek and the economists of the Austrian School. But the thrust of “The Road to Serfdom” was not economic, but rather the loss of liberty under central planning. On moral issues Hayek wrote:

“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and is called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right.”

At its heart Obamacare is a worst-case scenario of central planning, putting aside not only the will of religious organizations, but the self-determination of individuals as well.

There is no law forcing church organizations to supply contraceptives; this provision is not in the massive Obamacare law pushed through by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The mandate for contraceptives is a “rule” written by the Health and Human Services Department under the authority of the original bill. Obamacare gives HHS the authority to mandate virtually anything regarding health care. In the extreme, HHS could order that all costly attempts to save premature babies be stopped. Medicare already mandates that costly medical care for the elderly be restricted.

There are lists of approved Medicare services, and doctors may not prescribe anything that is not on that list for Medicare patients. This same central control is now becoming obvious in Obamacare. Central planning is not limited to just ordering individuals to buy insurance.

Going back to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”:

“If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal – but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Pay close attention to this portion of the above quote: “… a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Canada is defined as a democracy, but there is virtually no freedom of speech in that nation. Individuals have been fined for letters of opinion sent to newspapers. The courts there forced one man who was publicly critical of Islam to work in a mosque as public service. Democracy and liberty are not synonymous. It could be possible for an individual to have greater personal liberty under a monarchy than under a democracy whose bureaucrats have been given unlimited rule-writing powers.

The problem of the loss of liberty through central planning goes beyond Obamacare. Our Congress has abdicated its responsibility in many areas, giving the authority to bureaucrats to write “rules” that have the force of law, “rules” that if violated can bring about not only fines but prison time. The Environmental Protection Agency has jailed innocent land owners for such crimes as cleaning garbage from their property.

Oddly, conservatives have aided in the rush to central planning. Republicans in Congress have sworn off “earmarks,” thus giving Barack Obama and the bureaucrats the full authority to spend trillions of dollars a year as they see fit without congressional oversight. It is now Obama who decides which states get new bridges, not the Congress. Apparently, tea-party members believe that having Obama decide where to spend trillions of dollars is better than the “corruption” of congressmen trying to bring jobs to their districts. The tea party is unwittingly assisting in the creation of even more central planning.

The problem with Obamacare is not Obamacare. The problem stems from both major political parties moving away from the concept of individual liberty and toward central planning, whether it is George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” or Barack Obama’s attempt to control medical care for the entire nation from one central location in Washington, D.C.

We must heed the warnings of Friedrich von Hayek and dismantle the central planning monster we have created in Washington before it devours the last of our liberties.


William J. Murray is the chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Religious Freedom Coalition and the author of seven books including “My Life Without God,” which chronicles his early life in the home of destructive atheist and Marxist leader Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman who filed the lawsuit removing prayer and Bible reading from America’s public schools. Having lived the Ayn Rand lifestyle, he has a unique prospective of the political candidates.

Allen West Compares Socialist Democrat Party to National Socialists

By  Dr. Rich Swier on Tea Party Nation

The thing I love about Florida Congressman Allen West is he does not mince words. He is a man of honor and integrity who calls it the way he sees it. Allen drew the ire of the Democrat Party and some Jewish groups when he said, “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine. Let’s be honest, you know, some of the people in the media are complicit with this and enabling them to get that type of message out.”

The socialist Democrat Party does not like it when they are compared with their historic socialist brethren.

SunSentinal.com writes, “The remark brought a barrage of outrage, with some demanding that West apologize for his statement. ‘This is not the first time that Rep. West has evoked an offensive Holocaust analogy,’ Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida regional director said in a statement. ‘In August 2010, West made an inappropriate Holocaust analogy, and ADL strongly urged West to repudiate his remarks and to prospectively refrain from making Nazi references or comparisons.”

But wait, Allen West said nothing about the Holocaust.

He simply told the truth that the socialist Democrat Party uses propaganda in the same manner as other socialist movements have such as the National Socialist Party in Germany and the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. What is wrong with that?

Others, including major national Jewish groups, have come to the defense of Congressman West.

Carol Flatto, chairman of the South Florida Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel, stated, “Congressman West was citing Goebbels’ name as a superlative metaphor for propaganda. Goebbels was the personification of the master propagandist, the creator of ‘The Big Lie‘ — if you repeat a lie often enough, people will accept it as truth. West’s critics are using the Holocaust for their own political purpose in a ‘Goebbels-esque’ manner, which proves his description of their tactics to be accurate and appropriate.”

According to SunSentinal.com:

Joseph M. Sabag, executive director Florida Region Zionist Organization of Americasaid the politicians expressing outrage and condemning West “are exaggerating by suggesting that his inappropriate comment about a Nazi leader is necessarily a reference to the Holocaust and should therefore be taken as an insult to the Jewish Community.

When it comes to standing up for Israel and the Jewish people, Congressman West is among the most honest, dedicated, brave, intelligent, sincere and supportive friends anywhere,” Sabag said. “If these critics are pro-Israel as well, they should help him correct his statement and move on rather than intentionally misguide the Jewish community in an effort to tear him down.

I agree with both Joseph Sabag and Carol Flatto. The use of Joseph Goebbels is a metaphor for political propaganda. During the 1930s the National Socialists rose to power using a propaganda machine that demonized their political opponents. What is being said about Congressman West by his political opponents is reminiscent of the Goebbels propaganda machine, is it not? For you see a socialist is a socialist is a socialist. Whether a National Socialist, Social Democrat, member of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuelan socialist, Cuban socialist or Chinese socialist. They are all about the state having supreme power over the people. Not the people having unalienable rights and power over the state.

Speaking truth to power is needed today more than ever. Allen West is a man to be both reckoned with and respected. He is beloved for his honesty and clear thinking. He understands that in 2012 the Socialist Democrat Party propaganda machine is hard at work, with the complicity of the main stream media, to keep power on November 6, 2012.

I believe the American people will reject the socialist Democrat Party “big lie” and embrace the truth as told by Allen and others.