Obama’s Dangerous UN Agenda

(Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read carefully.  It is long, so I recommend you simply take it in segments - but please read and consider it.)   By: Ben Johnson  

The “I”s Have It

Obama has been accused of having a messianic view of his presidency. In 41 major presidential speeches before the UN address, Obama made reference to himself nearly 1,200 times, more than twice as often as every member of Congress combined. His UN address was similarly Obama-centric.

To highlight the glimmering hope his presidency embodies, he demonized America, B.B.O. (Before Barack Obama). He noted the international “belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally,” a belief he has made clear in other venues he shares; he said “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”;  and he declared the dark “days when America dragged its feet on [climate change] are over” – a less caustic version of his remark Tuesday at the Climate Change Summit that, under a certain unnamed predecessor, America suffered “too many years of inaction and denial.”

He then presented himself as the savior of international relations, touting “the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.” He hastened to add these “expectations are not about me” but rather are “rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.”

Obama then equated “the character and cause of my nation,” with “the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” During this time, he boasted, he “prohibited… the use of torture by the United States of America,” ordered “the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed,” determined “combat extremism within the rule of law,” joined the UN Human Rights Council, and “paid our bill” to the United Nations.

This leaves the impression the United States was a cheapskate nation that had turned its back on global human rights, and implicitly admits torturing and otherwise conducting a lawless anti-terrorism program. In reality, Gitmo is not closed, as Obama has acknowledged it contains a number of prisoners who can neither be released nor transferred, and he has no plan to deal with them. It is true that the Republican Congress voted to withhold a portion of UN dues twice B.B.O. (in 2001 and 2005) – over President Bush’s strenuous objections. Congress recognized the U.S. pays nearly a quarter of the UN’s budget, while 128 of its 192 member nations pay one percent, and it demanded reforms. This demand was in part motivated by the fact that Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Upon taking office, Obama paid nearly a billion dollars to the UN and rejoined the UNHRC – once again, without securing, or even asking for, anything in return. In general, his administration’s view is best elucidated by Susan Rice, who said “others will likely shoulder a greater share of the global burden if the United States leads by example, acknowledges mistakes…and treats others with respect.” Like generations of leftists, the Obama administration believes the U.S. is guilty of straining international relations for years, and our collective guilt explains the world's “reflexive anti-Americanism,” which can now be put to an end because of…him. He does not believe, as did John Bolton, that the UN has been too accommodating to terrorism.

And his “counterterrorism” proposal reflects it.

Fighting Terrorism: A “Law Enforcement” Matter

The anti-terrorism portion of his speech took exactly one, excessively fuzzy paragraph. Its most specific proposal declared, “America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect our people.” Obama let the cat out of the bag; he shares John Kerry’s view that counterterrorism is “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.” This may account for his recent, public signs of faltering in Afghanistan. Although he campaigned on a promise to bomb Pakistan – if necessary, without Islamabad’s approval – in order to kill Osama bin Laden, he now speaks of returning to the law enforcement approach of the Clinton years that brought on the bombing of two U.S. embassies, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and finally 9/11.

Against the backdrop of his public vacillation on Afghanistan, he insisted he “will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.” Later that evening, he was followed at the podium by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who jailed, beat, and “tried” Iranian protesters, even killing the nine-year-old son of a political enemy, with little more than a belated whimper from Obama. And although Poland and the Czech Republic had determined they wanted missile defense, he abandoned a long-negotiated U.S. agreement granting their request.

Similarly, when he turned to Iran and North Korea – all too briefly – he insisted the UN “demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise.” China has obstinately blocked him, and Russia is actively aiding Tehran’s nuclear program. Moreover, Obama became the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party precisely for counseling international law be disregarded when it came to enforcing more than a dozen resolutions about Saddam Hussein. But he showed a great deal more relish for other UN resolutions.

Mideastern Pre-“Occupation”

By far the biggest applause lines of his speech were his emphasis “that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” and a vow to end “the occupation that began in 1967.” (Conversely, he received no applause when he described U.S. actions to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, polio, H1N1, and global economic squalor.) He insisted, “the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues:  security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem.”

Israeli President Binyamin Netanyahu has made it known returning to the pre-1967 borders is a non-starter.  So did Ariel Sharon. Even Ehud Olmert would not allow an unmitigated return to the old territory, because the 1967 borders are regarded as indefensible. Similarly, granting the “right of return” to all Palestinian refugees in UNRWA camps – most of whom never set foot in Israel – would end Israel’s history as a Jewish state and will never be accepted in Tel Aviv. Aside from Honduras, Israel is the lone nation the Obama administration has pressured; all others receive an "open hand" of friendship.

Obama believes Israel, like the United States, must “lead by example,” giving its enemies a little more each time, in the hopes of securing their approval. In the Left’s world, one’s enemies exist only because they feel frightened or endangered. This outlook is reflected in Obama's anti-nuclear posture.

“You Can’t Hug with Nuclear Arms”

On Thursday, Obama chaired a meeting of UN Security Council, dedicated to nuclear disarmament, which produced a new (and meaningless) resolution to move toward a world without nuclear weapons. He reaffirmed Wednesday, “we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.” To this end, he announced the ongoing U.S.-Russian missile reduction negotiations that began this week, hoped to end to the production of fissile nuclear material, and pledged to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), dispatching Hillary Clinton as a representative to its members’ conference.

Such a view is hardly new. In April, Obama told an audience in Prague, “the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.” (One sentence later, he said, “Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies – including the Czech Republic.”)

Although Obama may seek a “world” free of nuclear weapons – the Pollyanna hope of the Left and the self-interested hope of the Soviets since the 1960s – he can control policy only in the United States. As I noted last week, his motivation behind scrapping the long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was likely to encourage Russia to make deep cuts in its nuclear arsenal. The Guardian has since reported, “The abandonment of the US missile defence [sic.] already appears to have spurred arms control talks.” Russian “leader” Dmitry Medvedev said it was probable Russia and the United States would reduce their deployed warheads to 1,500 each by year’s end. To further “spur” negotiations, Obama rejected the Pentagon’s initial Nuclear Posture Review – its overview of how many warheads could be destroyed – on the grounds the Defense Department had not sufficiently decimated U.S. defenses. An administration official told the media, “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.” He and his advisers, most notably Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher, share the view that the United States must demonstrate sincerity by exposing itself to increased danger.

The CTBT would further erode our national defense. Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation wrote, “Once the CTBT is in force, the United States will be unable to maintain a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear arsenal.” The “ban” on fissile nuclear material also produces problems. Obama has repeatedly affirmed the right of every rogue nation, including Iran, to possess “civilian” nuclear reactors; unfortunately, this is precisely the cover North Korea used to create multiple warheads. Henry Sokolski notes another conundrum: “The French are now arguing that the only way to get such a ban going is to bribe China (which has not signed) by selling it a nuclear fuel plant capable of making 1,000 crude bombs’ worth of plutonium a year.”

Declaring a U.S. respite on nuclear production, ending nuclear testing with the attendant deterioration of existing warheads, and making a dramatic “goodwill” reduction of our weapons will entice other states to try to catch up to our diminishing levels. If they can come close to matching our lowered arsenal, they will become nuclear superpowers by default. The eradication of our stockpiles, which Obama and company seek, would leave America and the West vulnerable to nuclear blackmail by any state that can produce even one nuclear device – the more so if missile defense systems are abandoned.

This is the long-range security strategy at the heart of his foreign policy. But another policy guides him yet more strongly.

The Environment: “The Top of our Diplomatic Agenda”

Fighting terrorism is now passé. Global warming is seen as a much graver threat to the world’s survival. In recognition of this fact, Obama told the Climate Change Summit Tuesday, “we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries as varied as China and Brazil; India and Mexico; from the continent of Africa to the continent of Europe.”

That he has. Upon taking office, Obama created the post Special Envoy for Climate Change within the State Department, appointing Todd Stern, a key negotiator of the Kyoto Protocol and mostly recently a senior follow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Kyoto would have crippled the U.S.

Obama’s shift in focus has been felt by every delegation visiting China. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once had an outstanding record on Chinese human rights. When she visited Beijing this summer, she made token statements on human rights but said her “focus was on climate change,” insisting, “protecting the environment is a human rights issue.” Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ed Markey noted Madam Speaker’s strong role in emphasizing the administration’s overriding concern. economy, costing an estimated $100-400 billion in productivity over ten years and increasing the cost of electricity by as much as 80 percent.

Obama alluded to it himself in the most dire part of his speech – predictably, not about terrorism or the likelihood of Iran or North Korea obtaining a nuclear weapon. Obama gave a mini-apocalyptic sermon:

If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders.  Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources.  Development will be devastated by drought and famine.  Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear.  Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on – why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

The trouble, he believed, is that the UN “struggles to enforce its will,” another common statement of globalists. In Prague, he announced, “All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.”

Holdren’s Influence?

Both his apocalypticism and his globalism echo Science Czar John Holdren. Holdren confirmed during his Senate confirmation hearings in February that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020,”  and dire predictions about violent competition for resources are a longtime Holdren refrain. Other outlets that picked up my report on Ecoscience ignored another wrinkle in the story: Holdren has long called for planetary disarmament. As recently as January 2008, Holdren told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs “a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance.” In Ecoscience Holdren called for “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” to control all natural resources and determine appropriate population levels to bring this about. The United Nations was his intended agent.

Barack Obama’s UN speech advanced a doctrinaire left-wing foreign policy that will hamstring American defense, further sideline the economy, and leave the nation relying on “law enforcement” to chase down terrorists after the fact. His anti-American statements were offensive, but his substantive proposals could do far more damage.

Cops, deputies warned again about right-wing 'terrorists' SPLC alarm: 'Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing'

(Analyst's note:  A troubling report.)


By Bob Unruh


A private activist organization apparently is picking up where the federal government left off when the Department of Homeland Security issued its "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists.

Only the new warning, delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, is lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.

The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center, where officials confirmed to WND it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC did not respond to a WND request for other comment.

But the article groups members of various organizations such as Oathkeepers – whose mainly military and law enforcement members pledge to uphold their constitutional duties, including the duty to question and refuse what appear to be illegitimate orders – with a man "said to be interested in joining a militia" who is accused of killing two deputies in Florida.

Muslim 'Day of Unity' Draws Prayerful, Protests

By James Rosen

Several thousand Muslims convened on the Capitol grounds for a peaceable day of prayer Friday, voicing their religious fervor and solidarity with American values while ignoring scattered protesters of other faiths.

"Allah Akbar!" shouted the sea of worshippers in flowing white and gold robes and headwear, following a mid-afternoon recital from the Koran. The estimated 8,000 in attendance chanted and used carpets, blankets, jackets, and plastic tarp as the traditional ground cover on which they knelt in prayer. A sermon afterward urged all Muslims to "God bless America" and avoid the "trap" of hating anyone, particularly Christians and Jews.

The crowd in attendance on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building was comprised predominantly of people of color and men, with females seated separately. They arrived from disparate points across the country, mostly the East Coast, to take part in what organizers billed as "Jummah Prayer on Capitol Hill: A Day of Islamic Unity." In Arabic, "Jummah" refers to a day of gathering, usually traditional Friday prayers.

No arrests or disturbances of any kind could be seen in several hours of observing the event. Asked if any such incidents had occurred, a law enforcement official on site who declined to provide her name said, "Only what you see."

At remote locations, distanced far away from the proceedings and under the watchful eyes of uniformed and plainclothes Capitol Police, scattered groups of Christians used microphones and public address systems to voice their displeasure with the Muslim event.

One such group, whose members displayed two oversized tablets similar to those seen in Biblical depictions of the Ten Commandments, called itself "Operation Save America" and distributed pamphlets saying: "Abortion is Murder!! Homosexuality is Sin!! Islam is a Lie!!"

The organizer of the Muslim event, Hassen Abdellah, a criminal defense lawyer from Elizabeth, New Jersey, urged the Christian groups to "show respect" and not disrupt the Muslim worship service. But the din of the Christians' rally chants, amplified over their portable public address systems, could still be heard while an aged Muslim cleric led the thousands of Muslims in prayer.

At one point, Abdellah, adopting a sarcastic tone, told the crowd: "Look at all these terrorists!" In his remarks and others', a recurring theme was affronted astonishment that anyone would express suspicion of, or protest against, people of faith gathering at the Capitol simply to pray en masse.
"The idea [behind the event] is to express and illustrate the beautiful diversity in Islam, the spirituality in Islam, the humanity in Islam," he told FOX News in an interview Thursday.

"Americans have been asking and requesting and calling out for Muslims to come out who renounce the violence, who renounce the criminality and the hijacking of the religion," he said. "And we believed that if we started a grassroots movement, Muslims would appear and show up in tens [of thousands] and droves, because the majority of Muslims in America love this country."

An open letter signed by 19 activists, mostly conservative Christians and including Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, was circulated in the days prior to the Muslim day of prayer. It called on Abdellah and other organizers to "unequivocally denounce" specific terrorist acts and plots of recent years, starting with the Sept. 11 attacks.

"[W]e note," said the signatories, that "the overwhelming number of terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims, that many Muslim-American groups have terrorist ties and that justification for acts of violence against 'infidels' is found in the Koran."

Other attacks the signatories called on Abdellah to denounce, in addition to 9/11, included the March 2002 Park Hotel bombing in Netanya, Israel, which killed 30 people and injured 140 others; the October 2002 Bali hotel bombing that killed 202 people; the plot to attack Fort Dix, disrupted by U.S. officials in May 2007; and the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, in which 173 people were killed.

Abdellah had not seen the letter until a FOX News reporter showed it to him during Thursday's interview. Asked for his response, Abdellah said: "Muslims, individually and collectively, repudiate these acts, but I don't think tomorrow is the place for us to repudiate specific acts. Tomorrow is about our faith; it's not about politics. Because if we involve politics in the Jummah prayer, then what we'll do is only bring on other controversies. We're trying to bring people together."

A former Union City, New Jersey prosecutor, Abdellah in private practice has represented a number of confessed and convicted terrorists. They include one who took part in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and another who sold fake identification documents to the 9/11 hijackers. Asked if this background made him a poor evangelist to spread a message of Muslim solidarity with America, Abdellah disagreed, saying such logic would preclude an attorney who has represented drug dealers from taking part in anti-drug events.

Still, not all sentiments expressed at the Capitol event were unqualifiedly pacifist or positive. One speaker addressed news media present and said, "Some of you can be friendly, but you can also be vicious." The same speaker, who could not immediately be identified, also chastised Oprah Winfrey for promoting actresses who make money by "baring their bodies," and said such activities encourage the establishment of prostitution rings like the one that brought down former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
There was also no denying that the day of prayer attracted some individuals and groups fanatical in their hatred of Muslims. At a separate event, held simultaneously in a conference room at the Rayburn House Office Building, a group calling itself Stop Islamization of America warned about the supposedly hateful, violent, and anti-Western teachings of the Koran.

John Cosgrove, who identified himself as a counterterrorism consultant, called on "American males" to "stand shoulder to shoulder" in the battle to save America from the imposition of Sharia on American law. Sharia is a body of Islamic law used, with varying degrees of severity and harshness toward women, in many Muslim societies. At one point, Cosgrove brandished a book called The Quranic Concept of War to demonstrate the supposedly aggressive and confrontational nature of ancient and modern Islam.

Noting the arguments of some that Thomas Jefferson possessed a copy of the Koran, Cosgrove conceded this was true and added: "He had it so that he could know his enemy, so he could confront them, know them, kill them, and vanquish the Islamic pirates, the scourge of the seas and spreading tyranny abroad. After reading the Koran, founding the Marines and expanding the Navy to go kill them, I think he laid the Koran down thinking perhaps he was done. Sadly, it was not the case."

Somali advocate: Terrorists recruiting in Seattle

(KOMO-TV, Seattle) A Muslim reportedly involved in the deadly suicide bombing in Mogadishu could be the third to be recruited from a terrorist organization in Seattle ...

New Bin Laden Audio Tape May Indicate Upcoming Attack

(Analyst's note:  Troubling at best.)

from National Terror Alert

al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s latest message, released today, contains language considered by many in the Intelligence community to be a valid indicator of an upcoming attack.


An AFP news report posted this afternoon cites the concern.

“This indicator when viewed in light of the five Abu Talha videos this year, three of which have been released in the last eight days and their focus on the upcoming elections in Germany, significantly raises the threat level even further,” IntelCenter said.
News Article

Site Intelligence Group Has More
Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, addresses European peoples in a new audio message released on jihadist forums on September 25, 2009.

The audio comes in a 4 minute, 47 second video produced by al-Qaeda’s media arm, as-Sahab, and shows only a still image on bin Laden.

Bin Laden asks Europeans to cease their alliance with the US and withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, saying: “An intelligent man doesn’t waste his money and sons for a gang of criminals in Washington, and it is a shameful thing for a person to be in a coalition whose supreme commander has no regard for human life…
Site Intelligence Group

Thomas Hegghammer at Jihadica thinks bin Laden may be laying the groundwork for an attack that is months away, or hoping to inspire a grassroots group or individual in Europe to take action on his behalf.

…My guess is that these messages are primarily intended to influence German public opinion at a crucial juncture in the Western campaign in Afghanistan. Germany is a pivotal player in the coalition; her withdrawal could initiate a vicious (or virtuous, depending on one’s preferences) circle of European withdrawals from the Afghanistan enterprise. Al Qaida is focusing the weakest link in the coalition, just as the Madrid bombers were advised to do.

Social Security is Broke

(Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.)

by Michele Bachmann

While we debate the pros and cons of a trillion-dollar-plus health care overhaul here in the House, it's important to come to terms with the rising financial commitment already facing our nation and future generations.

For instance, according to a report just released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Social Security is broke.

The CBO now projects that Social Security’s costs will exceed tax income in 2010 (next year!) and 2011, with cash surpluses returning over the 2012-2015 period and becoming negative again beginning in 2016 and later.  In their March 2009 estimates, the CBO projected that the cash surplus would be positive through 2016.  Keep in mind that these projections are based on what many economists of all stripes believe are far-too-rosy White House budget numbers.  It's a very real possibility that a positive cash surplus may not occur at all.

What's worse is what the CBO report reveals about our nation's long-term budget outlook:

"Over the long term (beyond the 10-year baseline projection period), the budget remains on an unsustainable path. Unless changes are made to current policies, the nation will face a growing demand for budgetary resources caused by rising health care costs and the aging of the population. Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth by lowering national saving and investment relative to what would otherwise occur, causing productivity and wage growth to gradually slow.

"Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under long term projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.

"If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance."

These are very real numbers we're talking about, and it's about time Washington account for its finances rather than pushing them off to our children and grandchildren through continued borrowing and higher taxes.

Pakistan Found: 'Jihadi village' of white German al-Qaida members

(London Telegraph) In the video, the presenter, "Abu Adam", the public face of the group in Germany, points his finger and asks: "Doesn't it appeal to you? We warmly invite you to join us!" ...

Obama's policies would redistribute nearly $1 trillion in wealth each year

(CNSNews.com) By 2012, nearly $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of families will be redistributed among the bottom 70 percent if Obama's proposals on taxes, health care and climate change become law ...

Reid blocks ACORN probe

(Las Vegas Review-Journal) The Senate majority leader says tracking abuse by political allies could be "distracting" ...

More on Sharia Finance

Stealth jihad against our Constitutional form of government.  This is treason ... think about it

Sharia Law Finance Explained

Sharia finance is Jihad with our money

Netanyahu Slams U.N. for Giving Ahmadinejad Forum: ‘Have You No Shame?’

Fed audit review beginning in Congress 'This is history in the making and victory is within reach'

By Bob Unruh

Federal Reserve

Members of Congress will holding a hearing tomorrow on a plan by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to audit the Federal Reserve, which oversees U.S. monetary policy, and his supporters are calling it a precedent-setting event.

"This is history in the making and victory is within reach," said a statement on the RonPaul.com website, which is maintained in support of the congressman but is not linked to him.

WND reported just days ago that the congressman, who has sponsored similar legislation on and off since the 1980s, believes this is the year there actually will be progress on his efforts to open up the books of the private organization that sets interest rates, controls the U.S. money supply and impacts consumers in a hundred ways.

The Federal Reserve, an independent organization apart from the U.S. government, largely has operated behind a veil of secrecy for decades, but Paul told WND its operations could be about to face the light of day.....

Does Iran Have A Second Uranium Enrichment Plant?

(Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read and consider.... people, this is big.)

from National Terror Alert

This won’t be good if true. Fox news reports in a breaking news headline that Iran apparently has a second uranium enrichment plant. Not good news.

Apparently the second plant may only be under construction however. Harretz.com reports a senior Iranian atomic official said on Sunday that Iran has chosen the site, for and started designing a new 360 megawatt nuclear power plant.

You can read that story at here.
Another story is here