POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

Lindsey Graham Destroys Eric Holder

There was to much common sense in Lindey’s words… I gota go watch some CNN to get myself real again…

Please… Someone explain this to me!

The in fact this was from Memorial day 2009.

And this…

In what world is this acceptable? Unbelievable!

And this video makes his -Obama- efforts even more deplorable.

Seeing my dog the day I got back from Afghanistan

Even a dog knows how to show appreciation.

An Open Letter to Glen Beck

Dear Glen ~ for the first time in my 69 years I am on a roll in politics! And I know it’s our Lord prodding for me to keep writing to you and talking to anyone I meet about this governments corruption. I did yesterday to the hospital staff while having a two-hour MRI on my spine~ the Holy Spirit inside this lady would NOT just shut up! And I cannot even vote ~ yet! I do believe email to you from the public is being checked for I was having a hard time this past week writing to Fox News.

Glen ~ you need to address why obama does not salute for “Fallen Americans and to the Pride of the American Flag”. Go back to every event he has ever attended as President ~ please check this out. He will bow for Emperors ~ but he had no such respect for the Queen of Great Britain.

Please come on an address obama’s True Faith. One cannot be a Christian/Muslim embracing all religions ~ you are either a Christian or a Muslim. Obama would Never have got into power had he declared this fact: I am of Muslim faith. Obama IS A MUSLIM. That is why NO one in the media wants to talk or check into his background on this topic. And another question: why is his past erased from the internet?

I’d like to see the proof that he is a US citizen with his birth certificate. Also, you could trace back from his passport information on what his status was when he first entered the US. He lived and went to school in a country ~ where you had to be a Muslim to attend.

Where does he go to church now and how often? There seems to be a good deal of unnecessary nervousness on this topic and the media are just too afraid to discuss his “muslim” faith ~ because of political correctness! I’d like to know why Obama is protecting the terrorists from 9/11 and the recent terrorist who shot our troops at Fort Hood.

He does not want to protect Israel and Poland or Europe - he wants to bankrupt the US and then take over the United Nations ~ who have at least 200 dictators who will fall into line. He wants One World Order - One common currency ~ and full control of all peoples.

Many see him as the Messiah - obama is is NOT the Messiah the appointed one! He is anti-christ - could well be the coming anti-christ. Glen ~ you need to act on your faith and bring about the disclosure of his true identity. That is why he is in with Communist countries and these other dictators world wide.

Also, because he is a Muslim ~ this is why he is dithering and has not yet sent any more troops overseas to protect the US and British troops already there. The troops moral is already very low over his lack of action. Please keep harping on this topic ~ he will use “this country cannot afford to send hardly any troops because of our present economy and the Health Care Bill reform” yet it is Obama that has taken this country into debt ~ not Bush.

Our Lord Jesus gave me a clear message this Sunday morning that Glen Back is His warrior for truth and a symbol of courage and defiance during these extraordinary times ~ for this present government is All about power and greed and running this Great Nation bankrupt.

Glen, you are young and possess the strength to jealously guard this once powerful Nation. As President you could use the power of High Office to bring back God into schools and government. Have the banners flying and run for: “One Nation Under God”. Please run for office ~ the White House needs to be free of radicals and their greed.

Glen, you were blessed by God with an open heart and spirit . . . that is why our Lord is using you this way . . . He uses sinners. There is Not one person on this planet who has not sinned against the Living God ~ and that is why he gets you to open up and talk about your past ~ so openly ~ this is why the viewers relate to Glen Beck. So please Just keep on telling the truth as it is.

Jeanie

Reports early today from inside Russia suggest that a link exist between the Obama Administration and the H1N1 Virus.

It has yet to be confirmed, but sources inside several militant Muslim groups throughout the Middle East and as far west as China have been working together in an effort -proposed by the Muslim faction of the Obama adminastration- to bring about this “World Pandemic Scare and Panic”.

“The ends justify the means,” a person close inside the N1H1 Network Scare said yesterday. “We see this as a way for Obama, and all Muslims… to take control of the US government by Executive Order and forgo the whole legislative process,” The source further added, “If you look at the way they (US) handled 9-11, this risk of a Global Pandemic will have legislators hands in cuffs and Obama’s pen running dry,” -With all the Executive Orders he will sign- “By the end of November.”

There is also that little “bone” that they threw Obama for his compliance. HealthCare and the pending legislation. “If you look at it,” -HealthCare Legislation- “He -Obama- could have had a little piece early or right after he was elected, but he -Obama- wanted it all, so we suggested that he use the H1N1 scare we were working on as the hammer, and told him to wrap it all in one nice bundle.”

Reports throughout the world continue to tell us of thousands of deaths as the virus spreads like wildfire across the continent of Eurasia. But here in the US, the death rate does not match the scare rate and that has many US citizens puzzled. “If you look at it, he -Obama- has already got his toes wet with a couple Executive Orders that deal with managing the control of the outbreak, imagine what he will be able to do once we get things to fevered pitch.”

An unnamed source close to the Obama administration added today, “There is no doubt that we as Americans have a mindset that we can fix the world, no doubt. And now with all our efforts coming to fruition, the administration can now pull out the rubber stamp and make America a socialist country.”

Marion Valentine added…

It could very well be true, anything to further the progress towards Global Socialist Government. Isn’t it strange that Ft. Rucker whose labs develop countermeasures to Biochemical warfare, and develop vaccines was missing several “vials” of an undisclosed virus and 3 days later 20 polo ponies from Mexico at a match in Florida dropped dead… and then a few days later, even though it was not flu season, H1N1 broke out…..hmmmmmm

Here are more questions, and this time some good questions…..

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you don’t care that your President is not a natural born citizen and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, then delete this and go back into your “hope and change” cocoon.

THIS PAGE WAS UPDATED WITH PICTURE OF DOCUMENT ON 5/12/09

THIS PAGE UPDATED WITH VIDEO 6/18/09

SMOKING GUN FINALLY FOUND? Barrack Illegalibility to be The President of USA!!!! ( must read, pass on)

* Posted by Antoniette D. Walker on May 1, 2009 at 12:36pm
* View Antoniette D. Walker’s blog

APFNObama - Smoking gun finally found?Tue Apr 28, 2009 15:5072.201.43.207

On Tue, 4/28/09, UCT wrote:

Interesting concept Obama opposes :: United States Justice Foundation …
Subject: Smoking gun finally found?

April 1, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

THE DOCUMENT:

Document via www.hyscience.com

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration’s efforts to move the country in a new direction.

Britain’s Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned”, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Take a look at this video
Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate and Barry Soetoro:

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

Collision or Political Hype…

From the Drudge Report
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained ‘false premises’:

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

Developing…

In a totally unrelated story…

Solar system could go haywire before the Sun dies

They say… Whats good for the goose, is good for its gander… or if you like, If you can’t beat them join them.

As they blame Bush, ‘W’, GW… Which ever you prefer, for everything that is wrong with the world, I thought a bit of turn about, tongue and cheek was way over due. Hence the reason for the title of this post. Now, lets get to the meat.

Congress Needs to Beware of Growing Populist Anger

By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

One of the main reasons why the Democratic Party lost control of the House in 1994 was that House Democrats responded too late to growing public dissatisfaction with their actions. The 111th Congress, though very active in its passage of legislation, needs to pay attention to the current rise in populist sentiment in the electorate. In order to effectively curb these feelings, Congress should implement reforms to increase transparency in government.

Why did the Democrats lose the House in 1994 after 40 years of rule?

One can make a case that the early stumbles of the Clinton White House, including the excruciating delay in enacting an economic plan along with the failure to get health care through, created a backlash against ineffective one-party government. One can make a case that former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) long-term plan to nationalize the Congressional elections, culminating in the “Contract with America,” finally provided a coherent and attractive alternative. But a critical element in the public backlash against the status quo in Congress was the populist anger at the elitism and corruption that the public saw engulfing Washington, D.C.

The first eruption of that populist anger came in 1989, with a pay raise for federal officials that had been endorsed by outgoing President Ronald Reagan, incoming President George H. W. Bush and all Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders from Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) to the aforementioned Gingrich. But that broad bipartisan support meant nothing to average voters struggling with a sluggish economy and stagnant wages.

remember vividly going to board the train at Union Station to attend the House Democrats’ retreat at the Greenbrier resort–the location itself was a public relations nightmare akin to auto executives flying private jets to D.C. to beg for public money. We had to run a gauntlet of angry protesters holding signs and hurling epithets.

The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them.

That was followed in 1992 by the House Bank brouhaha, revealed by Roll Call, which showed that a slew of House Members had overdrawn their accounts at the House Bank. It did not matter that the “bank” was not a bank in the traditional sense, but a repository for Members’ paychecks until they could be deposited in other accounts, and that the only money in the bank was from the lawmakers themselves; the story created a firestorm emphasizing that Members of Congress played by a different set of rules than the rest of us, exempt from the constraints or fines that we face. Many superb lawmakers lost their next elections (or retired prematurely) as a direct consequence.

The next train wreck was predictable. For some good reasons related to separation of powers issues, Congress exempted itself from regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other executive agencies. But to the public (and to the minority party), this was another clear case of an imperial, insulated, pampered and arrogant Congress applying onerous laws to others while exempting itself.

Throughout 1993 and 1994, I went regularly to the leaders in the House importuning them to act to solve this problem. The answer was easy: create an independent office within the legislative branch to enforce the laws where applicable to Congress, avoiding separation of powers issues. Tom Mann and I worked with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Dick Swett (D-N.H.) to come up with a bill creating an Office of Compliance. Early passage would signal a Congress ahead of the curve, moving to reform itself.

But the leaders did not think it was that big a deal and waited until the last days of the 103rd Congress to pass the bill–too late to avoid the surge in anger or to defend the indefensible, and they went into the 1994 election looking like they acted only after getting caught red-handed.

I raise all this history because it is déjà vu all over again. The populist anger is back, and not just in the United States–the reaction in Britain to parliamentary expense abuses is directly reminiscent of the reaction to the House Bank. So far, it has not been directed at Congress, in part because the 111th Congress has been so remarkably productive, in part because of the popularity of President Barack Obama, in part because of the ineptitude of the minority party leadership. But one can see the train wreck coming.

Some of the seeds go back to former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), preceded by Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), et al. Of course, some of the cases contributed mightily to the Republican loss of Congress after 12 years of rule, but all underscored a continuing public sense that Congress was more concerned with feathering its own nest than with the problems facing average Americans in their everyday lives.

Throw in Illinois’ former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and Sen. Roland Burris (D), a case getting more and more putrid. Add the Congressional bailouts of banks and their executives and the auto industry, amplified especially by the American International Group bonuses. The scapegoats now are AIG and auto and bank executives, but that can switch in an instant to politicians.

Now throw in the PMA Group and Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.). The Murtha case, of course, goes well beyond PMA, to include throwing sensitive national security-related earmarks with abandon to companies in his district that were inept or corrupt and to rewarding or punishing companies that used the right lobbying firm or did the right business with Murtha’s relatives. Include also executive officials in the Defense Department and elsewhere giving no-bid contracts to companies with ties to Murtha and his family members to curry favor with the powerful lawmaker. I can’t sort out from this vantage point what is illegal or not, but it all stinks to high heaven.

Simply asking whether the ethics committee is investigating the issue is not enough. I hope the committee is acting, and I believe that the leadership of the panel, under Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), is finally functional. I also am truly encouraged by the start of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, also with top-flight leadership.

But if Congress wants to avoid the kind of public anger that engulfed the political process in 1994 and 2006, it needs to go much further. The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them. And Congress needs to enact further reforms to make the earmarking and contracting process work better.

The House might start with Rep. Jeff Flake’s (R-Ariz.) idea to delink earmarks from campaign contributions. My own idea to create independent commissions to rank needs and projects in Congressional districts akin to Senators’ judicial selection panels would help. And addressing the issue of contracting–which is what Cunningham did, getting bribes in return for steering sensitive defense and intelligence contracts to the corrupt companies offering the bribes–is critical for reform.

Every contract issued by the federal government needs to be put online before the contract takes effect, with a special scrutiny for every no-bid contract. There must be guidelines for making sure the process is above-board and sanctions for those who award contracts that do not meet the guidelines.

The current Democratic Congress is comparatively well-regarded by the public for its performance. Democrats are certainly in no immediate danger of losing their majority or even losing many seats in 2010. But public opinion is fragile here, and it would not take much to ignite that populist outrage. Acting now is smart politics–and very good policy.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.

Concerning Nancy Pelosi

Facts:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s home House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition’s.

When the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an “economic development credit in American Samoa”.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration “corrupt”.

Concerning Barry Soetoro

- missing items for background check

• Your Occidental College records
• Your Columbia College records
• Your Columbia Thesis paper
• Your Harvard College records
• Your Selective Service Registration
• Your medical records
• Your Illinois State Senate records
• Your Illinois State Senate schedule
• Your Law practice client list
• A Certified Copy of your original Birth certificate
• Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
• Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
• Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Your Record of baptism

aka - Barack Obama Denied National Security Clearance

Barack Obama cannot be Trusted with Classified Information

How can the President of the United States be denied a basic security clearance? How can the Commander and Chief of the most powerful military be denied access to classified information? Barack Obama would be denied the necessary security clearance for President if he was held to the same standard as everyone else. If you can’t pass a Secret level background investigation, which is required for many soldiers, you should not be eligible for the Presidency.

What is a Security Clearance?

Having served in the U.S. military, law enforcement, and as a civilian government contractor, I’ve had my fair share of background investigations. The United States government employs a multitier security clearance paradigm.

Confidential – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “damage to national security.”
Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “serious damage to national security.”
Top Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

Each level of access requires a progressively more in-depth background investigation before the clearance is obtained. The President of the United States should be able to flawlessly pass the most extensive investigation and a polygraph test. Both are required for workers in some Special Access Programs classified Top Secret.

The purpose of the clearance is to determine an individual’s honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, financial responsibility, criminal activity, emotional stability, foreign influences, family associations, drug use, mental health, judicial proceedings, employment history, traits of character, and loyalty to the United States. This collective data is used to evaluate your ability and willingness to safeguard national secrets. Based on the facts about Barack Obama, he fails to satisfy the minimum requirements for even a basic secret clearance. His background investigation would have “Red Flags” shooting up in so many places; the issuing panel would deny him a clearance outright.

Obama’s Answers on the Security Clearance Application

Instead of going through all the Security Clearance Application questions, I’ll examine the questions that would deny Barack Obama a Secret Clearance.

List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kenya, and Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian oil manager his mother married. These two foreign relatives would probably initiate a Defensive Security Services or Department of Defense investigation that would take roughly a year to explore. I’m not sure how many degrees of separation are involved, but Obama Sr. and Soetoro’s associations are not friendly to the United States. However, they are not the primary concern.

Barack Obama’s brother, his kin Abongo Obama, is a militant Muslim who has been quoted saying, “A black man must liberate himself from the poisons of European cultures and western values.” Obama’s paternal cousin, Raila Odinga is also a Muslim extremist who recently lost the Kenyan Presidential election to a Christian. How can such relations exist between the President of the United States and radical Muslims?

Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?

Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?

These two questions go hand and hand. Having gone through the interview phase of the clearance process a number of times, I can’t image the look on the face of the investigator nor the sheer amount of time it would take to explain Barack Obama’s anti American ties.

Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist and granted funding to a controversial Arab group that dubbed the creation of Israel as a “catastrophe.” The founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti western terrorism.

Barack Obama also served on the Wood’s Fund board with William Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Bill Ayers has killed hundreds of civilians, police officers, and was recently quoted saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

I would deny a security clearance for anybody that even shook these men’s hands, never mind launching a campaign from Ayer’s living room.

Have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?

Barack Obama has specifically admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his book “Dreams From My Father.” He even confesses pursuing heroin, but was scared of the drug dealer. A clearance question such as this is used to test someone’s ethical fortitude to stand up for what is right, legally forbidden, and ultimately make correct decisions. Obama fails this test with his weakness to deny temptation.

Would anyone question your honesty?

Obama’s lies regarding his recollection of policies supported and the reality of what he actually did endorse are too numerous to count. However, these lies are unfortunately common in today’s politics. An article written in a conservative blog has outlined 26 more personal deceptions Obama has made to the American people. How can anyone trust this guy with confidence?

Barack Obama’s Patriotism and National Security

Obama during National Anthem

Although not a question on the Security Clearance application, “Are you a Patriotic American” should be.

The National Anthem is playing and Barack Obama is the only person on the stage not inclined to put their hand over their heart. The hand over the heart is symbolic of your respect and love for your country. Of all people, the President of the United States must be the most devote patriot in the nation. If you are not a patriot, how are you to provide unconditional national security? Three other instances come to mind that have me question how loyal he is to the U.S. and if he even loves this country.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright
I bet most of us have heard about Reverend Jeremaiah Wright’s radical anti American preaching and Barack Obama’s consistent attendance of this man’s sermons, but did you know Reverend Wright officiated Barack and Michelle’s wedding and even baptized their kids? It appears to me that Wright is a significantly influential person in the Obama family’s life. Do we want a President who has been barraged and apparently supports their religious leader’s lectures containing anti American propaganda, such as…

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 911. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

“God Damn America”

- Reverend Jeremiah Wright

I don’t care that Obama now condemns Wright’s remarks. He never denounced the man before, and continued to attend Wright’s church for over 20 years.

Michelle Obama
Michelle ObamaThe person you marry is your closest confidant and Barack Obama has recently said that Michelle is one of the people he listens to and respects the most. Michelle has been quoted saying, “Our souls are broken in this nation”; “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country”; and “…as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost” to name a few. As a President’s closest adviser and the country’s first lady, take pride in how far this nation has come, and work toward the benefit of all not just your ethnicity. Can this woman, with such animosity toward ancestral shortcomings, come into the present and forget about skin color? Isn’t that what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by, “…all men are created equal” and “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?” Michelle’s narrow vision, obvious unwillingness to conform to unity and equality, and her desire to benefit the black community instead of the community at large is not first lady material.

Not visiting the troops
As a former enlisted soldier having been deployed twice and a current government contractor, Obama’s recent neglect to visit our country’s courageous troops is insulting. He had time to woo German citizens and play basketball, but opt out on supporting wounded soldiers. Retired Lt. Col. Joe Reypya had me nodding in approval when commenting on Obama’s decision, “”The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama … broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next…For a young man so apt at playing President, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.”

I could go on and on about how this man is not fit for office, but my point in this post is to express my opinion that the potential Commander and Chief of the United States could not receive a Nation Security Clearance to even hold a low level intelligence position within the government. How can he be President? Better yet, how is he even a Senator?

Could Barack Obama Get a Security Clearance?

Obama has been in the middle of two international communist networks – one in Hawaii and one in Chicago.

The Hawaii network included communists Frank Marshall Davis, who was Obama’s personal mentor; actor/singer Paul Robeson; and labor leader Harry Bridges. The network was judged a security threat to the United States and the subject of a congressional hearing on the “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”

Obama covered up the true identity of Frank Marshall Davis in his book, Dreams From My Father.

The Hawaii communist network was organized directly by and from Moscow.

The Chicago network included identified communists and socialists, was committed to a communist victory in the Vietnam War, and took instructions from the communist Castro regime in Cuba.

In addition to communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were members of the communist terrorist Weather Underground, the Chicago network includes many veterans of the communist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) who now proclaim themselves “Progressives for Obama.”

Bill Ayers, who helped launch Obama’s political career, has traveled to Venezuela on several occasions and is an enthusiastic backer of the brand of communism being practiced and promoted by Hugo Chavez.

It appears that Obama actually worked for Ayers in a Chicago educational reform program that dispensed millions of dollars of grants.

One of the leaders of “Progressives for Obama” is former SDS leader Tom Hayden, who wrote a letter to a communist Vietnamese official during the Vietnam War hoping for a “victory” over the U.S.

The SDS openly promoted communism, the regimes in Hanoi and Havana, and condemned alleged U.S. “imperialism.”

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that included a convicted espionage agent for communist East Germany, backed and promoted Obama’s political career.
Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who picked Obama as her successor, has a record of involvement in communist front activities.

Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, as well as Obama himself, have not explained why Ayers, Dohrn, then-State Senator Alice Palmer, and Dr. Quentin Young came together at the Ayers/Dohrn home to launch Obama’s political career.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, a client of Axelrod, issued a controversial and misleading statement defending Obama’s relationship with communist terrorist Bill Ayers.

CIA director says Pelosi received the truth

By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/15/09

CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.

Panetta said that “ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was “misled” by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.

Panetta, President Obama’s pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton’s former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,’” according to CIA records.

“We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

In the pep talk-style memo titled “Turning Down the Volume,” Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi’s remarks created.

“My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission,” Panetta wrote. “We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.”

In what may be the most critical moment of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration and when she knew it.

At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.

For weeks, Pelosi had dodged questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as “torture” when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At least one lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi Friday to step down as Speaker.

At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn’t push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn’t co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.

“No letter could change the policy,” she said on May 14 at a news conference. “It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part.”

EDITORIAL: Pelosi’s amnesia

Either that or she slept through CIA briefings

May. 09, 2009
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a leading critic of the Bush administration for authorizing the “torture” (waterboarding) of three captured al-Qaida leaders, despite the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney says the interrogation methods yielded valuable information from men who had not previously been forthcoming, leading the terrorists to spill the beans on planned attacks that could have killed thousands more Americans.

Now it appears Ms. Pelosi knew all about the methods being used, and raised not a peep of objection. Unless she wants to argue she was dozing during CIA briefings.

Congressional leaders were briefed dozens of times on the CIA’s use of severe interrogation methods on al-Qaida suspects, according to new information released by the Obama administration Thursday.

A chart compiled by the CIA shows that Ms. Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, on the agency’s interrogation of alleged al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, and that the session covered “the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed.”

As recently as a week ago, Ms. Pelosi contended, “We were not — I repeat were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.”

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, said Thursday that “the briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not been used.”

So … they described tactics they claimed they weren’t using? Why would they do that?

Overall, the chart describes 40 briefings over a seven-year period at which CIA and other U.S. intelligence officials described the agency’s interrogation program to senior lawmakers.

The records were requested by congressional Republicans, who have accused Democrats on Capitol Hill of hypocrisy as majority partisans express outrage over the CIA’s use of the interrogation methods.

Former House Republican and CIA Director Porter J. Goss — who attended the 2002 briefing of Ms. Pelosi — wrote last month in an opinion piece that he was “slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned.” Mr. Goss described the lawmakers’ claims as “a disturbing epidemic of amnesia.”

Here’s resounding evidence that Democrats’ haughty accusations that only Republicans knew about or condoned waterboarding of the three captured al-Qaida leaders amount to political posturing, and little more.

Thanks 2 Las Vegas Review-Journal

A lot of the difference, the change if you will, between Obama and Bush has much to do with the word humility.

George Bush is and was a humble man. Obama thinks the world counts on him and him alone to lead us. Bush went to church and prayed often. Obama puts out press releases about his supposed piety. The left sold a great bill of goods to the American people claiming that Bush, et al. were arrogant while insisting that Obama was a “man of the people.”

The 65th Anniversary of D-Day is fast approaching. Barack Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service. Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day. It is a big day for Normandy tourism. Yet, the king will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day. Obama is very important you know. This is an unprecedented request. I hope the French come to their senses and deny it.

Compare that with 2004. Security was tight as President Bush and other world leaders were in attendance, but the event was still open to all. A friend relayed the story of waiting in line to use a port-a-potty (a French port-a-potty no doubt, yuck, believe me.) She looks to her left and who he is in the next line waiting patiently? President Bush. Sure he had Secret Service nearby, but he waited like everyone else.

Contrast that with Team Obama not even allowing regular people near Colleville-Sur-Mer that day. A shame indeed. Especially as the last of our WW II vets are expiring.

As the Bamsters unemployment rate pushes 10% (double the Bush average) and his 3.5 trillion dollar budget breaks the USA (the press of course focuses on his 17 billion in “savings.” Way to go 4th Estate.), Obama has more to worry about then denying people the right to attend a memorial service on June 6th.

It’s as if Obama has to let it be known that he is more important than honoring the events and the 9,387 mostly young Americans who died invading Normandy 65 years ago. Will Obama apologize for American actions during WW II at the event?

I think the following quote from Obama himself sums it all up: “a light will shine down from somewhere…. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” Watch for yourself:

The guy can’t even bring himself to say “shine down from heaven.” Do you really expect him to line up to use the can with the commoners at a Normandy celebration? Americans may start to miss the guy with the humility.

Universal Healthcare, unchecked unions, government run banks, government run autos, cap and trade, turning the 20 million undocumented Democrats into voters: That isn’t America and it surely isn’t what those young boys died at Normandy for.

We elected a fairy tale. We can start the road back to reality in 2010 with the mid-term elections.

Thanks 2 John Romano and bighollywood.breitbart.com

This a very funny video that chronicle’s all those thrown under the Obama Bus.

PajamasTV hasn’t really been in the news since it hired Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher to report on the war in Gaza, but it’s still kicking. Some of its most popular content is coming from black conservative comic Alphonzo Rachel, who sometimes appears as “President Zobama.” He’s put together a music video that is mostly notable for the way it captures the little memes and stories that have been forgotten outside of the deep conservative base.

A little decoding: it is considered noteworthy, and hilarious, that President Obama dispatches political allies who become a problem to him. Indeed, this is pretty strange and no politician has done it before. But since the cliche “throwing [person or thing] under the bus” took hold, conservatives have applied it to anyone that Obama apparently distanced him from, ever.

• The video begins with Rachel running over a TV image of “my white grandmama,” whom conservatives believe was “thrown under the bus” in Obama’s speech on race when he talked about her admitted uneasiness among black men.

• The reference to the “brother in a shack” is to George Obama, the president’s half brother, who lives in Nairobi.

• The lyric about the “magic negro” story is sort of garbled — Rachel says the “New York Times called” Obama that, but it was black critic David Edelstein in The Los Angeles Times. Rachel jokes that Rush Limbaugh was pilloried for citing the comment, but it didn’t really become an issue until Republican National Committee chairman candidate Chip Saltsman sent around a CD of parody songs including “Barack the Magic Negro,” sung by an Al Sharpton impersonator.

Anyway, that’s the state of PajamasTV at the moment.

Thanks 2 David Weigel and The Washington Independent

When you look around at the rest of the world, you never need to consider the color of any leader from any other nation. You never would question it, nor would you go out of your way to wish that leader well with respects to being able to achieve the goals of his administration.

But here in the U.S. were different. Not do we only wish the guy ~Barack Obama~ well, but we granted him a form of political spin the bottle that would see him and his corrupt cronies have rights ofPolitical Prima Nocta over their republican foes… the kind that only a Clinton would enjoy.

It was early on in the U.S. that we were being told from around the world… from Super Power nations too Third World toilets, that we as a people (from White European decent) needed Barack Obama as our president.

Not for his abilities to be a great world leader, or for his wisdom and long history of steady leadership… as none of this can be or would be the case. We were told as a nation that Barack Obama and his color was his overall leading qualification.

And now that the deed has been done, Barack Obama is now in position too be the conduit for other nations with leaders of color to see the vilification, plundering and eradication of white European rule from the face of the earth.

Take for example The Summit of The Americas held in Trinidad-Tobago. Barack Obama 1 of 34 world leaders. Among the 34 represented nations, 33 were of color, only Stephen Harper ~Canada~ was white. With Barack Obama seated at the head of this group, white European nations will be held to a higher standard of color acceptance.

No longer will it be acceptable for nations to protect its citizens from radical or fanatical political groups based on their ability to use religious slander as a weapon against a government. Now, as here in the U.S., color will be the only measurement for ultra radicals and hate spewing religious groups to gain access to the reigns of government control.

Take a look at the latest move… Granting President Ahmandinejad ~Iran~ the honor of the introductory remarks at an international conference dedicated to abolishing racism. This guy makes the K.K.K. look like an all girls sleepover and dress up party.

This is the main by product of the election of a man of color in America; radical governments that would have never had a seat at the head table, now because of their color have a front row seat to the extermination of white European styled governments.

And when you take a look at Barack Obama plans for the world, you are made aware that Barack Obama has a desire to bring about a change towards global socialism.
Just as his administration would have our richest earners in America give a more significant portion of their earnings to the poorest of Americans, so too would his world socialist programs. Those programs would have the richer nations of the world, ~white European~ transfer their wealth to those poorer nations of color.

Nations such as Chile, Peru, Columbia, and yes Cuba would benefit from this transfer of wealth from white European nations to these nations of color.

With Cuba now in the mix, white European nations will be hard pressed not to back extremist Muslim styled governments such as… Iran, Syria.

Why? No nation in the history of the world has been so ostracized as Cuba, and now with Obama pushing for making an effort for normalizing relations, it is easy to assume that the poorer, muslin, and extremist nations from around the globe will be using Cuba as example for gaining access to the wealth of the white European governments.

Add to the mix the color of these nations and the perceived color of our president, and you have a Jessy and Al ~Jessy Jackson, Al Sharpton~ old fashion race baiting, suck the dollars out of those guilty ass white peoples pockets and give it to the colored governments around the world party.

White European styled governments are on their way out.

I don’t know… but thats the way I see it.

Phil Valentine’s Bullet Points

* Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
* The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
* What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
* Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
* A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted: “‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”
* In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”
* “Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
* A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.” The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”
* By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
* The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”
* A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.” The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.”
* On February 19, 2006, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. “60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
* According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.”
* In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output.

Read the full report by clicking here.

To Bow or Not to Bow:

I almost pissed my pants!

The Nine Dirty Words of Communists: Lying, Dirty, Shrewd, Godless, Murderous, Determined…International Criminal Conspiracy

Obama’s Strategy and the Summits
April 6, 2009

By George Friedman

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20
Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”

Turkey and Obama’s Deeper Game
But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

The Russian Dimension
Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

Related Posts in This Series:

The Nine Dirty Words of Communism, UPDATE… GODLESS

The Nine Dirty Words of Communism, UPDATE… Dirty, Shrewd, Determined

Thanks 2: Mike T.

What Is Communism, Part 1 of 2

Herbert A. Philbrick hosts this amazing anti-Commie propaganda film from the 1950s. Philbrick was a salesman who was recruited by the FBI to infiltrate the Communist Party and report back to J. Edgar Hoover. After the FBI pulled him out in the late ’40s so he could testify in a Smith Act trial (the verdicts of many of which were later deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court), Philbrick wrote a book about his experiences hunting Commies.