Obama's War on America: Disarming, De-Teching, Deceiving

In July 2009, Obama stood before Moscow's New Economic School, and said this:

Obama's War on America

The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.

He meant what he said, and today, he is ready to act on his opinion.

Pullout Quote from the NYT:

For the first time, The United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

UPDATE 11:00 a.m. CDT: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is on speaking from the Pentagon. He just said that we will not develop new nuclear warheads and...if any country attacks the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons, will face devastating "conventional" retaliation.

The U.S. Senate is still sitting on Senate Bill 2433, which Senator Obama wrote. It is called a Global Poverty Act, but it is really about the United Nations and their superiority in global control.  In U.N. doctrine, poverty is tightly bound to war. The U.N. can abolish poverty if they control the world's weapons, including small arms.

From the U.N. Millennium Development Goal: 

...Poverty eradication is not an automatic consequence of economic growth; it requires purposeful action to redistribute wealth and land,...

1) The MDG says this can be done by initiating a worldwide freeze on armed forces - prohibitions of the use of force...move towards the abolition of war and...the UN Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament.

 2) Prohibiting advanced weapons technology...devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons... 

3) Monitor small arms. 

This article has the pertinent links.

Senate Bill 2433 is tied to the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goal (UNMDG), by Obama, by design because...it is not all about poverty. The President is planning to change how and when the U.S. can and will use nuclear arms.

This from the New York Times:

...Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary...

Sitting in The People's Oval Office Obama said "old and new" conventional weapons will "make sure that the American people are safe and secure." Do you feel better now?

Dubai Weapon Shipment Seizure: Emirates Stop NK Weapons to Iran

Good news. Dubai and the UAE stepped up and stopped a weapons shipment to Iran from North Korea. The UAE has "reported the seizure of the [North Korean] vessel to the UN." I wonder how long it will take before the UN orders the release and safe passage on to Tehran? If the Emirates can stop North Korean weapons shipments, then every shipment should be stopped. In fact, North Korean leaders should be quaking in their cognac that a "seized" shipment of banned goods will bring wrath down upon them - but that's not the way we keep people free from nuclear threats around the world. What a shame.

Obama's Nuclear Power Endorsement: Okay for Our Enemies

Earlier today I posted on Obama's sideways endorsement of Iran's nuclear needs. Warner Todd Hudson at Stop the ACLU has some very interesting commentary. He takes a different avenue of thought from many of the articles out there and asks some germane questions.

Barack Obama

Obama: Nuclear Power OK for Enemies but Not For US? Stop the ACLU June 2, 2009 By Warner Todd Huston Nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly power of all, low on emissions, does not require destructive mining or drilling efforts to feed it, and is also one that creates a lot of jobs both in initial construction as well as to sustain its ongoing operation. Nuclear power is also a mainstay power source for such countries as France. It’s clean, safe, and extremely desirable. Its only drawback is what to do with its waste. But to the U.S. enviro-racket, nuclear power is a bugabear that needs to be deep sixed forever and Barack Obama is a chief bugger of that bugabear. Unless, that is, you happen to be an enemy of the USA. If you are, say, Iran, why, nuclear power is a vital national interest that he is willing to stand behind in principle. Outrageously the “president of the world” is willing to agree with Iran, one of our biggest international enemies, a nation that has sent its soldiers and trainers into combat against our own troops, a nation that exports acts of terror across the globe, a nation that claims it needs nuclear power for domestic energy… and Barack Obama is on their side. In Prague last month, Obama said that he saw no reason why his administration wouldn’t “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections.” And today in London, Obama reiterated that support by agreeing that Iran’s announced intentions for nuclear power were “legitimate aspirations.” Not only that, but just last month Obama approved a nuclear power deal with the United Arab Emirates, as well. So, it’s nuclear power for everyone but the U.S. So what about nuclear power for the US? Here we are dependent upon foreign oil on one hand, or still using what Obama claims is “dirty” coal power on the other, yet Obama still refuses to allow his own countrymen build new nuclear power plants. Oh, sure, he made noises about cautiously supporting nuclear power for the U.S. during the late presidential campaign, but his nuclear power denying actions since have spoken louder. Even during the campaign pro-Obama Newsweek concluded that Obama was anti-nuclear power for his own people. And since his election, it has become clear that he will not move forward on construction of any new American nuclear power plants. One of the biggest obstacles to American nuclear power plants concerns what to do with the waste. Of course, it appears that Obama has turned his back on the Yucca Mountain project, the one project that could have served as the nation’s nuclear waste dumping site. Without the Yucca Mountain dumpsite approved, expecting to build new nuclear plants is difficult at best. So, in essence, Obama has shut down any possibility of building new plants forcing the U.S. to remain a slave to foreign oil and “dirty” coal, two things he also claims he’s against. So, as far as Obama is concerned, it’s yea for they but not U.S. for clean, cheap, and efficacious nuclear power and at the same time it also an Obama nod of the head for some of our biggest enemy’s nuclear aspirations. They get the cheap, clean, and safe power and we are left without. Now THAT is sacrifice, folks! Some American president we have here.

Iran Needs Nuclear for Energy: Obama Endorsement

President Barack Obama says by the end of this year he and the World will know whether or not Iran has honest and peaceful intentions for its use of nuclear power. Barack Obama's endorsement of this concern as a legitimate concern is a dialog we do not need to have. See update below.

Iran Nuclear Energy

In short, Obama is saying that Iran's energy concerns are legitimate, with no discussion of why they the country is energy barren. Without the threats against the West and Israel, Iran would have the world flocking to their aid. What is it that the World doesn't get about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's own words. Why are we willing to take the risk? These are serious questions. In 2006 Ahmadinejad said:

The fire of the wrath of the peoples is about to erupt and overlow and the people will soon rage; today the Iranian people is the owner of nuclear technology [source Iranian.ws].

We can sum it up this way using Obama's own words saying there is a danger:

...when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.

Because Muslim countries have a different culture and a different history, we cannot impose our peaceful values upon them. If they want nuclear, they have the right to nuclear, even if we know from their own declarations that they intend to use the nuclear power against the West and Israel. Obama's bottom line is that we do not have the right to see to it that Iran never achieves the technology needed to take us out. President Obama needs to explain how the world will be safer with a nuclear Iran. The photo above is from the New York Times. Read their reporting on a recent tour of Natanz, an Iranian nuclear site, along with an amazing photo essay. Hot Air has posted some interesting commentary. Be sure to read to the end for an Iran-U.S. Independence Day snippet.

Is Israel Getting Ready To Attack Iran?

By Findalis According to The Times the answer is YES.

The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government. Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack. Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face. “Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times. The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers. The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme. “We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community. He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration. An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence. Read the full story here.

What is strange about this is that Israeli news sources are totally silent on this. Not even a hint of any thing. The Obama administration has already nixed this idea. There will be no go ahead from them. So if Israel does attack it not only will go it totally alone, but quite possibly have to attack American planes as well. (That would get Iran very friendly with the US). That would give Obama justification to attack Israel and quite possibly get the War Powers Act he would need. I'm betting that Netanyahu will try this, but not until after Obama's scheduled visit in June. And I'm betting that not only will Israel do this, but somehow they'll come out of this smelling like roses.