Emboldening Iran

by Arnold Ahlert


In the last few days, an Obama administration desperate to turn Americans’ attention away from the ObamaCare disaster has been touting its “historic” deal with Iran. Toward that end they released a document Saturday entitled, “Fact Sheet:  First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” outlining the details. Those “facts” have been rejected–by the Iranians themselves.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham explained Tuesday.

Iran released its own version of the agreement, with Afkham contending that it was based on language chosen with regard to the considerations of all parties to the talks. She further insisted that the reason negotiations took so long between Iran and the G5+1 “pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement,” and “that the Iranian delegation was much (sic) rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”

The key sticking point? The White House fact sheet claims “Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity” with bullet points laying out the details. On the other hand, the Iranian fact sheet indicates that their nation can “fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein.”

Both fact sheets do contain almost identical statements revealing one over-arching fact. The Iranian version: “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” The American version: “With respect to this comprehensive resolution:  nothing is agreed to with respect to a comprehensive solution until everything is agreed to.”

In other words, despite all the triumphal posturing by this administration and their media cheerleaders, no actual deal exists.

Thus, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the Iranian interpretation of the agreement was “not accurate,” and President Obama telling his supporters at a Beverly Hills fundraiser that easing economic sanctions on Iran is better than going to war, absolutely nothing has been finalized–including the start time of the six-month timetable during which a longer-term accord is supposed to be worked out.

The State Department acknowledged that reality Tuesday, when spokeswoman Jen Psaki  admitted that the six-month interim program had yet to begin. Moreover, she had no idea when it would begin. “The next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement,” she told reporters.

Even more embarrassing, Psaki conceded there was no mechanism in place that would stop Iran from continuing its current pursuits. “In terms of what the Iranians are or aren’t doing, obviously our hope would be, given we are respecting the spirit of the agreement in pressing for sanctions not to be put in place and beginning the process of figuring out how to deliver on our end of the bargain, that the same would be coming from their end in the spirit of the agreement,” she said.

If Iranians are “respecting the spirit” of the agreement, they have a peculiar way of showing it. On Monday, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, insisted the status quo would remain just that, including further construction on the Arak heavy-water reactor. Western powers fear Arak is a source of plutonium used as the core of a nuclear weapon. ”Work at the Arak reactor will continue,” Salehi said. “Enrichment to 5 percent will continue. Research and development will continue. All our exploration and extraction activities will continue. There are no activities that won’t continue.”

Tuesday didn’t bring any better news. Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, doubled down, insisting that “Iran’s uranium enrichment right cannot be granted or limited by another countries,” (sic) and claiming that Kerry’s assertion to the contrary constituted a “misunderstanding.” Also, Iranian administration spokesman Mohammad-Baqer Nobakht was quoted as saying some $8 billion of Iran’s frozen assets were released by the United States.

Not to be outdone, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the lieutenant commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) revealed that Tehran had developed “indigenous” ballistic missile technology. “Many countries may have access to cruise missiles technology, but when it comes to ballistic missiles, I am confident that only the US and the Soviet Union could master this technology, and now we can announce that we own this technology as well,” he told Iran’s Fars News Agency. Brigadier General Ramezan Sharif, head of the IRGC Public Relations Department, also took an opportunity to bash the United States and Israel, insisting that America’s power has become “seriously shaky in the world, specially in the Middle-East,” and that Iran has brought the criminal regime of Israel to its knees.

Obama administration critics were plentiful. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal “an historic mistake.” Former UN ambassador John Bolton characterized it as “abject surrender by the United States,” one that grants the Iranian regime “time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover,” undeserved “legitimacy,” and the ability to break “the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions.” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer labeled it the “worst deal since Munich,” further noting that allowing Iran to enrich uranium “undermines the entire idea of nonproliferation and it grants Iran a right it’s been lusting for for a decade. That’s why there was so much jubilation in Tehran over this.”
While Tehran was jubilant, there was bipartisan consternation in Congress. Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), characterized the deal as disproportional. ”Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions,” he said. Lindsey Graham (R-NC) noted it let Iran completely off the hook. “The sanctions actually worked but this interim deal gives the Iranian’s $7 billion in cash and leaves in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs around,” he contended. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menedez (D-NJ) contended he was willing to give the administration some breathing room, but that additional sanctions will be available “should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement,” he said.

Yet it was former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman who cut to the chase. ”Iran is an enemy, there is American blood on Iranian hands” he explained, further noting that the Iranians ”have a terrible record of not keeping agreements and frankly of lying.”

President Obama remains undeterred. ”We cannot close the door on diplomacy,” he said Monday. “We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict.”

We can however, commit ourselves to and endless cycle of meaningless diplomacy, unless one considers an entire decade of fruitless efforts that have yet to produce a single meaningful breakthrough, progress. In another stunning development, a White House official explained Wednesday that while the United States does not recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, President Obama believes the world’s foremost exporter of Islamic terrorism ”should have access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” ”However, the history of the Iranian nuclear program has raised serious and legitimate concerns in the international community as to whether Iran’s enrichment program–which it pursued in secret–is truly for peaceful purposes,” the official added.

As of now, nothing in this non-deal deal does anything to stop Iran from pursuing its quest for nuclear weaponry. Even more remarkably, sanctions, as in the only thing that was putting actual pressure on Iran short of military action have already been eased–beginning five months ago. Daily Beast columnist Eli Lake reveals that the Treasury Department “all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.”

Thus, the president has once again bypassed Congress in pursuit of his “noble” agenda. It is an agenda based on little more than hubris, in that Obama believes he possesses a level of charm and intelligence that will win the Iranians over, in spite of a decade of evidence to the contrary–and in spite of the reality that absolutely nothing, other than a promise to make a deal leading to a deal ostensibly leading to peace in our time, has been achieved. “Trusting Iran to deliver on its promises is nearly as risky as trusting Obama to deliver on his,” writes the NY Post’s Michael Goodwin. Empty promises by both sides equals more time for Iran to pursue its nuclear agenda. If that’s not an outright victory for them, one is hard-pressed to imagine what is.


Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/emboldening-iran/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Geneva Deal does not Prohibit Construction on Arak Reactor

by Yoni Hirsch, Dan Lavie, Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

U.S. State Department spokeswoman: "There will be no work on the reactor itself, no work to prepare fuel for or additional testing of the reactor. ... If he [Iran's FM] is referring to a road here or an out-building there, that's something different."

The nuclear facility in Arak | Photo credit: Reuters

The U.S. State Department has confirmed Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif's statements that under the interim deal signed in Geneva on Sunday, Iran is still allowed to carry out construction on its plutonium reactor in Arak. Zarif had said that "construction on the reactor will continue."

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Wednesday that while she was not sure exactly to what Zarif was referring, construction and paving work are allowed in the interim deal signed with Iran in Geneva on Sunday.

"What he [Zarif] said specifically was: 'The capacity of the Arak site is not going to increase. It means no nuclear fuel will be produced and no installations will be installed. But construction will continue there.' We're not sure exactly what he means by construction in the comments that he makes, but there will be no work on the reactor -- in the comments he made -- but there will be no work on the reactor itself, no work to prepare fuel for the reactor, or do additional testing of the reactor," Psaki told journalists.

"If he's referring to a road here or an out-building there, that's something different. Obviously, there are specific requirements. He repeated many of them in his public comments as well, as in that no nuclear fuel will be produced and no installations will be installed," she said.

The uncompleted heavy-water research reactor emerged as one of several crucial issues in negotiations in Geneva last week, when Iran agreed with six world powers to curb Tehran's nuclear program for six months in return for limited sanctions relief.

Israel has continued campaigning to show the international community the negative aspects of the interim deal with Iran and lifting of some of the sanctions against it.

Former National Security Council Chairman Maj. Gen. (res) Yaakov Amidror expressed his views on the Iran deal in a New York Times op-ed titled "A Most Dangerous Deal."

"Iran made only cosmetic concessions to preserve its primary goal, which is to continue enriching uranium. The agreement represents a failure, not a triumph, of diplomacy," Amidror wrote. " With North Korea, too, there were talks and ceremonies and agreements -- but then there was the bomb. This is not an outcome Israel could accept with Iran."

Amidror claimed that the lifting of certain sections would "send companies from around the world racing into Iran to do business, which will lead to the eventual collapse of the sanctions that supposedly remain." 

According to Amidror the interim deal and lifting of sanctions will only serve to make Iran more unrelenting in its goals. 

"The deal will only lead Iran to be more stubborn. Anyone who has conducted business or diplomatic negotiations knows that you don't reduce the pressure on your opponent on the eve of negotiations. Yet that is essentially what happened in Geneva," he said.

"After years of disingenuous negotiations, Iran is now just a few months away from a bomb. ... The West has surrendered its most effective diplomatic tool in exchange for baseless promises of goodwill. I pray its gamble pays off, for if it does not there will be only one tool left to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Geneva agreement has made the world a more dangerous place. It did not have to be this way." 

Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blamed his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for bringing Iran to its dire economic position. 

"Not all problems are tied to the sanctions," Rouhani said. "In my predecessor's term inflation reached 40 percent due to poor management."

The head of the British negotiating team in the Geneva talks, Simon Gass, stated on Wednesday that Iran was required to do what was signed in the deal on Sunday in addition to all previous restrictions placed on the country. Gass' statement came after officials in Israel claimed that the Iranians felt the Geneva deal cleared them of all former restrictions."

Meanwhile, Washington Post senior foreign affairs editor David Ignatius detailed on Wednesday what would likely be the U.S. negotiating team's agenda for a final deal with Iran. Among the objectives listed, the United States and its negotiating partners would seek to "dismantle parts of the Iranian [nuclear] program, rather than simply freeze them," and there would be "no heavy-water reactor at Arak, rather than just a halt in supplies for it," he wrote. 

In addition, he said the U.S. was urging the "closure of Iran's enrichment facility at Fordo, dug into a hillside near Qom, arguing that this fortified location isn't consistent with the civilian effort that Iran insists is its only goal. The Iranians may seek to convert Fordo to some other use, which would present tricky monitoring issues."

Yoni Hirsch, Dan Lavie, Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13647

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel must Defend Itself

by Dr. Gabi Avital

The storm clouds began gathering half a year before the outbreak of the First Gulf War. It took the U.S. that long to respond to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. This is not a criticism of America's military capabilities or strategy at the time. Rather, it is meant to point out the fallacy of the belief held by some that, even after the signing of the Geneva deal with Iran, America can be relied upon in a pinch.

During the height of the Iraqi Scud missile attacks on Israel in 1991, Professor Dan Miron wrote an article, the essence of which was that "if there is an Israel Defense Forces, it must stand up." In other words, from the depths of Jewish existence, Miron felt that if Israel did not defend itself, no passing superpower or promise on a piece of paper would. Israel's existence cannot depend on U.S. President Barack Obama or whoever will take his place in the White House in three years.

Israel's existence is based, in part, on the fundamental belief that, like any other nation, it did not come into the world to be a pawn on a chessboard. Israel has built up impressive military capabilities, which deter war. These capabilities were proved time and time again, and this resulted in the Arab states abandoning the military option after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Due to our own foolishness, however, we have given them what they want anyway.

Yet there are certain scenarios, including some playing out now, in which Israel's military strength might actually have to be used, rather than just serving as a deterrent. The bad and dangerous Geneva agreement with Iran has made it so that even if there was a will to reach diplomatic understandings via economic pressure, the military option must be put on full display.

A very similar scenario took place in the past. On Sept. 30, 1980, two Iranian Phantom fighter planes bombed the Tammuz nuclear reactor in Iraq, causing only minor damage. Attempts by the Israeli Mossad to sabotage the reactor also failed. So then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who realized that Iraq was on the verge of equipping itself with nuclear weapons, decided to order the Israel Air Force to bomb the reactor. Begin faced opposition from Defense Minister Ezer Weizman and others. Begin's decision also followed three years of failed diplomatic efforts with the U.S. on the issue.

And today, when the stakes are a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, Israeli deaths in a potential Iranian response to an Israeli strike, compared to 20,000 Israeli deaths (and this with the best preparations) in an Iranian nuclear attack, great America and enlightened Europe are telling the Jews, "It is best for you to sit quietly."

History is full of evidence that when Israel defends itself, it is good for the Jews, particularly in the long run. The IDF is very capable. Israel has significant military capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea, with which it could push back by several years Iran's plans to remove Israel from the global chessboard. Perhaps the Hanukkah holiday will remind the naive among us about Jewish heroism.



Dr. Gabi Avital

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6489

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obamabomb: Iran can keep its Weapons Program

by Frank Gaffney, Jr.


The president who promised us that his health care legislation would allow us to keep our insurance plans and doctors now insists that his agreement with Iran will not allow it to keep a nuclear weapons program.  What the two pledges have in common is that they are both lies.  No matter how many times such statements are repeated and seconded by President Obama’s partisans and the press, they amount to fraud – serial, intentional and potentially fatal fraud.

Here’s the difference:  Thousands of Americans may die as a result of Team Obama’s domestic policy misrepresentations concerning Obamacare that former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has correctly described as “criminal fraud.” But many times that number are at risk as a result of the Obamabomb deal with Iran that amounts to national security fraud.

For starters, there is no reason to disbelieve the Iranian mullahs when they whip crowds into a frenzy with the phrase “Death to America.”  To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that they are intent on achieving their stated goal of “a world without America.”

Among the most alarming such evidence can be found in the series of steps the Iranian regime has taken to operationalize its capability to deliver without warning a devastating, strategic electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack upon this country. Tests involving the launching of missiles off of barges in the Caspian Sea confer an ability to fire them from vessels off America’s coasts.  Other experiments included the simulated delivery of a warhead to the missile’s apogee – precisely the scenario a congressional commission warned could be used to unleash EMP from high above the United States, inflicting catastrophic damage on the highly vulnerable electric grid and society below.

We are told that all that is missing is a nuclear warhead to place atop such missiles.  Far from pushing that ominous day into the future, let alone foreclosing it altogether, Mr. Obama’s deal with Iran can only make its arrival more certain, and probably more near-term.

For one thing, Iran has not been compelled to reveal the full extent of its nuclear infrastructure.  Iran secured this agreement by stealth, getting Washington to negotiate for months behind the backs of its allies and present them with more or less a fait accompli worked out in secret bilateral talks brokered by the Emir of Oman. And the easiest way for the Iranians to deny us any actual benefit from the resulting deal would be by continuing to acquire nuclear weapons via the network of still-undeclared facilities, centrifuges, testing grounds and other infrastructure the regime is widely believed to have established.

For another, the sanctions that are being eased will give Iran greater wherewithal to achieve the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions.  And they are unlikely to be reimposed no matter how badly the “interim” deal goes: Iran’s veto-wielding patrons, Russia and China – who had previously done everything possible to stave off serious multilateral sanctions – are unlikely to go along with re-imposing them.

In short, the Obamabomb deal with Iran exemplifies this president’s doctrine: Embolden our enemies. Undermine our friends. Diminish our country.

Far from eliminating, or even appreciably interfering with, the mullahs’ decades-long pursuit of nuclear weapons, the agreement leaves in place every facet of the Iranian program painstakingly put into place for that purpose. As a result, the Iranians have been confirmed in the belief that President Obama will ultimately accede to their having nuclear weapons, emboldening them to declare victory and proceed accordingly, at least covertly.

The deal undermines our allies by abandoning those known to be in the mullahs’ crosshairs. Topping that list is Israel. That would be the country whose population the real power in Tehran, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, vilified again just last week.  He said the Jews “cannot be called humans, they are like animals, some of them” described their country as “the rabid dog of the region.”  That’s a reminder, if any were actually needed, of why Israel and her friends have rejected Obama’s deal and are unmoved by his dubious promises Sunday of greater consultations as he engages Iran in the future.

The Obamabomb fraud has gone beyond endangering Israel, however.  It has also terrified Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states within striking distance of Iran’s growing arsenal of ballistic missiles. The repercussions – notably, the likelihood that the Saudis will buy their own nuclear arsenal from Pakistan – can only be aggravated by Team Obama’s reported warning to them and Israel not to do anything to enter Iranian airspace “without U.S. permission.”

Finally, the deal worked out by Secretary Kerry and his minions has diminished America’s standing internationally.  It furthers President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of this country, intensifying the perception by friends and foes alike that United States is no longer the powerful, reliable or at least fearsome leader of the Free World.

It is an axiom of negotiations that if you want it bad, you get it bad. President Obama’s deal with Iran is a case in point. Unfortunately, “getting it bad” in this case – like so much of the serial national security fraud being perpetrated pursuant to the Obama Doctrine – will translate into mortal peril for millions.


Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/11/25/obamabomb-iran-can-keep-its-weapons-program/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US B-52's Defy Chinese no-Fly Zone

by Rick Moran


Interesting by-play between the Chinese and US militaries yesterday. China has recently declared air space over and around the Diaoyutai and Senkaku islands in the East China Sea as a no fly zone. U.S. and allied forces are required to identify themselves and their mission to Chinese forces before entering the zone.

But two B-52's - unarmed and with no fighter escort - overflew the no fly zone without identifying themselves.

The Hill:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Saturday said the new no-fly zone was another example of aggressive Chinese expansion that "increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations" between Washington and China. 

"The United States is conveying these concerns to China through diplomatic and military channels, and we are in close consultation with our allies and partners in the region, including Japan," Hagel said in a statement.

The Pentagon has vowed not to comply with the restrictions set by China, saying the new no-fly zone will only inflame simmering regional tensions between China and other Asian nations. 

A majority of American operations flown in the area consist of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations and large-scale training missions with U.S allies. 

The Diaoyutai and Senkaku islands in the East China Sea have frequently been a flashpoint between China and U.S. allies in the Pacific. The area had been considered international airspace.

Last August, the Pentagon began flying unmanned surveillance missions over the small Pacific island chains as part of a defense security agreement with Japan. 
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Japanese Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto agreed to the drone operations after a bilateral meeting in Washington.

The point has been made, but I wouldn't push it. The next time, China may scramble some fighters or perhaps even take a shot at our planes. The latter isn't likely but China has shown itself to be dead serious about their claim to these islands. They apparently see the issue as an opportunity to flex their military muscle, threatening both Japan and the Philippines in the process.

Signal sent and received.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/us_b-52s_defy_chinese_no-fly_zone.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Common Core third grade book goes full Dear Leader on Obama

by Thomas Lifson

The ground is being laid for future racial strife over Barack Obama once he is out of office. His fanatical supporters, especially in the African-American community which has remained solidly in his camp despite all his demonstrated incompetence and lies, are being set up to see him as a martyr. 

I will be accused of all sorts of grievous offenses, from racism to judging too hastily, but I think it is becoming clear that Obama's two terms will be regarded as a failed presidency. His "signature achievement," Obamacare, is a mess, and it won't be fixed by any of the remedies proposed. The website problems are the least of it. The Big Lie on keeping your insurance and keeping your doctor now looks as though it will reach about half the population of the United States, once employers start dumping their insurance.


It is axiomatic that a president who screws over half the population of the country in the most personal way cannot be regarded tenderly by history. By in effect imposing a massive tax increase disguised as health insurance cost increases, after promising that health care costs would go down, he risks what I have dubbed the Obamacare Recession hitting the country hard next year. Families are going to have cut spending on all sorts of discretionary purchases,  restaurants, hard goods producers, housing, and almost all other sectors of the economy are going to be hit hard.


Then there is the matter of families losing their trusted physicians and access to first rate treatments. Cancer patients and others with life threatening illnesses are going to die. Obama lied, people died. The formerly sycophantic media cannot ignore these stories, for they will be legion, they are compelling, and people are interested in them. The old media monopoly is shattered. The blogosphere, Fox News, and social media will spread these compelling human tragedies no matter how assiduously the New York Times averts its gaze.


We are now seeing the type of blatant messianic portrayals of Obama offered through government schools that can only feed future strife. Behold Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope:

Kyle Olsen of EAGNews (hat tip: Gateway Pundit) writes:

On the heels of a controversial children's book about Barack Obama - which stated "white voters would never vote for a black president" and that "Barack's former pastor" said "God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens" - comes a new lesson that casts America's 44^th president in a messianic light. Literally.
And - surprise - it's Common Core-aligned.
The lesson plan and accompanying visual presentation were authored by Sherece Bennett, and is for sale onTeachersPayTeachers.com. It's all based on a book titled, "Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope," by Nikki Grimes. (snip)
In one passage, a young Obama sees beggars and wonders, "Will I ever be able to help people like these?"
"Hope hung deep inside of him," the book adds.
Another excerpt from the book reads: "Before dawn each morning, Barry rose - his mother's voice driving him from dream land. 'Time for learning English grammar and the Golden Rule. Be honest, be kind, be fair,' she taught him."
The story continues: "One morning, he slipped on the name he'd been born with. The name of his father, Barack. For the first time in his life, he wore it proudly - like a coat of many colors."
Uh oh - another Obama-inspired Biblical reference in a government school! But there's no controversy here. Leftists will use God and the Bible, in instances such as these, when it appropriately fits their propaganda purposes.

The book is so over the top that reviewers on Amazon.com are all over it. Here are the first two reviews:

I took a look at this book at my local bookstore a few days before November 4, and at that time I giggled at the very bright, technicolor pictures of the book. I also winced a little at the dangerously-close-to-hubris conceit of writing such a book before the election results were known. How could you tell a complete story about a historical figure unless you knew what the ending was? At the time, though, I thought this was a harmless book, and was still giddy (and terrified) at the thought of Election Day coming up.
Now, after the euphoria has subsided a bit, I took a second look at this book.
I didn't laugh at it much this time around. I still winced when I read it, and not in a good way.

And

I don't know if it's possible to condescend to a five year old, but...

...if it is, then this book manages to. I'm pretty neutral about Barack Obama as a person and a candidate, but the messianic message in this utterly insipid book makes me roll my eyes over and over again. The language is decent enough on a technical level for that age group, though patronizing. When he starts seeing the ghosts of JFK and MLK and references are made to Langston's Harlem, I'm not sure that the kids that the book is aimed at are going to pick up on the references. The illustrations are passable in the beginning, but as it continues, they become more and more over-the-top (Barack Obama crying in church, Barack Obama praying with a butterfly perched on his clasped hands, Barack Obama glowing with a heavenly aura). Cramming this political tripe into a children's book is bad enough, but the heavy-handed treatment and political sloganizing makes it unbearable.

Despite the adults' revulsion, no doubt teachers will be cultivating young black students to believe this tripe. And as history delivers its just verdict on Obama and his work as president, they will become embittered, and there will be no shortage of Democrat leaders anxious to portray those who criticized Obama (which is now portrayed as the reason for his failures) as Judases.


Obama worship is dangerous to the Republic because religious strife is the worst and most divisive form of social conflict.


I pray for Obama's survival in and out of office. If some deranged idiot (or worse) should assassinate him, the consequences would be horrific.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/common_core_third_grade_book_goes_full_dear_leader_on_obama.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

FBI Stats Again Belie Islamophobia Myth

by Jonathan S. Tobin


When it comes to the question of America’s alleged Islamophobia, there is a consensus in the American media: American Muslims have been under siege since the 9/11 attacks. Every attempt on the part of law-enforcement agencies to probe the growth of homegrown terrorism and the possible incitement to hate and violence being conducted at some mosques, as well as by community groups influenced or controlled by Islamists, is branded as more proof of the allege persecution of Muslims and Arabs. The fact that no proof of discrimination or systematic violence other than anecdotal claims is ever brought forward is disregarded so as not to impinge on the need for Americans to feel guilty about the treatment of Muslims.

But with the annual release of the FBI’s hate crime numbers, statistical proof is once again available for those who are interested in the real answer as to which groups are subjected to the most attacks. This year’s numbers, like those of every other previous year since they began compiling such statistics, are clear: Jews remain the No. 1 target of hate crimes in America and no other group comes even close. Incidents involving Muslims, who are, according to the unchallenged meme that is central to every story or broadcast about the subject, the prime targets actually suffer only a fraction as much as Jews. Is it too much to ask reporters who regurgitate the same tired, unproven story lines about Muslims in the coming year to take these facts into account?


As in previous years, Jews top the figures for hate crimes, which the FBI claims are down from previous years. Of the 1,340 incidents of anti-religious hate crimes reported, 674 or 62.4 percent were anti-Jewish in nature. Only 130 incidents or 11.6 percent involved Muslim victims. These figures are not much different from those assembled by the government for previous years. In virtually every year, the number of anti-Semitic incidents is a multiple of those involving Muslims.

It is possible that some anti-Muslim attacks might be categorized as an ethnic issue involving Arabs rather than a religious one. But even if we were to try and take some attacks involving national origins, again the enormous gap between the anti-Semitic incidents and those about Muslims is not bridged. The total number of those attacks involving that category that were not about targeting Hispanics (which make up over 60 percent of that total) was 283 and it is likely that, at best, only some of those were about Muslims or Arabs.

It is true that the Anti-Defamation League has criticized the FBI report for trumpeting the overall decline in hate crimes. The ADL rightly points out that hate crimes reporting isn’t mandatory in parts of the country and that the number of agencies funneling figures to the FBI actually declined from 14,500 to 1,322 in 2012. So it’s likely that there wasn’t any real decline in the number of hate crimes.

But there is no proof or any logical reason to believe that this flaw would lead to any underreporting of anti-Muslim crimes since the percentage of such incidents in 2012 is essentially the same as in previous years.

What does this all mean?

First, as much as we should decry all hate crimes and urge those responsible to be prosecuted and harshly punished, no matter who their victims might be, there is no epidemic of such incidents directed at any single group.

Though Jews are the most likely victims of religious crimes, no reasonable person can claim that they are under siege or that Jewish life is under attack in any manner in this country. Indeed, as the Pew Survey on American Jews that I discussed in the November issue of COMMENTARY reported, less than 20 percent of Jews have even experienced an anti-Semitic remark, let alone an attack. 

Anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world and particularly in Europe, but in a nation where a tenth of the U.S. Senate and a third of the U.S. Supreme Court are Jews, its impossible to argue that there are any genuine obstacles to Jewish achievement, let alone a wave of Jew-hatred.

Yet, we are asked by the mainstream media to believe that a group which claims to have roughly the same small slice of the national population as the Jews but which, at best, suffers only a fifth of the hate crimes incidents as Jews, is actually laboring under a grievous and discriminatory wave of bias attacks. It not only makes no sense, it is not even remotely congruent with the facts.

America isn’t perfect. Hate still exists against religious and ethnic groups, and religious minorities. Yet once again the annual release of FBI statistics debunks the notion of a post 9-11 backlash against Muslims. But don’t expect the liberal mainstream media to notice this or to take it into account when they resurrect the same misleading story lines in the coming year.


Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/26/fbi-stats-again-belie-islamophobia-myth/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Revisiting Obama’s Complaints About Press “Equivalence”

by Seth Mandel


During the 2012 presidential election, President Obama was becoming increasingly agitated by the press coverage. Something was different this time around: reporters were occasionally writing stories that legitimized the Republicans, as if their opinions were, from time to time, worth hearing out. It manifested in a misleading balance, the president told a gathering at the Associated Press luncheon in April of that year.

The press-critic-in-chief lectured, bordering on exasperated: “I guess another way of thinking about this is — and this bears on your reporting.  I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they’re equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented — which reinforces I think people’s cynicism about Washington generally.”

In fact the president, in telling the mainstream media to be even more biased in his favor, was repeating an opinion that had become popular among many in the media as well. The sentiment gave rise to the so-called “fact checkers,” who were liberal opinion columnists masquerading as referees. In one of their most famous rulings, the “fact checker” PolitiFact rated the conservatives’ talk of “death panels” in ObamaCare as its 2009 “Lie of the Year.” The president’s “keep your plan” falsehood was, by contrast, labeled “half true.” Yet now some mainstream journalists are singing a slightly different tune:

Mark Halperin raised the specter of the notorious Obamacare “death panels” during an interview on Monday.
Halperin was speaking to Newsmax host Steve Malzberg when the subject came up.
“You believe there will be rationing, aka death panels?” Malzberg asked.
“It’s built into the plan,” Halperin said. “It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled.”

Halperin clarified, tweeting:

In Mon intv I did not say “death panels” nor do I believe ACA contains them. Was speaking of political/policy challenge of IPAB cuts. My bad

Of course there won’t be anything actually called “death panels,” but Halperin isn’t backing off the inevitable rationing to help control costs while at the same time his magazine has a cover story on ObamaCare’s “Broken Promise.” It’s a good indication that were the press to really push back against a supposed false balance, it might have challenged obviously false claims by the president as much as it did the theatrical critiques of his health-care plan by Republicans.

And the recent exposure of all these falsities explains why this White House has been so obsessive in its attempts to control the press, and so paranoid as to spy on reporters’ parents. The press is now pushing back not only by reporting more honestly about ObamaCare but also by confronting the president over his controlling, propagandist impulses.

Those impulses tend to spiral out of control if left unchecked–which they were. And so they resulted in, as Jonathan noted last week, the White House deciding it didn’t need pesky press photographers hanging around when the administration could simply take and distribute its own propaganda photos. National Journal’s Ron Fournier described the moment of confrontation:

New York Times photographer Doug Mills strode into Jay Carney’s office Oct. 29 with a pile of pictures taken exclusively by President Obama’s official photographer at events the White House press corps was forbidden to cover. “This one,” Mills said, sliding one picture after another off his stack and onto the press secretary’s desk. “This one, too–and this one and this one and …”
The red-faced photographer, joined by colleagues on the White House Correspondents’ Association board, finished his 10-minute presentation with a flourish that made Carney, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, wince.
“You guys,” Mills said, “are just like Tass.”
Comparing the White House to the Russian news agency is a hyperbole, of course, but less so with each new administration.

The protest has picked up momentum. Noah Rothman reports that USA Today is joining Tacoma’s News Tribune in a new policy: outside of “extraordinary circumstances,” no White House handout photos.

It seems ironic that the president who galvanized millennial support by utilizing social media while mocking his 2008 opponent’s lack of computer skills (due to his war injuries–a particularly low moment for the Obama campaign) would work so hard to lock out the press, but in fact it’s appropriate. Obama revels in going around the media and delicately managing his image, aware of the way new media can magnify any photo or sound bite.

It may be petty to shut photographers out of routine events, but when it comes to an overwhelming distrust of anyone not on the payroll, nothing is too petty for this administration. As the reporting on ObamaCare and the photographers’ rebellion indicate, Obama may wish for the days of “equivalence” and regret asking the media to cast a more discerning eye on the events of his presidency.


Seth Mandel

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/26/revisiting-obamas-complaints-about-press-equivalence/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

EU, Israel Reach "Compromise" on Science vs. Settlements

by Soeren Kern

The true winner appears to be the EU, which has not budged at all from its insistence on using the agreement to impose its pro-Palestinian policies on Israel. Critics of the deal say it amounts to a de facto EU boycott of Israeli institutions.
"Not signing it," according to Professor Ruth Arnon, President of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, "will be an irreversible and disastrous failure for Israeli science and the entire country."

Israel and the European Union have reached a tentative agreement on a compromise formula that will make it possible for Israel to participate in a prestigious and financially lucrative European scientific research program.

The compromise paves the way for Israel to participate in Horizon 2020, the EU's flagship research and development program—despite Israeli objections to a contentious new policy that prohibits the EU from funding Israeli institutions that operate anywhere beyond the Green Line, including eastern Jerusalem.

The Israeli government has hailed the November 26 diplomatic breakthrough—in which both sides ostensibly agree to disagree—as a victory for Israel and the Israeli technology sector.

But the true winner appears to be the EU, which has not budged at all from its insistence on using the agreement to impose its pro-Palestinian polices on Israel.

Ariel University will be excluded from any funding provided by the Horizon 2020 program because it is located beyond the "Green Line". (Image source: WikiMedia Commons)

Israel and the EU both stand to benefit from Israel's involvement in the €70 billion ($95 billion) program, which begins on January 1, 2014 and will run for a period of seven years.

Israel—the only non-EU country that has been invited to join Horizon 2020—is expected to invest €600 million in the program and receive €900 million in inbound research grants and other investments. For its part, the EU will benefit from Israeli research and technology, which is widely believed to surpass the capabilities of many EU member states.

But Israeli participation in Horizon 2020 became jeopardized after the EU politicized the project by linking it to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The new EU directive—the long title of which is "Guidelines on the Eligibility of Israeli Entities and their Activities in the Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967 for Grants, Prizes and Financial Instruments funded by the EU from 2014 Onwards"—forbids EU organizations and institutions from funding or cooperating with any Israeli entities based in Judea and Samaria, eastern Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.

The directive—which was published on July 19, 2013 and will take effect on January 1, 2014—includes a requirement that all future agreements between the EU and Israel include a clause in which Israel accepts the EU position that none of the territory beyond the Green Line belongs to Israel.

"The EU does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any of the territories, and does not consider them to be part of Israel's territory," according to the guidelines.

Up until now, Israeli officials have rejected the directive as untenable and have refused to sign any new agreements with the EU which include such a clause, based on the premise that to do so would be to forgo any future claims on the disputed territories.

But the EU has remained adamant that Israel's participation in Horizon 2020 be subject to its new funding directive.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, has faced mounting pressure not to concede to any of Israel's demands.

In a September 16 letter addressed to Ashton and the foreign ministers of the 28 EU member states, 15 members of the so-called European Eminent Persons Group expressed "great concern" at attempts to "delay, modify or even suspend the European Commission guidelines on funding of Israeli entities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967."

The letter—signed by longtime Israel critics including former EU foreign policy chief and NATO secretary-general Javier Solana, former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine, and former Spanish foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos—argued that the "strict application" of the guidelines "serves to reiterate that the EU does not recognize and will not support settlements and other illegal facts on the ground."

On November 22, Pierre Vimont, an assistant to Ashton, sent a letter to the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejecting most of the proposed Israeli compromise language regarding the Horizon 2020 agreement.

The EU turned down Israel's demand to remove the new guidelines and also demanded that the agreement include an "attachment" stating that the agreement's conditions do not prevent the European Commission, the EU's administrative body, from implementing the guidelines on the so-called settlements.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the EU position breaches oral understandings between both sides and backtracks on positions that the EU stated during bilateral talks.

The EU also rejected Israel's demand to remove a clause prohibiting the indirect funding of agencies that operate in the settlements. The EU said it was unwilling to back down on the issue.

After weeks of fruitless negotiations with the EU, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided at an urgent meeting on November 24 that a way needed to be found to enable Israel's participation in the Horizon program.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin both warned that Israel should not give in to EU "arm-twisting." According to Lieberman, signing the agreement would have meant "surrender" to the European Union.

But with the deadline for signing onto Horizon 2020 less than a week away, Netanyahu directed Justice Minister Tzipi Livni to clinch a deal.

The "compromise" hashed out by Livni on November 26 involves two clauses in the Horizon agreement.

One clause relates to the EU's demand that an appendix be attached to the Horizon agreement stating that the contract will be subject to the new EU funding restrictions, namely, that the EU is entitled to block funding to any Israeli entities operating in territories claimed by the Palestinians.

In the compromise formula, Israel agrees to EU demands that the above-mentioned appendix will indeed be attached to the Horizon 2020 agreement. In exchange, Israel will attach its own appendix to the agreement in which it declares that it objects to the EU guidelines. The Israeli objections cannot, however, prevent the EU from implementing its funding ban.

The second clause relates to the establishment of a verification mechanism to ensure that no EU money makes its way into the so-called Palestinian territories.

On this clause, the two sides agree that any Israeli entity that operates within the Green Line can apply for European loans, provided that Israel and the EU establish a verification system to ensure that any monies these Israeli entities receive will be invested solely within the Green Line.

Critics of the deal say it amounts to a de facto EU boycott of Israeli institutions.

Indeed, the deal means that Ariel University, which is based in the West Bank, will not be eligible for EU grant money. It remains unclear how the deal will affect Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a leading research university, which has dormitories in an east Jerusalem neighborhood.

According to Livni, "The agreement fully respects the EU's legal and financial requirements while at the same time respecting Israel's political sensitivities and preserving its principled positions. The agreement will allow Israel's scientific community to benefit from one of the most important EU programs and facilitate its further integration into the European space of research and innovation."

Netanyahu has been under pressure from Israel's academic and research community to find a way to join Horizon 2020, which they say is essential to preserving Israel's status as a high-tech powerhouse.

The president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities, Professor Ruth Arnon, has said that Israel's participation in the program is "absolutely essential to the future of science in Israel." According to Arnon, "Not signing it, will be an irreversible and disastrous failure for Israeli science and the entire country."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook. Follow him on Twitter.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4068/eu-israel-horizon

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran Claims White House is Lying about Wording of Nuke Deal

by Rick Moran


Those who oppose the agreement on Iran's nuclear program may want to pause and take a breath. Apparently, there's still about 10% of the deal that needs to be worked out, and given Iran's track record, it's still very possible that the whole thing could fall through.
This certainly isn't a good sign:

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.
Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented
The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.
However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House's version of the deal as "invalid" and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.
"What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true," Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.
Afkham and officials said that the White House has "modified" key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.
Iran's right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.
"This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein," the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.
"This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme," the Iranian draft reads. "This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
Iran's objection to the deal as presented in the fact sheet raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.

Negotiating with Tehran is never easy. Factions in the Iranian government can apparently derail agreements even after they're concluded, which has happened a couple of times over the years. 

But the fact that the Iranians interpet the agreement as a confirmation of their right to enrich uranium and the US believes the deal says exactly the opposite means that the whole enterprise is in jeapordy. Such a fundamental disagreement on what amounts to the essence of the negotiations does not bode well for President Obama who would be hugely embarrassed if the Iranians backed out of the deal at this point. Expect Iran to push this point and the Americans to bend in order to keep the agreement on track.


Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/iran_claims_white_house_is_lying_about_wording_of_nuke_deal.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.