Two Hot Dogs Eat Cheeseburgers!

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement
would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

Kinda tough to add anything to that kind of logic...



This is what Obama either seeks to destroy or his dreamy inept policies will do so.

The consequence of Obama weakness will be a confrontation. It is inevitable.

However, the press and media think him brilliant. By thinking him brilliant perhaps they reflect what they think about themselves.

I would rather take a page from this Dutch legislator's play book or Sprayregen.(See 1,1a and 1b below.)
---
Two hot dogs eat cheeseburgers and the press and media go gah gah over the reset nonsense. (See 2 below.)
---
Sent to me by my severest critic in everything I do but I still love the guy.

It is the story of a black author who escaped the ravages of the Liberal's Government Plantation only to lament over the fact that the first black president favors policies that will enslave the entire nation.

Only the blind can disagree with what he has written. (See 3 below.)
---
I knew Patton and Obama, you are no Patton. (See 4 below.)
---
Fire Panetta because he told the truth.

Obama has said he is committed to Israel's safety but based on his policies and actions it seems more likely he is committed to its destruction. After all what he is doing to our own nation should be an instructive guide. (See 5 and 5a below.)
---

Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Israel: A U.S. Strategic Asset


For decades, the United States and Israel have shared a deep strategic relationship aimed at confronting the common threats to both nations. In the coming months, Near East Report will examine in detail the many ways that Israel is a strategic asset for the United States. The following is a general overview of some of the many themes that will be covered.

A Reliable Ally
The United States and Israel face a variety of threats in the Middle East, from radical Islam and nuclear proliferation to cyber warfare and counterfeiting. Israel is a reliable fellow democracy that shares America’s values and worldview in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes.

With no other country in the region, and few in the entire world does the United States share the same high level of strategic cooperation that it does with Israel.

The historic alliance between the United States and Israel is a stabilizing force in an otherwise unstable region of the world. Indeed, U.S.-Israel military cooperation is a powerful deterrent to those in the Middle East who seek to harm either country.

Israel’s presence in the region provides a de facto guarantee of security—well beyond its borders—that would be costly to replace. Despite Israel’s small size, its military strength and geostrategic location in the eastern Mediterranean provide a strong deterrent against Iran and other radical forces that threaten U.S. interests.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders have long recognized Israel’s role as a strategic partner that provides defense technology and shares its battlefield experience with the United States.

“The United States will maintain its unshakable commitment to the security and welfare of the state of Israel, recognizing that a strong Israel is essential to our basic goals in that area,” said President Ronald Reagan, who would formalize the strategic relationship between Israel and the United States during his presidency.

Today, President Obama has voiced a similar view on the importance of the relationship. “Many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our efforts to secure peace and stability in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests.” BACK TO TOP

Protecting American Soldiers
The close strategic relationship between the United States and Israel began with the allies sharing key intelligence and “lessons learned” after the 1967 Six-Day War. In the 1980s, Congress formally designated Israel as a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Below are some results of this strong strategic partnership:

•The United States is currently putting Israeli military innovations to use in the Middle East and elsewhere to save American lives on the battlefield. Examples range from basic items such as a unique emergency bandage to high-tech solutions like reactive armor tiles, mine-resistant vehicles and equipment to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

•Israeli technology has improved the safety, reliability and effectiveness of U.S. weapons and platforms, including advanced unmanned drones, precision weaponry and advanced intelligence and surveillance systems.
•The partnerships with U.S. defense firms and investments in the American defense industry sector by such Israeli companies as Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael, Elbit, Israel Military Industries and Plasan Sasa have yielded important benefits to U.S. military forces in the field.
•Israel has provided U.S. forces with emergency equipment, including armor for troop carriers and munitions for American forces in Iraq. After 9/11, Israel delayed taking a delivery of armored Humvees being produced for the IDF in the United States so that the U.S. military could quickly ship the completed vehicles for use by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Training Together
The two allies routinely engage in combined military exercises involving American and Israeli land, sea and air forces. A centerpiece of the interaction between the two militaries is combined missile defense training, including the bi-annual Juniper Cobra exercise. During this drill, the two sides practice cooperative tactics to counter the growing threat of attack by ballistic missiles and long-range rockets.

“We’re extremely proud of that exercise,” said Admiral James Stavridis, commander of the U.S. European Command. “We had over 2,000 U.S. and allied forces involved in that. It was a very complex missile defense exercise that married up the Israeli systems, the Arrow and Iron Dome system, with our own Aegis sea-based system, as well as some of our land-based systems…. I would say that we need to build on that exercise and continue to have that level of dialogue and engagement and actual operational activities with our Israeli friends. And, I believe that we can learn from them and we can learn from their technical systems, just as they can marry up and learn from ours.”

Twice annually, U.S. Marines conduct desert warfare training with their IDF counterparts, and American soldiers and security officials have received Israeli instruction on urban combat techniques. U.S. pilots have held mock dogfights with the Israeli Air Force, have tested aerial combat tactics and have practiced aerial refueling. Additionally, the United States pre-positions military equipment in Israel for use by either country in a time of crisis.

Intelligence Sharing
Today, Israel’s intelligence assets are increasingly valuable to the United States. Israel helps Washington obtain real-time assessments of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, monitor Syrian activity in Lebanon and Iraq and determine the level of coordination among Hamas, Hizballah and other terrorist groups.

“I can…say from long experience that our security relationship with Israel is important for America,” U.S. National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones said. “Our military benefits from Israeli innovations in technology, from shared intelligence, from exercises that help our readiness and joint training that enhances our capabilities and from lessons learned in Israel’s own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats.” BACK TO TOP

Missile Defense
Jointly developed by the United States and Israel, the Arrow is the world’s most sophisticated deployed national missile shield. Furthermore, it is the only operational system that has consistently proven that one missile can shoot down another at high altitudes and supersonic speeds.

Israel and the United States are also collaborating on the development of a quick-reaction defense system, called David’s Sling, to address the threats faced by Israeli and American troops from short- and medium-range missiles and rockets. The United States is planning to use the David’s Sling interceptor as part of its efforts to protect American troops and other Mideast allies, as well as nations in other regions facing similar threats.

Homeland Security
The reality of life in Israel during the past 62 years has forced Israelis to defend against constant terrorist threats, driving the Jewish state to become a leading force in homeland security and counterterrorism. Since 9/11, especially, the United States and Israel have intensified their homeland security cooperation.

Israel has developed expertise across many key homeland security areas, including critical infrastructure protection, border security, explosives detection, bioterrorism preparedness, biometrics, water and food security, plus emergency preparedness and response.

On February 8, 2007, the United States and Israel formalized homeland security cooperation between the two nations. The two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that opened a host of possibilities to further expand cooperation in the homeland security arena. Then-Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dicter said that the United States “should use Israel as a laboratory” for the development of its own homeland security needs.

American law enforcement officers and first responders are increasingly studying Israel’s battle against terrorism to glean lessons for U.S. efforts to protect its citizens. Israel frequently hosts delegations of American police chiefs, sheriffs and emergency responders. On their return home, these officials and specialists infuse their departments’ training with lessons on how Israeli security forces prevent such terrorist attacks as suicide bombings.

The IDF Home Front Command and the U.S. National Guard have even exchanged liaisons to help facilitate their cooperation, with an Israeli officer stationed in Washington and a U.S. officer stationed in Israel. In May 2010, National Guard Chief Gen. Craig McKinley traveled to Israel to observe an IDF Home Front Command exercise, Turning Point 4, which simulated a major bioterrorism attack.

Strong and Independent
Israel appreciates America’s pledge that it would help defend Israel in the case of a major assault. However, Israelis are proud of the fact that when threatened or attacked, they fight their own battles. Israel has never asked American troops to risk their lives to defend the Jewish state. At the same time, unlike many areas of the Middle East, U.S. troops are always welcome to visit Israel, where they are free to tour the Holy Land and practice their faith as they see fit.

America’s investment in Israel has been returned in the form of a reliable, cooperative pro-American ally. Israel helps the U.S. respond to serious threats, saves American lives at home and abroad, trains and supplies U.S. soldiers, helps defend American interests, provides invaluable intelligence about its enemies and supports its values and overall foreign policy objectives. Israel is and will remain an invaluable strategic asset to the United States.

1a)Target Iranian Regime’s Lifelines
By Wim Kortenoeven

Anybody who thinks that the regime in Tehran can be brought into compliance with the current set of Western pressure measures—which, until now, are mainly polite threats and sanctions that sound good, but can be evaded—is deceiving himself. Indeed, in order to be effective with ideologically driven intentional destroyers of international peace and security, such as Iran, Western threats should be credible, and sanctions should be crippling. As of now, they are not.

In the meantime, the geopolitical situation in the Middle East is rapidly changing, to the detriment of the West. Iran and its neighbors, Turkey (a NATO member and would-be member of the European Union) and Syria, with Hizballah and Hamas in the back seat, are forming a Shia-Sunni strategic coalition that stretches from Pakistan to the eastern borders of Europe.

The Turkish accession to this coalition, a keystone in every respect, has happened relatively recently, but it is determined and should frighten the life out of European policymakers. The first target of the members of the coalition may indeed be Israel, with the treacherous Mavi Marmara incident underlining the Erdogan regime’s true colors and intentions. However, this Islamist coalition is also a threat to the stability of the Gulf states, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to the security of Europe and the United States. And, it will certainly blunt the effects of American and European warnings to Tehran and hamper sanctions.

Concerning sanctions: Just look at what is happening. Iran is sanctioned already, but has managed to control the damage, by means of the Iranian Central Bank and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), an elite force comparable to the German SS. The IRGC is the guardian of the Iranian system of government, and it has its grip everywhere, from security to business.

The latest jolt to Iran came from the European Union. In its meeting on June 17, the European Council of Ministers approved “new restrictive measures,” including energy sanctions. These are to be outlined in the Council meeting next month. The sanctions policy is supposed to force Iran into compliance and to send a discouraging message to other states with nuclear ambitions, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt. It should also serve to keep the Israelis, who are faced with an existential threat from Iran, from unilaterally embarking on the military option.

Alongside sanctions policy, there is also a public diplomacy effort. The Stop the Bomb Coalition (STB), which comprises activists in almost a dozen E.U. member states, has successfully campaigned for a reduction of European business interests and investments in Iran.

Some examples: The German branch of STB took on a series of companies, including Siemens, one of Iran’s main trading partners. The Dutch and British branches took on Royal Dutch Shell (a supplier of refined oil products to Iran), and the prominent Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf tarred and feathered the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which the United States had blacklisted for illegal activities. However, IRISL still enjoys unrestricted access to European ports.

Many prominent European intellectuals and politicians supported the STB campaign to put the IRGC on the European Union list of terrorist groups. The initiative followed a November 2009 Dutch Parliament resolution to that effect. The petition’s signatories also urge the European Union and its member states to ban trade and encourage their countries’ businesses to cease economic activity with entities associated with the IRGC.


It’s past time for European nations to get serious about the Iranian threat. While President Ahmadinejad has vowed to destroy Israel, Iran’s ambitions don’t end there. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently reminded a Senate hearing that Europe is also within Iranian striking range.

“If Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe, it wouldn’t be just one or two missiles or a handful. It would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles,” Gates said.

But Iran’s ambitions don’t end there, either. Ahmadinejad’s latest verbal attack, delivered on June 16, referred to the Jews as “the filthiest and greatest of criminals, who [only] appear to be human.”

Ahmadinejad also had a message for the American people: “We have a plan to change the world, to reshape the balance of oppressive [power] in the world, and [to change] the unilateral and discriminatory world order.... I hereby announce that from this point forward, one of the Iranian nation’s main aspirations will be to deliver the American people from [their] undemocratic and bullying government.”

This is not a lunatic speaking, or some narcissistic potentate of a banana republic. This is not just the representative of a ruthless regime with a long track record as a terrorism sponsor and a human rights violator. This is the intelligent, confident “messianic” leader of a strategically located regional superpower that is pushing an Islamist agenda of conquest.

As you read this, Iran is acquiring the means to advance that agenda. Centrifuges continue to spin. Iran’s uranium stockpile is getting larger. To not take Ahmadinejad seriously is tantamount to going back into history, with what we now know about them, and subsequently ignoring Hitler’s declared intentions.

The United States and European democracies need to work together to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. To pressure the regime, its three lifelines—the IRGC, IRISL and the Iran Central Bank—should be cut. Time is running out.

Wim Kortenoeven is a recently elected Dutch Parliamentarian and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

1b)The Mussolini of the Middle East Stabs America in the Back
By Joel J. Sprayregen

The Middle East has its Hitler wannabe in Iranian President Ahmadinejad. His nuclear weaponization program has accelerated over eighteen months while Obama's "engagement" is being rebuffed with contemptuous defiance from Tehran. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, Ahmadinejad has made clear his belief that the Jews of Israel should be annihilated.


Every Hitler needs his Mussolini. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan -- a man I know well -- is enthusiastically volunteering for that role.


The Hitler analogy should be viewed in terms of the late 1930s rather than the wartime 1940s. By the time Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939, he had contemptuously resisted limitations on German rearmament and achieved his territorial aims in the infamous delivery of Czechoslovakia at Munich. He accomplished this while England slept -- in John Kennedy's famous phrase -- without firing a shot.


What does this have to do with Ahmadinejad? The Iranians know that once they possess nuclear weapons, they will have achieved hegemony over the Middle East, with all its energy resources, without firing a shot. As the evidence accumulates that Obama lacks the will to take action to stop the Iranian quest, the countries of the Middle East are compelled to come to terms with the reality that the United States will not use its power to defend its own interests and will settle for trying to "contain" a nuclear Iran. In the pitiless sunlight of the Middle East, reality is harshly defined. A nuclear-armed Iran means that the United States is a big loser. And that Iran is a decisive winner.



No Middle Eastern leader grasps this reality with more eager opportunism than the Turkish prime minister. A serious question is emerging as to whether our government understands this dynamic and its grave consequences. My conversations with State Department officials reveal at best only dim understanding. President Obama, delivering his first address to a foreign parliament in Ankara in April 2006, praised Turkey as a "true partner." In the first giddy flush of Obamamania, this may have been understandable hyperbole even though Erdogan had stabbed the U.S. in the back as long ago as 2003 by denying our forces entry into northern Iraq. But self-delusion in the White House as to critical U.S. interests is no longer rational, as increasing numbers of foreign policy experts -- many of them Obama supporters -- recognize that Turkey has decisively exited its alliance with the West.


Tom Friedman observes in the N.Y. Times: "Maybe President Obama should invite [Erdogan] for a weekend at Camp David to clear the air before U.S.-Turkey relations get where they're going -- over a cliff." German editor Joseph Joffe writes in the Financial Times: "The real game is about dominance at the expense of America, which U.S. President Barack Obama has yet to grasp." Our most astute analyst of the Middle East, Professor Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese Shi'a, writes in the Wall Street Journal that "Turkey courts Iran and turns its back on its old American alliance." And listen to the ultra-liberal Washington Post pose the pertinent question to the White House:


Erdogan's crude attempt to exploit the Gaza flotilla incident comes only a few weeks after he joined Brazil's president in linking arms with Ahmadinejad, whom he is assisting in an effort to block new U.N. sanctions. What's remarkable about his turn toward extremism is that it comes after more than a year of assiduous courting by the Obama administration, which, among other things, has overlooked his antidemocratic behavior at home, helped him combat the Kurdish PKK and catered to Turkish sensitivities about the Armenian genocide. ... Will Mr. Erdogan's behavior be without cost?



Erdogan has allied with all the genocidal factions in the region -- Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Sudan (whose President al-Bashir was invited to Turkey while a fugitive from indictment by the International Court of Criminal Justice). This appears comparable to what Mussolini did in 1936 when he allied with Hitler, believing that the German Chancellor would become master of Europe. Like Mussolini, Erdogan commands a people who can be proud of their historic civilization. Turkey is a NATO ally, and Italy was an American ally in World War 1. Italy had understandable grievances against its former allies, and Turks are entitled to resent the oafish behavior of European politicians regarding Turkish membership in the EU. Erdogen is emulating Mussolini in undermining his country's democratic traditions. Turkish friends warn me that our communications are surveiled and they are subject to government retaliation. Friedman writes, "I've never visited a democracy where more people I interviewed asked me not to name them for fear of retribution by Erdogan's circle."



Like Mussolini, Erdogan is an outsized orator. It took several meetings before I realized that Erdogan's counter-factual eruptions (in a September, 2009, meeting at New York's Plaza hotel, he wildly inflated Gaza casualty statistics and likened Hamas terrorists to "boys throwing stones") are not spontaneous, but carefully calculated to inflame his Islamist electoral base. Erdogan's oratorical demagoguery is escalating as he faces a significant electoral challenge from a secular party. In 1998, a Turkish court sentenced Erdogan, then a candidate, to ten months in prison for inciting religious hatred; he served four months. The lesson Erdogan learned from this was to use Turkish law to intimidate and punish opponents. Kasimpasha, the Istanbul district where he was raised, is known for crude and blunt talk.


Kemal Koprulu, scion of an eminent Turkish family and founder of a think-tank for promotion of civil society, warned in a recent article in the Brown Journal of World Affairs of "unhealthy trends of polarization and intolerance combined with anti-Westernism" that are "becoming a chronic problem and wearing down the Turkish public." Pro-western Turks cringe with embarrassment over Erdogan's rhetorical excesses as democratic Italians did over Mussolin's. Skillful Turkish diplomats over the course of many years built friendships to counter the influence of Turkey's traditional detractors (Armenian-Americans and Greek-Americans). Erdogan has systematically shattered these friendships in a few months. A group of retired Turkish diplomats issued a measured statement last week warning of damage from Erdogan's "adventurous foreign policy." Turkish diplomats and a cabinet under-secretary with whom I've recently met try to argue that Turkey can help America by improving relations with Muslim neighbors. But it's obvious that Turkey undermines American interests by opposing Iran sanctions, hailing Hamas as a legitimate resistance movement, and holding joint military exercises with Syria.



Our country has huge interests in common with Turkey, including our Incirlik airbase and sharing NATO intelligence. Turkey played a key role in NATO in the Cold War and later in Kosovo and Bosnia, but today maintains only a non-combat force in Afghanistan. Congress is beginning to understand that Turkish alliance with Iran and Syria is inconsistent -- to say the least -- with NATO membership.


Franklin Roosevelt was reluctant to challenge Mussolini's alliance with Hitler. But seventy years ago this month, when Mussolini invaded France, Roosevelt memorably said, "The hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor." Turkey has already struck several dagger blows against the U.S. It's time the White House addresses this with clarity and determination equal to the gravity of the reality that Turkey is now an ally of Iran and not of the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Russian 'Reset' Charade
By Cathy Young

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's arrival in Washington, DC for a meeting with President Obama is the latest step in the much-vaunted "reset" in frayed United States-Russian relations. But in fact, the Medvedev visit highlights just what a charade the "reset" is: an empty political spectacle that is at best useless and at worst harmful, distracting the U.S. leadership from the search for effective solutions to international issues and helping prop up a corrupt, authoritarian, and ultimately unfriendly regime in the Kremlin.

In a way, the sham nature of the post-"reset" U.S.-Russian relationship is embodied in the fact that Obama's partner in this summit is not quite his counterpart. The Medvedev presidency, now in its third year, is one in which the word "President" calls for scare quotes -- just like the word "elected." Handpicked as heir by Vladimir Putin, who was constitutionally barred from a third term, Medvedev is widely seen as a lackey to his former boss and current Prime Minister. (He recently disclosed that he uses the plural form of the Russian "you" to address Putin while Putin uses the singular "you" to him, suggesting that Putin is the authority figure.) Medvedev has used more liberal rhetoric than Putin and called for major reforms to modernize not only Russia's economy but its political and legal system. Yet, judging by the results, this is at best empty talk by a front man powerless to effect real change, and at worst a ploy to give the Putin regime a more presentable façade.


What's more, on foreign policy, even Medvedev's proclaimed stance has differed little from his mentor's aggressive nationalism. He was the one who welcomed then-President-elect Obama, the day after the election, with a threat to deploy missiles on the Russian-Polish border if the U.S. pursued plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe. While the strident anti-Americanism that emanated from official Russian circles in recent years has been toned down, the Putin-Medvedev regime still derives much of its domestic political capital from the image of Russia as a great power capable of challenging and curbing America's pretensions to global dominance.

One way in which the Obama Administration has sought to turn this rivalry to friendship is by negotiating and signing the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to replace the previous expired one. Some on the right have blasted the agreement for "giving too much" to Russia and possibly endangering our security, particularly of its restrictions on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) armed with conventional warheads but adaptable to nuclear ones. In fact, a recently released Brookings Institution analysis points out that the number of such missiles actually produced by the U.S. is virtually certain to remain far below the START ceiling, and persuasively refutes most other arguments about START's perils. But while the treaty may not be a defeat for the U.S., it is also no victory. It is simply part of the ritual dance of arms control left over from Cold War days -- a dance that, even then, mattered less for the actual arms cuts than for the symbolism.

Indeed, in a symbolic sense, the new START does hand Russia a victory. As the astute Russian independent commentator Alexander Golts pointed out last November on the EJ.ru website, nuclear arms are one area in which the Russian political establishment feels Russia can speak to America as an equal.

Another gift to the Kremlin has been the weakening of U.S. pressure on human rights. The first alarm bell came a year ago, when a bilateral presidential commission was created to deal with various issues in Russian-American relations: the man picked as the Russian co-leader of its working group on the civil society was presidential chief of staff Vladislav Surkov, the Putin regime's ideological enforcer. (Among other things, Surkov is the godfather of Nashi, the thuggish "youth movement" that routinely harasses opposition activists.) The group's co-leader on the U.S. side, Obama's Russia adviser and former Hoover Institution scholar Michael McFaul, seems to have backed off his once-strong criticism of Russian neo-authoritarianism. Time magazine reports that when the working group met in Russia in late May-early June, McFaul's half-hearted attempts to raise such issues as election fraud were promptly rebuffed and abandoned. The official Russian delegation was pleased; the Russian human rights activists who attended were disappointed.

What does the Obama Administration get out of this beautiful friendship? Mainly, the elusive phantasm of Russian support for measures to curb Iran's nuclear program. Earlier this month, Russia finally agreed, after months of negotiations, to back mild United Nations sanctions against Iran. A few days later, Medvedev slammed the U.S. and the European Union for adopting additional, tougher trade sanctions of their own. This approach, which U. S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called "schizophrenic," is due not only to Russia's commercial ties with Tehran but also with the desire to use Iran as a thorn in America's side.

An old Soviet joke observed that under communism, the workers pretend to work and the state pretends to pay them. Perhaps there is a similar reciprocity in U.S.-Russian relations today. Washington pretends to treat Moscow as an ally with shared liberal values. Moscow pretends to act like one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
By Star Parker

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation . I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfarestate and my own transformation out of it. I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities andBasic Skills Training(JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF),Section 8 Housing, andFood Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s by Democrats, that were goingto lift the nation's poor out of poverty.A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities,dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that Iunderstood what freedom meant and how great this country is. I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996 which was passed by a Republican controlled Congress. I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism. But, incredibly, we are now going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich America on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poorAmerica on socialism.Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have aid, "Thank you, Suh.

"Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president.And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-Ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of
his trillion dollar spending plan is much morethan short term economic stimulus."This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in are as such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government takingover an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.

"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Departmentof Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War onPoverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a newcourse. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences ofpoverty."Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But blackfamilies are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Subject: Oh yea

General Stanley McChrystal's derisive comments about pols look mild compared to General George S. Patton's assessment of them. Patton called the "tin soldier" politicians of his day "lily-livered bastards."
"You just wait and see," Patton said at the conclusion of World War II. "The lily-livered bastards in Washington will demobilize. They'll say they've made the world safe for democracy again. The Russians are not such damned fools. They'll rebuild, and with modern weapons."

Imagine what Patton would have said about the cravenly half-baked Afghanistan policies of a wimpy empty suit like Barack Obama and an open buffoon like Joe Biden.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Panetta: Iran can build two nukes within two years - sanctions unavailing


Realism from CIA director Leon PanettaCIA director Leon Panetta has admitted Iran has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs that would likely take two years to build. In an interview with ABC's This Week Sunday, June 27, the spy chief virtually admitted that every effort to halt Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb had failed. Asked if the latest round of UN sanctions would put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions, he said: "Probably not."

According to military sources, Panetta was the most realistic of any US official of late about the epic turn of events confronting the US, Israel, the Middle East and the Gulf nations, namely Iran's transformation into the region's second nuclear power after Israel.

His evaluation translates into the following prognosis: If today Iran has enough low-enriched uranium to build its first two nuclear warheads two years hence, it means that by then, by sustaining its present rate of progress, Tehran will have acquired enough fissile fuel to build another five to six bombs and another 10-12 by 2015. A nuclear arsenal was Iran's goal from the year 2000 and it is steadily advancing on this goal unhindered by any outside security interference, as military and Iranian sources have reported for the last six months.

At the beginning of June, Israeli Mossad director Meir Dagan estimated that Iran was lagging behind its enriched uranium target due to a number of technical malfunctions. But he never said or even implied that the program was stalled. That it was not, Panetta has now confirmed.

In so doing, he refuted the latest firm-sounding assertions by US president Barack Obama and defense secretary Robert Gates that Iran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms.

Although he did not spell this out, the CIA director's words mean that since diplomacy and sanctions have reached a dead end, the only realistic option left for bring Iran's nuclear progress to a halt is a military strike. But in the same interview, asked about a potential Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Panetta said he thinks "Israel is giving the US room on the diplomatic and political fronts."

What he said, in effect, was that the Netanyahu-Barak government, which rarely moves in any direction without President Obama's okay, is still not considering military action against Iran - even at this eleventh hour before disaster - and willing to go along with the Obama administration's pretense that the diplomatic option can still work.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak are sidestepping the toughest security threats Israel ha faced - a nuclear-armed Iran and the evolving extremist, anti-West "Northern Islamic alliance" in the process of formation by Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hamas and Hizballah. They are immersed instead in such side issues as calibrating the sustainability of the Gaza siege, the fictitious indirect talks with the Palestinians (Mahmoud Abbas is never in the country) and a possible handover to Lebanon of the tiny divided village of Ghajar, which no one wants other than the UN peacekeeping force.

Israel's leaders continue to hide from the public the fundamental differences between Israel and the Obama administration not just about Iran, but about its own nuclear capabilities in the face of the US president's determination to denuclearize the Middle East, starting with international restrictions and inspections for Israel's reputed arsenal.

The Netanyahu government's willingness to align its policies with Washington accounts for the constant flow of senior US military and defense officials visiting Israel and proclaiming the administration's dedication to Israel's security. Only last week, Michele Flournoy, US undersecretary of defense for policy, attended a session in Tel Aviv of the annual strategic dialogue between the two governments. She pledged that the US would always guarantee Israel's military and technological supremacy.

Last week too Barak was in Washington and held talks with Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff. Only 72 hours later, Mullen paid a short visit to Tel Aviv and was again closeted with Barak after meeting chief of staff Maj. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi and the IDF's high command.
When his turn for a statement came round, he said he tried to see regional events through Israeli eyes.

All these visits and talks are extremely important. But what use are they when their only purpose is to hold Israel back from using its military superiority to defend itself against Iran, a vital need which should be obvious to anyone seeing the Middle East through Israeli eyes?

The brakes Washington applies to Israel's freedom of action in its own defense have allowed Iran to reach the advanced stage in its nuclear objectives frankly described by Leon Panetta on June 27.

5a)Israel's PR Is Not the Problem
By Ted Belman


When Israel loses yet another PR battle, many of her friends complain that she is partly to blame because she is woefully inept when it comes to PR. I am not one of them.


Glenn Jasper, Ruder Finn Israel, recently suggested that Israel should have all its spokesmen deliver the same message. After all, that's what the Palestinians do. That might be a good idea, except that Israel is a nation of presidents, and each president will deliver his or her own message. They can't be disciplined.


Alex Fishman suggested that Israel should consider the PR battle as more important than the military battle and organize accordingly.


Hence, the manager of this war on our side should not be the army via the IDF spokesman, but rather, someone on the highest national level, with the best professionals, who would have the knowledge and ability to write the "scripts" for the war and enforce them on all our executive arms, including the army.


Good as these suggestions are, they don't go to the heart of the matter.


To start with, there is a coalition of forces, including anti-Semites, leftists and Islamists, that is dedicated to Israel's destruction. They couldn't care less about truth and justice, so a better PR campaign would be irrelevant. Then there is the main stream media, which presents news to support their agenda rather than the truth. The fact that they suppressed the flotilla videos, which made Israel's case better than a thousand words could have, is testimony to this fact. They have constructed a narrative in support of their agenda, and any facts not in keeping with it are ignored.


But there is something more going on that is little-noticed yet quite determinative. Governments like the U.S.'s also construct a narrative depending on their agenda, and they don't let truth and justice get in the way.


Long before the Oslo accords, the U.S. began to suppress negative information on Arafat and the PLO, as she wished to build a peace process around them. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the U.S. made no issue of the violation of them by Arafat. She was not about to let such violations scuttle the peace process. In effect, Arafat could do whatever he wanted, and this included killing American diplomats, so long as he gave lip service to the peace process. Caroline Glick called the "peace process" an "appeasement process."


Iran and Syria also learned this lesson. They could keep killing Americans in Iraq as long as they denied their complicity. The U.S. rarely called them on this because if she did, she would have to do something about it.


President Bush waged a campaign against Syria to hold them accountable for the assassination of Harari and to get them out of Lebanon. Syria put up a strong enough fight to get Bush to abandon his original agenda. Bush then started a process of accommodating Syria rather than attacking her. Pres Obama has continued this process. Now Syria is openly arming Hezb'allah in violation of Res. 1701 and aligning with Iran. The U.S. response is to embrace her, to engage her, to send envoys, and generally to make nice. Obviously pointing the finger at Syria is inconsistent with the present U.S. goals.


Similarly, the U.S. has been attempting to engage Iran and to co-opt her into helping in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, the U.S. refrained from supporting the green movement when it challenged the government. For the same reason, she is unwilling to verbally attack Iran or to apply effective sanctions. She is even prepared to live with a nuclear Iran if only Iran will cooperate, and even if not.


In the last year or so, Turkey has taken center stage in the Middle East and is throwing her rhetorical weight around, especially since backing the flotilla. Not one critical word did Obama utter. To the contrary, he believes that "Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process."


Examples are legion, but what has this to do with Israel's efforts at public relations? Lots.


The flip-side of this coin is that when the U.S. wants to force someone, either friend or foe, to do something, she must first demonize that entity. But the U.S. can't demonize a friend without a pretext, so she first creates a crisis as her springboard.


In March of this year, the U.S. feigned outrage over Israel's announcement of a housing project in Ramat Shlomo. Similarly, Israel's legitimate self-defense in the flotilla attack, in which she killed nine violent "activists," was enough of a pretext for demonizing her and putting pressure on her. On May 31, after news of the deaths surfaced, Obama was a bit more restrained in his condemnation of Israel than his European allies and called for all the "facts and circumstances." Had he been genuine in this, he would have, after the videos of the attack on the IDF went viral the next day, totally sided with Israel and nipped the demonization in the bud, but he didn't. He had an agenda, and he wanted to use this crisis to announce that the blockade was "unsustainable." He allowed the pressure to mount so he could achieve his ends.


Shelby Steele argues most convincingly that "the end game of this isolation effort is the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation." He attributes this scapegoating of Israel to a "deficit of moral authority" in the West. While that is sadly true, it ignores the fact that realpolitik, which has taken hold of the Obama administration, dictates a similar result.


Yet I would argue that the pursuit of self-interest by the U.S. is assured greater success with Israel as a strong ally rather than without her.


This is not to say that Israel should cease its PR efforts. She shouldn't. She should continue to provide her friends with the truth so that they maintain their friendship, lest they be infected as well. Notwithstanding all the demonization she is subjected to and the realpolitik, she has managed to keep the goodwill of the American people and others who value truth and justice. Ultimately, this is her trump card.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------