Obama's Goal: Crush Netanyahu and Allow Iran and Jihadists To Win?

===
Obama Administration wants to crush Netanyahu and I suspect it will backfire.

If you think politics is dirty in America go to Israel.(See 1, 2 and 3 below.)
===
Leftists are blinded by their ideology and confused thinking. (See 4 below.)
===
Iran blowing smoke? (See 5 below.)
===
If vapid Obama platitudes will protect us then we are truly safe!

If you cannot bring yourself to define your adversaries how do you prepare yourself to defeat them?  If I saw and tank and called it a car I  believe I would be unprepared to engage and win.  Perhaps that is Obama's goal, a weakened and defeated America.  (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Likud Incensed After Biden Meets Herzog in Munich

by Elad Benari 

Despite essentially boycotting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress by planning to be abroad when it takes place, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday met with another Israeli official.

Biden and Opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog, head of the Labor party, met on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

The meeting, which was described as “informal”, was part of a series of meetings that Herzog made with several leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Representative Federica Mogherini, the President of the EU, and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

The meetings came just one day after an official in Washington said that Biden would be “traveling abroad during the joint session of Congress” during which Netanyahu is to speak, a reflection of the White House’s anger over the speech. The speech was initiated by House Speaker John Boehner, who invited Netanyahu without the knowledge of either the White House's or Democratic leaders in Congress.

The Likud party was incensed at the meeting between Herzog and Biden, which also came as leaders from the left, including Herzog himself, were busy attacking Netanyahu and blaming him for Biden’s boycott of the speech.

“Buji’s behavior in Munich is an irresponsible crossing of red lines,” the party said. “As the Prime Minister is trying to prevent a dangerous agreement between world powers and Iran, the leader of the Opposition chooses to weaken Israel's position in the international arena."

“The good of the country demands that disagreements between the left and the Likud be clarified in Israel,” the Likud continued, adding, "Instead Buji runs to Munich for political and personal reasons in order to discredit the Prime Minister of Israel in violation of national interest and security."

MK Miri Regev of the Likud launched her own attack of Herzog, calling him “an indefatigable subversive”, the remark used by former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his autobiography to describe Shimon Peres.

"I guess that's the genetics of the Labor party,” said Regev. “There is no country in the world in which its elected officials choose to wash their dirty laundry outside its borders. Only here, Buji is used by the international community, cooperates with them against Israel and endangers state security.”

Meanwhile, MK Shelly Yechimovich of the Labor party fired back at the criticism and said, "The meeting with Vice President Biden in Munich shows that when Herzog speaks, the world listens, and that the only bridge for normal and harmonious communication with the international arena is to elect Herzog for prime minister."

"Netanyahu boasts that when he speaks the world listens, but now it is clear that Netanyahu can speak and talk to the wall and the world turns its back on him, while he has to settle on staged conversations with the United States in campaign ads,” she continued.

"Israel, which needs international support and certainly the support of the United States, cannot afford a prime minister who endangers its security and its status for domestic political bonuses. The fact that Biden will be absent from Netanyahu's speech in Congress in such an unusual step, but found it necessary to meet Herzog, speaks for itself. Netanyahu's false patriotism is nothing but dangerous political egoism,” said Yechimovich.

2. Netanyahu: Israel 'Will Do Everything' to Prevent Iran Deal

by Tova Dvorin 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the issue of Iran's nuclear program on Sunday, at the start of his weekly Cabinet meeting. 

"The major powers and Iran are galloping toward an agreement that will enable Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons, which will endanger the existence of the State of Israel," Netanyahu stated. 

"The American Secretary of State and the Iranian Foreign Minister held talks over the weekend," he added, referring to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. "They announced that they intend to complete a framework agreement by the end of March."

"From this stems the urgency of our efforts to try and block this bad and dangerous agreement," he continued. "We will continue to take action and to lead the international effort against Iran's arming itself with nuclear weapons."

"We will do everything and will take any action to foil this bad and dangerous agreement that will place a heavy cloud over the future of the State of Israel and its security."


3)

As I See It: The Obama doctrine says ‘Israel’s enemy is my friend’

The brouhaha over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed address to the US Congress next month is simply jaw-dropping.

Uproar ensued after Netanyahu was invited by the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. Democrats have been furiously accusing the prime minister of crude Israeli electioneering. In Israel itself, he has come under widespread attack for putting the delicate relationship between Israel and the Obama administration at risk.

What planet are these people living on? The issue, and it could hardly be more urgent or grave, is not Netanyahu’s behavior. The issue is how to stop Iran.

It is astounding to claim that Netanyahu is putting the relationship with Obama at risk. The wholly artificial storm whipped up by the White House merely illustrates once again Obama’s sustained malice toward Israel, the invaluable bulwark of Western defenses in the Middle East, while he empowers Iran and other enemies of America and the free world.

That is what everyone should be talking about.

An article in Atlantic magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg claims Netanyahu decided to “ruin relations with Obama” through the Congress invitation which Goldberg says was cooked up with Speaker Boehner by Israel’s US ambassador, Ron Dermer.

Is it really likely that either Dermer or Netanyahu would be such reckless tactical imbeciles? Or is it more likely that they have made a strategic calculation born of desperation that Obama intends to allow Iran to get the bomb and time is running out to stop him? In his State of the Union address, Obama claimed to have “halted the progress” of Iran’s nuclear program. This is the opposite of the truth. Washington may have slowed but it has certainly not halted it.

It was evident from their interim agreement with Iran that the US-led negotiators had crossed their own previous redline. Having pledged they would never allow Iran to enrich uranium, they signed a deal that allows it to do precisely that and to become a nuclear-threshold state with the capacity to make the bomb.

In addition, thanks to Obama Iran is the one country in the Middle East that is becoming increasingly powerful as a result of the unrest in the region.

The coup in Yemen has brought an Iranian- backed Shi’ite group to power there. In Iraq, where Iran is fighting Islamic State, Shi’ite militias responsible in the past for killing US forces are giving orders to the Iraqi army under the oversight of Maj.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds force. Iraq is on the way to becoming an Iranian satrapy.

Last week’s Hezbollah missile attack from the Golan, in which two Israeli soldiers were killed and others wounded, followed an Israeli strike on a Hezbollah convoy which killed 12 members of the organization and an Iranian general. The seniority of those who were killed suggested Iran’s proxy army was planning to open a new front against Israel on the Syrian border.

Such an expansion of Iranian power and aggression should be sounding a loud alarm in Washington. Yet it is all but dismissed. For the Obama administration, nothing can be allowed to interfere with the US rapprochement with Iran.

The fact that Iran is fighting Islamic State seems to be driving all before it. The State Department even suggested the US would side with the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen because, over Islamic State, Iran and the West were on the same side.

This is utter madness. In the Middle East, my enemy’s enemy may nevertheless still be my mortal enemy. Iran has killed countless American personnel in Iraq and elsewhere, and has been responsible for attacks against US and Western interests over the years.

The regime constitutes the most deadly threat against the West in the world. In Iraq, it is fighting Islamic State with a view to defeating the US. Yet Obama is treating it as an ally.

No wonder Sen. Robert Menendez, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who with Republican Sen.

Mark Kirk leads the campaign to strengthen sanctions against Iran, told a Senate hearing: “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”

In Mosaic magazine Michael Doran, a former senior director of the US National Security Council, rightly observes that from the very start Obama had a secret strategy for cozying up to Iran. The US president believes Iran can be stroked into coming in from the cold, thus rebalancing the Middle East around a new “Grand Bargain” which keeps the peace.

Instead, this has merely destabilized the region even further. So can Obama really be so blind? Yes he can. Because in liberal circles, Pollyanna habitually meets Narcissus. Liberals believe that the entire world is governed by reason – because they think the entire world is just like them.

Of course it is not. The Iranian regime is dominated by Twelvers, who believe the apocalypse will promote the return to earth of the Shia messiah, the Twelfth Imam. Liberals cannot face the truth about Iran, because this would force them to concede that with such fanatics there can be no negotiation. But that would mean a military engagement. And for the West, that prospect is now more unconscionable than Iran getting the bomb.

So nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of the Grand Bargain. But unfortunately, Israel is in the way – because tiresomely, Israel refuses to become the victim of a second genocide of the Jews as Iran never ceases to threaten.

Obama’s liberal Pollyanna/Narcissism is thus given a malevolent edge by his belief that the one impediment to the new world order he wants to create, formed in his resentful mind by evening up the score between the oppressive US and the oppressed developing world, is the State of Israel.

So for Obama, the enemy is Israel, not Iran.

As he once sourly noted: “Members of Congress are very attentive to what Israel says on its security issues.” Accordingly, Obama’s update on the “my enemy’s enemy” aphorism seems to be “Israel’s enemy is my friend.”

What we’re seeing is not just a knock-down fight with Israel. We are watching the destruction of America’s role as guarantor and protector of the free world, and the translation of the US instead into the facilitator of Islamic terror and war.

Only Congress can stop this. Which is the real reason Mr. Netanyahu is going to Washington.

Melanie Phillips is a columnist for The Times (UK).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)

Why the Left Casts a Blind Eye on Radical Islam

By Peter Berkowitz

This week came news that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant burned alive a Jordanian pilot in a metal cage. Thursday morning's National Prayer Breakfast speech represented the first sign that President Obama is prepared to acknowledge a connection between Islam and the violence -- beheadings, mass murders, rape, human slavery, state sponsorship of terrorism, and military conquest -- jihadists are perpetrating in Muhammad’s name.

To be sure, President Bush's "global war on terror" shielded the exact identity of America's adversary. But the Obama administration has taken euphemism to new heights. By avoiding reference to Islamic extremism or radical Islam, Obama has reinforced the left's proclivity to condemn critics of radical Islam instead of the jihadists who fight in its name.

Only last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz staunchly denied to an incredulous press corps that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out, that is nonsense. The relevant provision of the U.S. Code is Sec. 1189 (a) of Title 8. Since the Taliban is a foreign organization, engaged in terrorist activity, and a national security threat to the United States, it qualifies as a foreign terrorist organization. The purpose of the White House’s ludicrous denial is to hide that the basis of the Taliban's enmity, strategy, and objectives is a doctrine of Islamic supremacy.

Such suppression is nothing new for the administration. As early as early 2009, it renamed campaigns in the struggle against Islamic extremism "overseas contingency operations."

Then, in November 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan committed premeditated mass murder at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30 more. Astonishingly, the administration classified the massacre as a case of "workplace violence." It was certainly violent. It was also inspired by Hasan’s religion as he made clear while shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he sprayed military personnel with bullets. He also received guidance from foreign terrorist organizations and had exchanged emails with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Last September in a White House speech, Obama actually declared that ISIL -- even as it was establishing a new caliphate in Iraq and Syria -- had nothing to do with Islam.

The president has crass political calculations for disguising the religious inspiration of the jihadism currently roiling the Middle East and plotting terrorist attacks around the globe. Obama claims to have routed al-Qaeda, brought the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to successful conclusions, and to have made progress in negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program.

It would be awkward to acknowledge that individuals, organizations, and states dedicated to radical Islam and committed to crushing and conquering the West are making headway in the very arenas where he has declared victory or boasted of gains. But the president also has reasons grounded in the progressive or left-liberal sensibility that he epitomizes to avoid mention of the Islamic roots of the jihadists' rage. Michael Walzer, editor emeritus of Dissent, elucidates those reasons in a striking article in the magazine’s current issue. Although he never mentions Obama by name,

Walzer argues persuasively that the left has failed to adjust its thinking to the rise of "Islamist zealotry" because of a set of increasingly typical moral and intellectual errors.

One of the nation's outstanding political theorists for almost half a century and a politically engaged man of the left for just as long, Walzer criticizes fellow leftists from within the tent. He faults them in his essay, "Islamism and the Left," for misunderstanding the moral and political imperatives that flow from the leftist quest to advance freedom, equality, toleration, and pluralism.

Walzer emphasizes his "generalized fear of every form of religious militancy" and notes that every religion is capable of inspiring fanaticism. But since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, he argues, Islamist zealotry is the form of religious militancy that has posed the principal transnational threat to liberty and democracy. Yet, he laments, many on the left ignore it or apologize for it.

The problem, Walzer argues, stems in part from the general failure of those on the left to appreciate religion. Notwithstanding the evidence of recent decades, progressives cling to the Enlightenment conceit that faith is destined to fade as science flourishes and secularism spreads.

Another reason the left has failed to grapple with the religious beliefs of radical Islam is "the terrible fear of being called ‘Islamophobic.’” This, Walzer maintains, "makes some sense in Western Europe and possibly also in America, where Muslims are recent immigrants, the objects of discrimination, police surveillance, sometimes police brutality, and popular hostility." But opposition to bigots, he insists, cannot justify exempting Islamists or Islam from criticism.

Anxieties about "Orientalism" also play a role. Literary theorist Edward Said claimed that decades of condescending Western scholarship produced distortions of the Muslim world by which Western elites sought to marginalize Islam. This is the same Said, Walzer notes, who declared in his 1979 book, “The Question of Palestine,” that “the return to ‘Islam’” was a “chimera."

In addition, many on the left are blinded, Walzer contends, by anti-Americanism. They celebrate Islamists whom they imagine to be resisting the Western imperialism that they deplore. University of California, Berkeley Professor Judith Butler, for example, regards it as "extremely important" to understand Hamas and Hezbollah – Iranian-backed movements devoted to jihad -- as "progressive" and "part of a global left."

Many on the left, moreover, view Western imperialism as the true source of Islamic extremism. Applying a loosely Marxist analysis, they regard Islamism as the distorted ideological reaction to the poverty and oppression that the West has inflicted on the Muslim world.

Finally, there are the radical multiculturalists. Their propensity to excuse Islamic extremism is epitomized by French postmodernist Michel Foucault, who, Walzer writes, justified "the brutality of the Iranian revolution" on the grounds that "Iran doesn't 'have the same regime of truth as ours.'”

But surely, argues Walzer, the respect for the dignity of the individual expressed in basic human rights, democracy, and the rule of law is not a Western idea, but rather a universal one that the West has embraced and seeks to champion at home and abroad.

How then, according to Walzer, should the left respond to the challenge of Islamist zealotry? The left must admit that the progressive belief in the inevitable triumph of science and 

secularism has proven both elusive and facile. Leftists should attempt to understand the theological bases of Islamist morality and politics. This will enable them to distinguish between Islamic zealotry and Islam in all its contemporary complexity and historical richness. And, having shed their own ideological blinders, it will allow the left to grasp the transnational menace the Islamist zealots pose to freedom, equality, toleration, and pluralism.

Walzer's analysis and recommendations are eminently sensible. It is a measure of the extremism that grips much of the left that in an exchange in Dissent following the article, Yale political scientist Andrew March greets them with barely disguised disdain.

A self-proclaimed leftist, March stresses his commitment to understanding Muslim religious claims. But he seems to confuse understanding Islam with an uncritical sympathy for those who profess it. For example, he bitterly asserts that "the war against violent Islamism is taking care of itself" although he fails to provide a shred of evidence that Islamists in Libya, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Iran are on the run, or that zealotry is abating. March maintains that criticism of imperialism, colonialism, and global capitalism is in short supply, which will come as a surprise to anyone familiar with our universities. And he refuses to join Walzer in regarding the Islamists as enemies; March finds too much uncertainty about what can be done in the greater Islamic world to promote "left-liberal political goals" to take a stand.

In replying to March's tutorial on the imperatives of an authentic leftism, Walzer exhibits admirable restraint. Even if Islamist zealotry were a response to "colonialism, imperialism, and global capitalism," Walzer rightly notes, it would still be necessary for the left to understand why the zealots embraced radical Islam and not, for example, Marxism, as well as to examine precisely what Islamist beliefs demand from the faithful.

To March's argument that as a leftist, Walzer should forthrightly oppose the massive state violence directed at the Islamists, Walzer responds that "the left-wing anti-communism of Dissent in its early years" was subject to analogous criticism. But many of those who apologized for or defended Stalin, Walzer trenchantly observes, "went on to defend or apologize for third-world dictators who call themselves anti-imperialists and for terrorists who call themselves liberators -- and now for Islamist zealots."

While March prefers to dwell on the crimes of the West and boasts of his belief in reform arising from within the Islamic world, Walzer counters with a hard fact: "the America he [March] excoriates is right now the only force effectively opposing or, at least, containing, the power of ISIS and therefore the beheadings and the mass executions and the enslavement of Yazidi girls."

Hopefully, Michael Walzer's bracing critique of his fellow leftists will ascend speedily to the top of Barack Obama's reading list.

//

 Peter Berkowitz is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.  His writings are posted at www.PeterBerkowitz.com and you can follow him on Twitter @BerkowitzPeter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)EXCLUSIVE: EXCLUSIVE: Iran to Produce Modern Combat Aircraft to Trace US, 

Israeli Stealth Planes 


TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian Air Force commander announced on Sunday that 
the country is planning to build a new high-tech combat aircraft capable of 
tracing US and Israeli modern and stealth planes. 

"… we will manufacture an aircraft on Saeqeh platform which will be equipped 
with Fourth generation (and even higher) avionics …," Commander of Air 
Force's Owj Complex Colonel Houshang Monfaredzadeh said in an exclusive 
interview with FNA on Sunday. 

He reiterated that Iran is reaching a level of expertise that it will soon 
be able to manufacture a totally different aircraft in terms of electronic, 
radar and avionic systems as well as weaponry equipment. 

Asked why Saeqeh platform is used for developing new planes, Colonel 
Monfaredzadeh said, "In all parts of the world it is the same and they 
choose the platform of one of their aircraft (for developing others) and we 
have also selected Saeqeh for this purpose …" 

In September 2010, Iran displayed the first squadron of its Saeqeh fighters 
in an air show staged during the military parades at the beginning of the 
Week of Sacred Defense, marking Iranians' sacrifices during the 8 years of 
Iraqi imposed war on Iran in 1980s. 

In September 2011, the Iranian Air Force's first squadron of home-made 
Saeqeh fighter jets started operations during the large offensive air drills 
codenamed "Fadaeeyan-e Harim-e Vellayat III" in Northwestern Iran. 

Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Air Force Brigadier General Alireza 
Barkhor announced in February that the new model of Iran's home-made Saeqeh 
jet fighter would be unveiled in the future. 

"We will fly the new model of Iran's new Saeqeh fighter very soon," 
Brigadier General Barkhor said. 

Also in the same month, Iranian Air Force Commander Brigadier General Hassan 
Shah Safi announced that his forces had focused all their power and energy 
on building fighter jets as they believed that future wars were fought and 
won in the sky. 

“It is obvious that future wars will be in the sky with massive air and 
missile raids; therefore, the Air Force has adopted a new approach and 
focused all its internal power on building fighter jets in a self-driven, 
but organized way,” Shah Safi said, addressing foreign states’ military 
attachés in Iran. 

He said that the Iranian Air Force’s efforts had resulted in the building of 
Saeqeh fighter jets. 

Yet, the Air Force commander reiterated the defensive doctrine of the 
Islamic Republic, saying Tehran had the narrowest military budget among the 
regional countries. 

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in the defense sector and 
gained self-sufficiency in essential military hardware and defense systems. 

The country has repeatedly made it clear that its military might is merely 
based on the state's defense doctrine of deterrence and that it poses no 
threat to other countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Obama’s National Security Strategy: Everything Is Awesome


The Russia bear is eating Ukraine, the Middle East’s jihadis are role-playing Mohammad’s own wars, China’s wealthy nerds are tunneling through the Internet to steal anything they can find, unskilled Latin-American migrants are rushing the border and young Americans can’t get decent jobs, but President Obama’s national security adviser says Americans shouldn’t worry.

“What’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective,” Susan Rice said at a Feb. 6 briefing intended to explain her boss’ national security strategy.

“Yes, there’s a lot going on,” but it’s not as threatening as during the Cold War when the nation faced the prospect of utter nuclear annihilation, she said.

“While the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War,” she said.

She echoed that don’t-worry-be-calm explanation in a Feb. 6 op-ed, saying “the challenges we face require strategic patience and persistence.”

In fact, she patiently explained in her D.C. speech, “we can’t afford to be buffeted by alarmism and an instantaneous news cycle.”

Obama certainly isn’t worried about the wars, migrations, foreign economic growth and threats.

“I travel all around the world, I know the economies of every country in the world,” he told a friendly crowd in Indianapolis, Ind., shortly after Rice gave her speech in D.C.

“People talk about China and they talk about Germany and they talk about India — nobody has got better cards than we do if we make good decisions together… we always end up doing the right thing after we’ve tried everything else,” he said.

Obama’s imitation of Dr. Pangloss — a vain and over-optimistic character in a 1759 novel, “Candide” — isn’t helping his polls.

Only 37 percent of the public gives him a positive rating in foreign policy, according to the Real Clear Politics’ polling average.

Or maybe he isn’t channeling Pangloss, but Emmet Brickowski, the dull and unimaginative construction worker in the 2014 Lego movie. Brickowski’s favorite song is “Everything is 

Awesome.”

“Everything is awesome.

“Everything is cool when you’re part of a team.

“Everything is awesome when we’re living our dream.

“Everything is better when we stick together,
“Side by side, you and I gonna win forever, let’s party forever,

“We’re the same, I’m like you, you’re like me, we’re all working in harmony.”

Their statements came one day after Iran-backed rebels overthrew the U.S.-backed government of Yemen, home to a growing jihadi affiliate of al-Qaida.

In the same week, Russian forces pushed deeper into Ukraine, Iran continued to play hardball in nuke talks, China’s government-controlled media warned Obama to not meet the exiled Tibetan leader at a D.C. prayer breakfast and Libyan factions continued to wage their war for control of the oil-rich country, four years after Obama intervened in 2011 to remove its dictatorial government.

Yet Rice remains relaxed. “There will be setbacks, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions,” she said.

But the new foreign policy is principally designed to help Obama’s diverse domestic constituencies and his personal ideological priorities, not to help Americans prosper outside the control of centralized government.

Rice also pushed cultural reform, saying, “We believe that all humans are created equal and are worthy of the same love and respect—including our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters,” she said.

“These [sexual issues] are fundamental to who we are [and]… If we reduce disparities, which can lead to instability and violence, we increase our shared security,” she said, without offering an example.

“American leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change,” said Rice. “The science is clear. The impacts of climate change will only worsen over time—even longer droughts, more severe storms, more forced migration.”

“We’ve reduced the population of Guantanamo by nearly half, and while there are tough challenges ahead, we mean to keep going until we finish the job,” she insisted, without mentioning how the U.S. military loses vital information from interrogations once captured jihadis are provided lawyers.

Rice’s call for “strategic patience,” underlines Obama’s eagerness to ignore the disasters in his conduct of foreign policy, and his focus on his top two political priorities — boosting immigration and electing a Democrat in 2016.

“We have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any nation on Earth,” Obama declared to his supporters in Indianapolis. “We’ve got to make some decisions about what that future looks like.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------