WASHINGTON

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year’s huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy’s free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. “We must take these emergency measures,” he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party. Lori Montgomery, Washington Post

So let’s get this straight: influence-peddling local politicians drive their local and state governments bankrupt by pushing social programs and wacky environmental projects. Faced with deficits they seek to pay for their social programs by cutting education and essential services. Then faced with this “crisis” they created by mismanagement they seek money from the Obama administration.

So financially conservative states now need to fund irresponsible states. Iowans and Texans need to send their money to help politicians prop up their administrations in California, Chicago and Detroit. This fits in well with the Progressive aim to enact social and economic justice. It’s way past time for taxpayers to quit putting up with this nonsense.

The fact is, the birth certificate controversy is only the beginning of the presidential mystery. There is so much we don’t know for certain about President Obama. Inexplicably but intriguigingly, he has failed to produce his bona fides, while the media (and the White House media in particular), who could ask for them, don’t care, or don’t want to care. Diana West.

1. The original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate….
2. Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3. Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4. Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5. Records of Obama’s and his mother’s reptriation as US citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6. Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7. Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
8. Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9. Occidental College financial aid records — not released. (These records were, however, subpoenaed but Obama lawyers succeeded in quashing the subpoena in court. No other Occi records have been released.)
10. Columbia College records — not released
11. Columbia senior thesis — not released
12. Harvard Law School records (not mentioned below, but not released)
13. Obama’s law client list — sealed
14. Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator — sealed
15. Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16. Obama’s medical records — not released
17. Obama’s passport records — not released

For 25 even more compelling questions read Diana West’s column here.

Obama Lectures Netanyahu

WASHINGTON: Obama’s willingness to offend our allies while coddling our enemies is doing tremendous damage to long-standing alliances that have been in place during both Democratic and Republican administrations. Obama highlighted his shift in Middle East policy in a news conference on April 13th:

It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday [April 13th], but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests. Mark Landler and Helene Cooper, NY Times

Obama has placed restrictions on Israeli settlements as a precondition for Middle East peace talks. You may remember when candidate Obama cited his willingness to meet with any totalitarian regime without preconditions, he was rebuffed by Iran who insisted on conditions of their own, embarrassing the United States and winning prestige from the Arab world in the process.

In dealing with our allies Obama is not so generous, our allies must wish they were treated as well as our enemies. Obama wants to call the shots and dictate conditions over Israel’s own capitol city, and he gets mad when he doesn’t get his way. Apparently he’s vindictive and is not afraid to humiliate Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to prove a point. We here at the NIP wish he would be as bold with our enemies as he is with our friends.

Obama’s bellicosity with Israel is destabilizing the Middle East and is sure to bring repercussions that will affect the US. The following letter from the World Jewish Congress shows that Jews around the world understand that, why don’t we?

Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.” This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this: what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety. Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel? Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace. But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above. Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy. It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people. In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

Shortly after your election I wrote the following letter to you. In retrospect it appears that you ignored all my suggestions. In fact, it seems plain that you did exactly what I was afraid you would do. To drive home the point I have reproduced the letter in its entirety here. It was first published by the New Media Journal on January 14, 2009, shortly before your inauguration. I don’t expect you to change now, either. You seem relentlessly determined to persist in the most breathtakingly mindless, destructive policies ever pursued by a sitting president. But I do reproduce it here to show that your intentions were painfully clear to many of us from the beginning, and that awareness has grown to encompass a huge swath – if not a majority - of the voting public. The emperor truly has no clothes. Your intentions are bare naked before the world.

Jim Simpson’s original prophetic letter to Obama:  Read more…

President Obama pronounced “corpsman” as “corpse man” twice in the same address. This mispronunciation has caused quite a bit of ridicule about a man who ascended to the presidency based upon his rhetorical skills. Mark Whittington, Associated Content

Maybe they understand fakery when they see it, but whatever the reason, the video below demonstrates the heartfelt difference Marines feel when it comes time to recognize their Commander-in-Chief. The video shows you side-by-side comparisons of the troops responses to Bush vs. Obama. The difference is striking. At the end of the Obama clip even the commentator remarks on the “tepid response” of the troops to their CiC.

Obama’s obvious lack of familiarity with our armed services should give all concerned citizens pause when considering Obama’s recommendations on foreign and military policies. This video shows that our troops are concerned, shouldn’t you be too?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

DETROIT: President Obama addressed the nation on January 5th in response to criticism of his handling of the Christmas day terrorist attack. Early in his speech he tried to squelch criticism of his initial 4 day delay by asserting now it was a matter “of the utmost urgency.” He found fault with screeners and every agency he could think of. He announced tightened restrictions on all US citizen passengers as a fix for the problem, as well as his assurance that “We will close Guantanomo prison.”

For all his fault-finding he glaringly failed to address his own failure. Obama is trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a mere criminal defendant in the courts of Detroit. If Abdulmutallab were charged as the unlawful combatant he is, the military would be able to gain intelligence that would be invaluable in fighting the war on terror.

Is the United States at war? President Obama claimed that we are. In his remarks Obama reaffirmed the fact that the country is at war with al-Qaeda. Yet, as we are now all aware, this is not a traditional war involving an enemy state and uniformed soldiers. Rather al-Qaeda members pose as airline passengers placing bombs in their underwear and shoes, hardly conventional tactics. So in kind, President Obama has adopted an unconventional policy in dealing with al-Qaeda that is mudding the waters in the fight against jihadism.

Under the Bush administration, al-Qaeda members were declared unlawful combatants. The term enemy combatant consistent with the United States Supreme Court, refers to “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

1864 Geneva Treaty

Enemy combatants are further separated into two subclasses, lawful and unlawful. Uniformed soldiers are considered lawful combatants and receive prisoner of war status among other protections under the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants consist of citizens, not soldiers, who directly engage in armed conflict and are not recognized under the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration determined that al-Qaeda members are unlawful combatants. They did so because al-Qaeda is a non-state terrorist organization and therefore does not receive protections under the Geneva Convention.

Whomever happens to be the President of the United States in a time of war has complete authority to detain enemy combatants during wartime and has done so in every major conflict in the Nation’s history. The purpose of the enemy combatant designation is to gather intelligence and to ensure that enemy combatants do not return to assist the enemy. Sadly, this is exactly what occurred last year when President Obama allowed several enemy combatants to be set free. The Pentagon reported that a number of these released Guantanamo prisoners had rejoined militant organizations and carried out attacks. The unlawful combatant designation provides the U.S. military an important tool in gathering information and protects soldiers and citizens alike from subsequent attacks by released detainees. So why isn’t the unlawful combatant designation being applied to al-Qaeda lunatics that attempt to blow up airplanes?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The policy that the Obama administration has espoused is to charge al-Qaeda operatives in U.S. criminal court, affording them rights not available to someone classified as an unlawful combatant (as did President Bush in the case of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber). The impending NYC trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a fine example of the Obama policy. But consequently this practice of charging enemy combatants as criminals is changing the landscape of the war on terrorism. In November of last year, Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Attorney General Eric Holder asking him that if Bin Laden were captured tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings. The Attorney General was unable to provide an unambiguous answer, to which Senator Graham followed up with “The big problem…is that you’re criminalizing the war. We’ve mixed (legal) theories and we couldn’t turn (Bin Laden) over to the CIA, or the FBI or military intelligence, for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States and you are confusing the people fighting this war.”

In addition to confusing those fighting this war, the administrations criminalization of the war will cost the U.S. dearly in missed intelligence. Charging al-Qaeda operatives like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in criminal court gives the terrorist the opportunity to lawyer up and makes for a missed opportunity to interrogate him. The White House claims that although Adbulmutallab was charged under criminal law, the FBI was able to glean usable, actionable intelligence. But ultimately, Abdulmutallab stopped talking a few hours later and refused further cooperation.

In reaffirming the war, President Obama stated “As President I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people”. If the President intends to hold true to this responsibility, then he ought to make use of the options available to him. By placing an al-Qaeda operative in law enforcement hands rather than military custody, the President has shown either that he does not fully comprehend the scope of the battlefield, or he intends to replace our frontline with lawyers and judges. If this is a war, then the President must fight it as a war, not in the courtroom, but upon the battlefield.

ST. BARTS & KAILUA:

Apparently we can add Microsoft founder Paul Allen to the list of starry-eyed admirers as he was seen partying last week with Beyonce and Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s son Hannibal:

Popstar Beyonce Knowles reportedly performed at a party thrown by Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi’s son Hannibal, notorious for violence against women, for almost an hour on New Year’s Eve, New York Post reported.

The 28-year-old singer performed five songs in a sexy black leotard at the Nikki Beach club on St. Barts in front of a crowd that included her husband Jay-Z, Usher, Microsoft founder Paul Allen and Lindsay Lohan…

Just a week earlier, on Christmas Day, Hannibal, 33 — also known as Moutassim — allegedly attacked his wife, Aline Skaf, in his suite at Claridge’s in London. Three of his security staff were arrested for obstructing police. Skaf was reportedly hospitalized with a broken nose while Hannibal was whisked away in a diplomatic car.  New York Post

Hannibal (well-named) gets whisked away with diplomatic immunity while his wife is hospitalized. Then a few days later he jets to St. Barts and parties with Paul Allen, Beyonce, and other celebrities.  Despotic rulers love their glamour and their luxury and celebrities love to party with them.

While we’re at it why not compare George W. Bush’s Christmas holidays at his own home with Obama’s Christmas holidays? For the last two Christmases Obama has vacationed at a $4,000 a night villa in Hawaii while he also rents two adjacent villas for his family and friends. Let’s not forget the transportation costs to and from Hawaii for his entourage, and housing for his security staff. Kailua is known as the most beautiful beach in Hawaii and a traditional vacationing spot for royalty. What a better spot for our own royalty to soak away their stress while we are being subjected to attempted suicide bombers? Surely none of his loyal subjects complained when he didn’t even bother to make a statement about the bombing for three days.

The left’s appetite for luxury is never satiated, along with their demand that the rest of us fund them in their extravagance.