Obama's Failed Diplomacy: North Korea Detonates A-Bomb

I recall all of the bluster, indignation, and superiority when it came to Barry's criticism of President Bush. Barry's life has had not one job in it's cv that included having to: meet a payroll consistently; get rough hands from manual labor, which also includes learning about similar working-class men and how they think and feel; perform as a manager of anything, but he sure did act like his worldview and new way of engaging with our neighbors would pave the way to peace and prosperity for all.

Getting our neighbors to "unclench their fists", and all that, see. According to Barry, the US is to blame for all of the tensions in the Middle East, especially President Bush, and now that POTUS 43 is gone it's time for the Harvard approach.

After many months of Barry's new approach to North Korea, this is what we reap:

WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea may be preparing for its third nuclear test, a show of defiance as the United Nations considers new sanctions on the dictatorship for conducting an underground nuclear explosion in May, according to a U.S. government official.

North Korea conducted an underground explosion on May 25, its first since a 2006 atomic test. The official, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the unreleased information, would not provide details regarding the assessment.

A draft U.N. resolution proposed Wednesday would impose tough sanctions on North Korea's weapons exports and financial dealings and allow inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas. North Korea has threatened to retaliate if new sanctions are adopted.

North Korea already is a pariah to many countries and has been under tough economic sanctions for years. Last month's reported test defied a Security Council resolution adopted after the North's first underground atomic blast in October 2006.

The White House National Security Council would not comment on the assessment of a possible third nuclear test in the works.

"We have come to expect North Korea to act recklessly and dangerously," NSC spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement. "But while the world unites to pass a strong new Security Council resolution, it is clear that North Korea's behavior is succeeding only in further isolating itself."

President Barack Obama's special envoy on North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, said Thursday that the United States is determined to make sure the North faces serious consequences for its growing missile and nuclear threat.

Bosworth told lawmakers at a hearing that the Obama administration is considering freezing North Korean accounts at banks outside the country. Similar action by the George W. Bush administration infuriated the North and effectively severed it from the international financial system and led to a breakdown in nuclear talks.

But Bosworth also said Obama wants to talk to Pyongyang, either through the six-nation mechanism or directly.

North Korea has so far spurned the administration's attempts at engagement, Bosworth said. The North will come back to disarmament talks eventually, he said, but not soon.

For now, Bosworth said, North Korea will "suffer consequences if it does not reverse course."

Also on Thursday, CIA Director Leon Panetta said U.S. intelligence agencies are watching North Korea very closely in hopes of detecting or preventing North Korea's sale of nuclear and missile expertise and technology "to anyone willing to pay."

North Korea is a hard target to spy on but "we are making good progress," Panetta said.

The administration's approach to confronting North Korea will be an "important signal" for how it will deal with Iran if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons, he said.

The United States accuses Iran of secretly trying to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the allegation.

In Brussels, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said there are no indications North Korea is making preparations for a military strike.

Gates says the Pyongyang regime is unpredictable, however, so he does not dismiss the threats. (source)

Barry In Charge: Silencing The Opposition (firing IG your way, despite sponsoring a bill last year dictating another way)

As noted here, the Obama administration has wasted little time deconstructing the safeguards our Constitution has emplaced to prevent the Executive Branch from abuse of power.

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Calls on administration to safeguard independence of Inspectors General

6/12/2009

For Immediate Release

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Grassley calls on administration to safeguard independence of Inspectors General

WASHINGTON --- Senator Chuck Grassley is urging the administration to follow the letter and spirit of the law, which the President co-sponsored as legislation as a U.S. senator in 2007, regarding the dismissal of the Inspector General for the AmeriCorps program, after reports last night that administration officials gave the watchdog an hour to resign or be terminated.

Grassley said it looks like the White House is today modifying its stance and saying that last night’s ultimatum started the 30-day notification clock. “Either way, it looks like the letter and spirit of the law Congress passed last year to try to safeguard the independence of Inspectors General from the heavy hand of the executive branch that it’s supposed to oversee might have been circumvented,” he said.

Grassley has worked for many years to empower Inspectors General to act as effective watchdogs for taxpayers and federal program beneficiaries. He’s also worked to hold Inspectors General accountable when they’ve failed to fulfill the responsibilities of the role. Grassley has conducted extensive and active oversight of the federal bureaucracy.

“The importance of constant, independent review of the work of federal agencies has been proven again and again, and Inspectors General are a key part of that effort,” Grassley said. “Congress recognized the need for independence when it passed the reform legislation last year requiring congressional notification 30 days prior to removal. Inspectors General need to know they have independence and won’t be removed for arbitrary reasons. The public needs confidence that the watchdogs can hold the bureaucracy accountable.”

The text of Grassley’s letter to the President is below.

June 11, 2009

Barack Obama

President of the United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I was troubled to learn that last night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatim to the Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated. As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions. Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure. This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.

Last year, President Bush signed the Inspector General Reform Act (P.L. 110-409) into law. Both you and I were cosponsors of this important legislation that was introduced to strengthen the independence and integrity of the Inspectors General. One of the most important provisions of the legislation we cosponsored was Section 3 which amended the procedures for the removal of Inspectors General. Specifically, Section 3 requires that, “the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance.

As you may recall, the Senate Committee Report (S. Rep. 110-262) accompanying the Inspector General Reform Act stated the intent of Congress. That report stated:

***

“The Committee intends that Inspectors General who fail to perform their duties properly whether through malfeasance or nonfeasance, or whose personal actions bring discredit upon the office, be removed. The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

***

Given that you were a cosponsor of this vital legislation I am deeply troubled to learn of the ultimatum given Inspector General Walpin absent Congressional notification.

There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in Americorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines.[1] In other words, it appears he has been doing his job.

We cannot afford to have Inspector General independence threatened. In light of the massive increases in federal spending of late, it is more critical than ever that we have an Inspector General community that is vigorous, independent, and active in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you cosponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any Inspector General.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

United States Senator (source)

Barry In Charge: Silencing The Opposition (Baucus forbids fellow Dems from working with Republicans)

Baucus Aides Warn K Street

By David M. Drucker, Anna Palmer and Kate Ackley
Roll Call Staff
June 11, 2009, 12 a.m.

Top aides to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called a last-minute, pre-emptive strike on Wednesday with a group of prominent Democratic lobbyists, warning them to advise their clients not to attend a meeting with Senate Republicans set for Thursday.

Russell Sullivan, the top staffer on Finance, and Jon Selib, Baucus’ chief of staff, met with a bloc of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former Baucus aides.

“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting.

“Going to the Republican meeting will say, ‘I’m interested in working with Republicans to stop health care reform,’” the lobbyist added.

Republican leaders have been meeting with health care stakeholders for months, with those sessions occurring “more frequently than once a month,” according to a senior Senate GOP aide.

The stated purpose of Thursday's meeting, organized by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), is to discuss proposals for how to pay for health care reform.

But the underlying motivation for the get-together is to encourage health care lobbyists and stakeholders concerned about the Democrats’ health care reform plans to speak out publicly.

“They need to speak up,” one Senate Republican leadership aide said. “They need to help us help them.”

Thune said Democrats are using threats and intimidation to keep unhappy stakeholders silent.

“If you don’t engage on this thing, this train’s leaving the station,” Thune said. “If you want [Republicans] to have more influence, you’ve got to engage.”

One longtime health care lobbyist agreed that the GOP frustration is spilling out of the Capitol and onto K Street.

“It is notable that Republicans are really finding their voice, and their level of frustration is building with the stakeholders’ inability or refusal to speak out,” this lobbyist said. “They’re getting frustrated. Republicans are doing it themselves.”

One senior Democratic source charged that Thune’s meeting and the supposed motives behind it are in fact a smoke screen for killing health care reform altogether.

“While Democrats and many Republicans are working collaboratively to reform health care, a small group of Republicans appear all too eager to derail this promising, bipartisan effort,” this source said. “It’s politics as usual, it’s disheartening and it’s a shame.”

Senate Republicans are opposed to plans by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats to implement a government-run, public plan option as a part of health care reform. They also are concerned with how Democrats plan to pay for reform.

Recognizing they don’t have the votes to stop legislation on their own, Republicans are pushing their natural allies in the business community to help bring public pressure to bear as another way to influence the outcome.

Obama has set Oct. 15 as the deadline for approval of health care reform, and Democratic leaders in Congress are rushing to clear bills from their respective chambers by the end of July.

“Our effort has been to get these folks to speak their mind,” one senior Senate Republican aide said.

After months of holding their tongues while inclusive, bipartisan negotiations continued in the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees, the business community has now considered speaking out, given their displeasure with the HELP panel’s reform bill, which was made public on Tuesday.

But with Baucus’ office still warning dissenters that anyone who makes their opposition public could be permanently excluded from future negotiations, the groups representing businesses, health care providers, hospitals and similar stakeholders are still wavering on whether to voice their concerns publicly.

The lineup of lobbyists who attended the Wednesday session included a cast of Democratic insiders similar to that at previous meetings convened by Baucus’ staff. The participants included: Jeff Forbes, a former Baucus chief of staff who lobbies at Cauthen Forbes & Williams; Jonathon Jones, a partner with Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart; Tarplin Strategies’ Rich Tarplin, an assistant secretary at Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration; another former Baucus top aide, David Castagnetti, of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti and OB-C Group founder Larry O’Brien.

Democratic sources noted Wednesday that Baucus is courting Republican support and remains committed to treating all stakeholders fairly.

On Wednesday, he met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the Capitol, part of a marathon day of bipartisan meetings that included a session with his GOP colleagues at the White House and discussions with Republican members of the Finance Committee.

“Chairman Baucus wants to continue to keep health care stakeholders informed of the progress on health reform,” said the Senator’s Finance Committee spokesman, Scott Mulhauser. “This is a lengthy, transformative process, and meetings like these are an essential part of the ongoing, bipartisan effort to continue to keep everyone at the table working together.”

One lobbyist who attended the Wednesday meeting with Baucus’ staff said that the message was more bipartisan. “They said they anticipate having a bipartisan bill and that the process is going well with Republicans,” this lobbyist said. But, the lobbyist added, Baucus’ team did warn, “If your clients attack the process or the product, it’s going to be hard to work with you.”

As for Baucus, he told reporters earlier this week that he was not aware of health care stakeholders being threatened by his staff to play ball with the Finance Committee-led negotiations or risk being blackballed from the process.

“I’m sure they can all say what they want to say,” Baucus said, referring to GOP accusations that health care lobbyists have been subject to intimidations and threats. “It’s news to me. I don’t think so. I don’t know of any.”

Republican lobbyists said they have not felt any threats from their party.

“For a while, Republicans have cautioned industry to be careful about getting in bed with the administration or Kennedy or Baucus too early,” said Janet Grissom, a lobbyist at Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart, who was once a top aide to McConnell.

“Having said that, they recognize if you’re in business you can’t ignore the decision-makers out there. While they are unhappy and think that a lot of the health care sector is being naive in thinking they can work together, they recognize that’s how this town works.” (source)

Barry In Charge: "Just Words"? - The Case Of Mirandizing The Enemy (while he kills you)

Isn’t it bewildering to try to crawl inside a liberal’s head, and follow along their thought processes? They feign indignation and condemnation if you suggest “my country, right or wrong” to them. It’s off to the races about the Ugly American, how nationalism has been over with since the sixties, and if I wasn’t so stupid I would know that it’s all relative, man. Makes it hard to follow when they’re so far past my linear thinking, of course. Anything you say in that conversation is going to be met with: the Indians; slavery; Jim Crow laws; etc. And you will either have to waste a lot of breath disecting their stance of moral equivalence between us and the terrorists, or you will give up.

Having not given up yet, I find this deathgrip by Obama around the notion that it is BEST to divulge our innermost interrogation procedures and other secrets never revealed before to be nothing short of strangling the baby in the crib. Our stance against the Middle East has been put off since the 1972 oil embargo, done by OPEC in alliance against our support of Israel, which amounts to an act of economic terrorism. Add to that the more lethal acts of terrorist activities–hijackings, kidnappings, and bombings have followed for the past 35 years–and it becomes obvious that our attention to the problem has been compromised because of oil for far too long.

When we finally begin to fight not the oil shieks and the ruling families, but the crazy lunatic fringe who control to some degree the king’s population, we are met with what seems to be operatic hues and cries from the Left. All of the “Bush lied, people died”, has seemed so juvenile and niave from the moment it went up on the MSM, but…we have actually become sidelined because of it.

And now, we actually see a grown adult try to commit Americide. He is helped along by the conversation between regular Americans, many misguided, that goes something like this:

YOU: Well, we sure are handing the enemy everything he needs to win this war, thanks to Obama.

THEM: It’s international law we’re worried about. We have to follow these rules of engagement when we do war.

YOU: Does al Qaeda follow those rules?

THEM: Doesn’t matter.

YOU: Really? How does that work?

THEM: We need to Mirandize battlefield combatants we catch, so as to lead the world by example, then they’ll see the error of their ways and do the same.

YOU: So, you have faith that the Islamic Brotherhood will reform their jihadist ways if we set the example first…

THEM: Yes.

YOU: But you don’t have any faith that abstinence programs work for teenage American girls.

Obama Administration Says Some Detainees Overseas Are Being Mirandized -- and Bush Did It, Too

June 11, 2009 9:51 AM

The Obama administration announced this week that some detainees captured and held abroad have been read Miranda rights to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution.

Administration officials say the Bush administration did this as well in some instances relating to certain criminal cases.

They would not offer specifics in any of the cases, whether under President Obama or President Bush.

The question of detainees being Mirandized was raised by the Weekly Standard's Steven Hayes who wrote that "the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee."

The Obama administration took issue with the notion that this was a blanket policy change, one ordered by the Justice Department.

"There has been no policy change and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

Miranda rights come from the 1966 Supreme Court ruling Miranda v. Arizona. They are a way to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

While the actual Miranda rights differ in different states, they adhere to the court ruling that "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her."

The ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., told Hayes that he was concerned about this news.

"It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent," Hoekstra said. "Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up."

In March, President Obama told 60 Minutes that "the whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."(source)

Michelle In A Week

The last time I saw an African American so well-off try so hard to sound so pitiful was back in my college days in the 90's. Only the upper class try to imitate the lower class.

Rush Interview On Hannity 06/03/09

Barry In Charge: After Tripling The US Debt In His First Three Months, Barry Now Wants Financial Responsibility

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.

The "pay-as-you-go" budget formula plan is significantly weaker than a proposal Obama issued with little fanfare last month.

It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years. But over a decade, Congress would have to come up with money to cover those early year deficits.

Obama's latest proposal for addressing deficits urges Congress to pass a law requiring lawmakers to pay for new spending programs and tax cuts without further adding to exploding deficits projected to total about $10 trillion over the next decade.

If new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs -- although Social Security payments and the Medicaid health care program for poor and disabled would be exempt and cuts to Medicare would be sharply limited.

"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

Last month Obama suggested a tougher plan that would prohibit Congress from swelling the deficit in one year by putting off until later years the tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.

The requirement for legislation to be financed over the coming decade generally mirrors existing congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that Obama's health care plan will add many billions of dollars to the deficit in the early years. Savings and revenues in later years would have to make up for the initial deficits.

Congress lived under a so-called "pay-go" regime in the 1990s and the early years of this decade. But it didn't stop lawmakers from passing President George W. Bush's landmark 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and big increases in farm subsidies without making the required spending cuts elsewhere. A $127 billion surplus in 2001 subsequently turned into deficits over the next four years of $159 billion, $377 billion, $413 billion and $319 billion.

The rules still exist and lawmakers routinely find ways around them. For example, a bill to effectively double GI Bill education benefits was enacted last year. Congress also regularly waives the rules to pass an annual "patch" to the alternative minimum tax, sparing some 20 million families from a $2,000 tax increase on average.

Still, Democrats profess a faith in pay-as-you-go rules.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said.

In fact, the surpluses of the late 1990s were largely due to a huge influx of tax revenues from a booming economy.

Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., said the House is likely to pass Obama's latest proposal next month. The plan faces far tougher sledding in the Senate, where Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has expressed serious reservations.

Conrad said Obama's proposal does nothing about the fiscal perils the country already faces, including deficits that the Congressional Budget Office predicts will average nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade.

"I remain concerned about the potential effect of this proposal on American farmers, seniors and veterans," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans said new budget rules ring hollow in the wake of the Obama-championed $787 billion stimulus package and other deficit spending. They said legal limits on appropriations should be put into place as they were in the 1990s, though such "caps" were easily evaded when surpluses appeared.

Congress is just ramping up the annual appropriations process, which in the House would award increases averaging 12 percent to non-defense programs. Obama's proposal does not include the comparable "caps" from the 1990s.

"Time after time this year, Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation."

Obama's proposal would require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere. But again, he carves out several exceptions, including for an extension of Bush's tax cuts due to expire in 2011 and relief from the alternative minimum tax.

The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high. The record borrowing is credited with pushing up interest rates, which could imperil chances for a recovery later in the year. (source)

Barry In Charge: Pravda Says It Best: Obama Is Our Gorbacev

History may repeat itself two or three times or even reach the point, which Francis Fukuyama described as the end of history. The US historian of Japanese origin introduced the notion during the time when there were two dominating superpowers in the world – the United States and the Soviet Union.

When the USSR collapsed and Russia lost much of its international influence, the USA became the world’s number one gendarme. That was the time, when US presidents started making one mistake after another. Their mistakes eventually led to the phenomenon, which is currently known as the clash of civilizations. America needed an enemy. America needed oil. Both were found in one country – Iraq.

US President George W. Bush declared the date of September 11, 2001 as the beginning of new history in the world and announced the crusade against the international terrorism, which took roots in radical countries of the Muslim world.

Pakistan found itself involved in the US-led war in Afghanistan. The relations between the United States and Iran were finally ruined and were balancing on the brink of war during the last year of Bush’s presidency.

The new president of the United States of America, the first Afro-American of the Muslim origin, Barack Hussein Obama, had to face the severe reality of Bush’s legacy.

As soon as the United States found itself in the middle of the economic crisis, the administration of the country decided that it was the best time to launch the struggle for peace in the whole world. This is exactly what Mikhail Gorbachev was doing during the agony of the Soviet Union.

Barack Obama did not say anything when Israeli troops were destroying residential quarters in the Gaza Strip during the Cast Lead operation in Palestine. Obama was as silent as a sphinx.

The sphinx started talking.

Obama said during his landmark speech at the Cairo University that the state of affairs in Palestine was unbearable. He also emphasized that the USA’s ties with Israel were indestructible. Obama quoted the Holy Book of all Muslims, the Qur’an and urged the people of all religions to live in peace with each other. However, good words do not leave a sweet taste in the mouth.

Obama says that it would be good to give a new incentive to the dialogue with the Muslim world. Will the US administration be able to recognize the rights of the Palestinian Authority to create an independent state? Will the US administration ever realize that the Muslim world is not a pack of cards which the USA can play to win the geopolitical leadership?

History repeats itself. The Mideastern tour of the Afro-American head of the White House was promoted as a new page in the relations between America and the Muslim world. As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama simply did what his predecessors had done before him.

Ivan Tulyakov (source)

Barry In Charge: A Study In Religion pt II: Is America A Muslim Nation?

Barry In Charge: A Study In Religion pt I: Is America A Christian Nation?

Forget about the Pilgrims, the Puritans, and the values explained in our founding documents. Barry has come from a higher place than we, poor, wretched common folk. We are the simpletons who still "cling to the Bible and guns".

He knows better, though. He knows that because you can't find the exact legal phrase in any of our documents, that America's soul can't be Christian. He is, after all, a Harvard-educated lawyer.