The State of Skepticism

Here is a discussion and response to Obama’s 2011 State of the Union:

Barack Obama can hold a note!

Obama Redirects

Obama unveils new strategy for 'leaner' US military

The US military will become "leaner" as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific region, US President Barack Obama has announced.

In a rare appearance at the Pentagon, he unveiled a far-reaching defence review under which thousands of troops are expected to be axed.

He said the tide of war was receding, but the US would still retain its military superiority in the world.

The Pentagon faces more than $450bn (£288bn) in cuts in the next 10 years.

"So yes, our military will be leaner," Mr Obama told reporters on Thursday, "but the world must know - the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

Joined by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, President Obama stressed that the defence budget would still grow, but at a slower pace.

He said the US was "turning the page on a decade of war" and faced a "moment of transition".

"Even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding," he said.

President Obama added: "At the same time, we have to renew our economic strength here at home, which is the foundation of our strength around the world. That includes putting our fiscal house in order."

The president said the new strategy would end "long-term, nation-building with large military footprints", with the Pentagon instead pursuing a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces".

Mr Panetta said the review would make the US military "more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy quickly".

Mr Obama has been closely involved with shaping the blueprint, meeting high-ranking defence officials six times since September.

The Sliming of Amercian Conservatism by US Left Wing Media

…But You Will Never Hear a Peep About Black Churches!

The slandering of the American conservative movement has begun

By Tim Stanley TelegraphUS politics Last updated: September 5th, 2011

The slandering of the conservative movement has begun. For the past month, American newspapers have been awash with stories about the religion of various Republican presidential candidates. Michele Bachmann was portrayed in the New Yorker as a fanatical wingnut. Like Rick Perry, she has been labelled a follower of Dominionism – the belief that God gave Christians authority over all the Earth. Writing for the Daily Beast, Michelle Golberg compared Dominionism to fundamentalist Islam and warned that the GOP was engaged in an “all-out assault” on the separation of church and state. This Sunday, the liberal economist Paul Krugman’s grand thesis that the Republicans are now the “anti-science” party was republished in The Observer. By questioning evolution and global warming, Krugman says, the GOP has lost its right to rule.

Krugman’s article is a good example of what’s wrong with this hogwash reporting. It is true that Rick Perry called evolution “just a theory”, but who cares? He’s running to be President of the United States, not an eighth grade biology teacher. He will have no influence over what textbooks schools buy or what is taught in classrooms. His views on evolution are as relevant to the presidential race as the price of petrol in Timbuktu. The fact that they are shared by millions of Americans has done nothing to dent the country’s advances in science and technology. Nor are they any more irrational than the belief that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine. Gospel stories are not only believed by many religious liberals, they are frequently quoted by Democratic presidential candidates. By the way, evolution is a theory. It is a theory constructed from individual scraps of evidence – a way of amalgamating observations into a grand design. Ergo: whenever the US deficit goes up, Paul Krugman calls for more spending – therefore we might theorise that he’s a drooling idiot. Remember: that’s just a theory, not a fact.

The assault on Dominionism is equally pernicious. In an expose piece in the New York Times, Bill Keller tells us that “I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.” He trots out the usual innuendos about evangelical Christians (they love slavery and hate evolution, and every church picnic climaxes in the ritual beheading of a transvestite). But he sneakily adds, “Neither Bachmann nor Perry has, as far as I know, pledged allegiance to the Dominionists.” Exactly. But doesn’t it make life more interesting to infer that they have?

Let’s imagine for a moment that Bachmann and Perry are Dominionists. Compare that wild and crazy faith with those held by two Democrats. Hank Johnson is the congressman from DeKalb County in Georgia and he’s a Buddhist. Specifically, he’s a follower of Daishonin Buddhism. Adherents gather regularly in large groups to sit cross-legged and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo at a portable shrine. The idea is that if they say these divine words while visualising their deepest desires, they’ll get what they’ve always wanted. Like evolution, it’s just a theory – but it’s much, much more cool.

Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is a Mormon. Many readers probably won’t know that because the mainstream media oddly doesn’t talk about it. It’s okay to call Mitt Romney a polytheist with twelve wives, but Reid is untouchable because he’s a Democrat. And yet it’s reasonable to theorise that the leader of the Senate wears the magic underwear associated with Mormonism. Is his belief that Jesus walked on American soil, anti-science? Geographers and historians would probably object.

Democratic presidential candidates regularly visit black churches, Nancy Pelosi has invoked her Catholicism so many times you might think she was a nun, and Barack Obama was married by a pastor who actively hates America. Yet Krugman suggests that only the GOP uses and abuses religion every election. More sickening is the innuendo that there is a uniquely violent subtext to conservative faith, as if every Right-winger wants to shoot an abortionist. There is no comparison between fundamentalist Islam and Dominionism: one kills and the other doesn’t. The conflation of the two is ugly and deceitful.

The Post Racial President toTake Executive Action to Help His Black Folk

A Black Community Folk of the First Order

Obama faces uncomfortable questions from black community, lawmakers

By Peter Wallsten and Krissah Thompson, Published: August 25 Washington Post

From the start of his history-making tenure, the nation’s first black president took care never to be seen making policy or political decisions aimed solely or directly at black America. His position: He is the president of the whole country, focused on broad-based fixes to “lift all boats.”

The race-avoidance strategy served President Obama well, helping him attract support from many whites while also mobilizing African Americans energized by the powerful symbol of a black commander in chief.

But a soaring jobless rate among African Americans and a newfound comfort by black lawmakers to criticize Obama’s economic policies are prompting the White House to recalibrate — and to focus more directly on the struggles of black America.

The shift comes amid a growing concern among some Democrats that the stubborn economic conditions in minority communities might hamper efforts by Obama’s reelection campaign to generate the large black voter turnout it needs in key cities to make up for his declining support among white independents.

This week, the White House dispatched a top official to participate in a Congressional Black Caucus jobs forum in Miami that had been scheduled in part to pressure the White House.

The official, Don Graves, the executive director of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, told black lawmakers that the president would consider taking executive action to enact at least parts of jobs-related measures they have introduced to no avail in the Republican-led House.

“You may not feel like the president is listening to you, but he hears you loud and clear,” Graves told the lawmakers before an audience of hundreds crammed into the pews of the Mount Hermon African Methodist Episcopal Church.

The new approach is subtle, but it is significant to African American lawmakers who have been pressing for the change since early spring. One proposal would extend aid to communities with long-standing poverty problems. Another would help the long-term unemployed.

Both ideas would help mostly minorities, said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. In steering clear of the overt race label, he added, “it’s not as in-your-face.”

“They are paying closer attention to what’s going on in the urban core of the major cities,” Cleaver said.

Several black lawmakers said they think the White House is considering additional targeted steps to boost urban communities as part of the jobs package the president plans to release shortly after Labor Day.

And the White House announced this week that Obama will pay a Labor Day visit to Detroit, a hard-hit city where a town hall meeting held by the black caucus drew headlines last week when Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) decried the black jobless rate as “unconscionable” and blasted the president for his recent Midwestern bus tour that focused on rural white communities.

The White House had also intended a major address for Sunday at the now-postponed dedication of the new memorial to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. — at which the president could speak in personal terms about the continuing economic challenges black Americans face.

Michele Bachmann is Simply Smarter than Dopey Barack Obama

If the Liberal Press wants to see the Constant Flubber Extraordinaire it need look no further than Barack Obama, but they won't. Obama is too special to be fairly examined. Questioning Obama's smarts would be, well, a little racist? The same cannot be said about Michelle Bachmann, who is the target de jour of the left wing media. Some Michelle's are open to ridicule, others get a special pass because they are so special... How do I know that? Because I just saw the Morning Moron, pig-eyed, no lips, Joe Scarborough, failing to be funny but never missing an opportunity to be stupid, this time about Michelle Bachmann.

____________________________

• President Obama’s lack of experience with royalty was on full display today in England as he mistakenly began a toast to the Queen of England at the wrong time, resulting in “God Save the Queen” blaring over his words and no one getting to drink what was in their cups. Awkward. “And now I propose a toast to the Queen,” President Obama began in London today, but only got as far as “To the vitality of the special relationship” before “God Save the Queen” cut him off. He kept reading the toast, however, and finally raised his glass to her. No one drank out of their glasses afterwards, however. The Queen herself looked over at him with a hint of contempt (confusion?) in her face, while the other members of the royal family stood stoically around them.

• President Obama flubbed his remarks to troops at Fort Drum Thursday when he told the US Army’s 10th Mountain Division about the time he awarded the first Medal of Honor to someone not receiving it posthumously. The medal, he said, went to Jared Monti. The only issue is that Jared Monti died in service in Afghanistan, and did in fact receive the medal posthumously.

• St. Paul--Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has been criticized in recent weeks for her unintentional revisions of history, but on Monday President Obama revealed he could use a refresher course in American history as well. In an interview Monday with reporter Brad Watson of WFAA-TV of Dallas, Obama seemed to confuse the state’s current political history with its Democrat past. “Texas has always been a pretty Republican state,” Obama said, when asked why the President was so unpopular in Texas. In fact, since the Civil War and until 1980, the Lone Star state swung toward the Democratic candidate in 23 of 27 presidential elections.

• WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama sees his secretary of defense just about every day, but he still flubbed Robert Gates' name on Thursday. Gates was in the crowd for Obama's national security speech. Pointing him out, the president said "William Gates" was on hand. Perhaps Obama was thinking of Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire. The defense chief, who goes by Bob, was also misidentified at a Pentagon ceremony on Tuesday. Then, he was introduced as Ronald Gates.

Obama spreads the word of his own awesomeness

Nile Gardiner

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

Barack Obama pays tribute to himself during Angela Merkel's White House visit

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: June 7th, 2011

Obama spreads the word of his own awesomeness

The visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Washington has attracted little attention in the US media, perhaps further proof that Berlin barely ranks as a world power these days, and consistently punches under its weight in international affairs. Compared to both David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel is a remarkably low-key figure when it comes to global impact, despite the size of the German economy.

Judging by the content of today’s joint press conference in the White House East Room, which has to rank as among the most dull in recent memory, almost nothing of any real substance come out of the US-German discussions. Merkel gave no ground on Berlin’s refusal to join the NATO-led military operation in Libya, and bizarrely championed the cause of European integration while the EU economic project is going up in flames back home.

Obama declared that he wasn’t concerned about the prospect of a “double-dip recession”, while noting that “we’re experiencing some headwinds”, i.e. some catastrophic bad news on the economic front. He also gave Iran yet another half-hearted warning over its extremely well-advanced nuclear programme, threatening “additional steps, including potentially additional sanctions” – whatever that means. In the meantime, Germany remains a huge trading partner with Tehran, actually increasing its trade with the Islamist, terrorist-supporting regime in 2010.

By far the most telling part of the day’s proceedings came in the president’swelcoming address for his German counterpart on the South Lawn of the White House, where he could not resist a reference to his own rise to the highest office in the land, even comparing it with the momentous changes in eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. Here is what he said:

And finally, as people around the world imagine a different future, the story of Germany and our alliance in the 20th century shows what’s possible in the 21st. Wars can end. Adversaries can become allies. Walls can come down. At long last, nations can be whole and can be free.

Madam Chancellor, the arc of our lives speaks to this spirit. It’s obvious that neither of us looks exactly like the leaders who preceded us. (Laughter and applause.) But the fact that we can stand here today as President of the United States and as Chancellor of a united Germany is a testament to the progress, the freedom, that is possible in our world.

In 2009 Barack Obama shamefully declined to attend the celebrations in Berlin commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall, sending his Secretary of State in his place, which National Review appropriately described at the time as “the most telling nonevent of his presidency.” In his White House remarks today, Obama had another opportunity to remind America’s German friends of the great role played by Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating Communism, ending the Cold War and liberating hundreds of millions from tyranny, but egotistically chose instead to talk about his own personal achievement in becoming president – hardly a stirring example of world leadership from a president who all too often prefers “leading from behind”.

Did Nobel Laureate, Obama, Jump the Shark with the Bin Laden Shooting Reports?

Killing Bin Laden by any means was just fine with me. It was inevitable that the Islamic beatification of Bin Laden would begin with a vengeance and it has. Obama certainly personalized and owns the killing of Bin Laden and it was a political decision by him to rush out with early details of the raid and take down of the greatest enemy of the United States. Unfortunately the consequences of killing Bin Laden, yet unknown, are beginning to show Obama to be equivocating. Coupled with the killing of Gadaffi's family in Libya, Obama will soon find himself in some very unfamiliar territory for a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He needs our support on this one.
_______________________________________
Telegraph

Osama Bin Laden dead: White House backtracks on how bin Laden died

The White House admitted last night that its initial account of the way Osama bin Laden died at the hands of US forces had been riddled with errors.

Claims that the al-Qaeda leader had died while firing an automatic weapon at commandos were withdrawn, with President Barack Obama’s spokesman admitting “he was unarmed”. A dramatic description of bin Laden using his wife as a “human shield” and forcing her to sacrifice her life also proved to be false. The woman was still alive and was taken into custody with several of the terrorist’s children.

In an embarrassing climb-down, Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, admitted that the previous version of events — which came mostly from the chief US counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan — had been put out “with great haste”.

The about-turn left the US open to accusations of a cover-up and led to calls for video footage of the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and images of bin Laden’s body to be released to end conspiracy theories.

However, the White House suggested that pictures of bin Laden’s body were too “gruesome” to be made public because they could prove “inflammatory”.

Relations between the US and Pakistan, already strained by the fact that Pakistan was not told in advance about the raid, were put under renewed pressure by contradictory statements from Islamabad. It came as:

* David Cameron said bin Laden “must have had an extensive support network in Pakistan”, leaving the country with “searching questions” to answer.

* Five men of Asian origin were arrested after being seen filming at the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria.

* The CIA director, Leon Panetta, said they had been only “60 to 80 per cent sure” that bin Laden was living at the compound.

* Mr Panetta also disclosed that the US was concerned that the Pakistani authorities would alert bin Laden if they told them about the operation.

* Material from the hard drive of bin Laden’s computer, described as “the mother lode of intelligence”, was being analysed.

On a day of claim and counter-claim, Mr Carney gave a briefing in which he knocked down a series of statements made on Monday by Mr Brennan and other government sources. Asked whether officials had been caught in a “fog of war”, he said: “We provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you about the operation. Some of the information is being reviewed and updated.”

He then read out a new account of the assault, in which he said bin Laden was found on the top floor of a three-storey building, and as a US Navy Seal team entered: “His wife rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called on the White House to make public the “precise facts surrounding his killing” to ensure it adhered to international law.

The Taliban issued a statement in which it said the US “lacks strong evidence to prove its claim” that bin Laden was dead.

Ron Paul, a congressman and Republican presidential candidate, said “confusion” in the White House accounts of events in Abbottabad was fuelling doubts. “The question I have is why does our government invite conspiracy theories all the time? Why don’t they show a picture?” he said.

Mr Carney said the White House was still “reviewing” whether it was “appropriate” to release any of the images. He also appeared to cast doubt on suggestions that the US filmed bin Laden’s burial at sea by refusing to confirm that the video existed.

Mr Cameron said the Americans had already done enough to show “reasonable people that bin Laden was dead” before saying that the Pakistani authorities had serious questions to answer over whether bin Laden was being protected while living at his compound within walking distance of Pakistan’s main military academy.

“The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had an extensive support network in Pakistan,” he said. “We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.”

Mr Panetta confirmed that the Pakistani authorities were not told in advance of the audacious helicopter assault because of fears that the information would be leaked.

He also said the US had been unable to spot bin Laden in his compound from satellite images, meaning the CIA was only “60 to 80 per cent sure” they would find him there.

In Islamabad, the authorities said they had co-operated with the US and had kept the building under surveillance since 2009, contradicting Mr Obama’s account of a four-year CIA operation to identify bin Laden’s hiding place. They also suggested that their soldiers had raided the building in 2003 — two years before the building was even built, according to the US — looking for another senior al-Qaeda operative.

As the men arrested outside the Sellafield plant were being questioned, Mr Cameron said Britain must be “more vigilant than ever” against the threat of terrorism.

The Unravelling of American Empire in Arabia

How will America handle the fall of its Middle East empire?

By Peter Oborne Last updated: February 24th, 2011

TELEGRAPH

"2011 will mark the removal of many of America’s client regimes in the Arab world. It is highly unlikely, however, that events will thereafter take the tidy path the White House would prefer. Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate. They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption."

Empires can collapse in the course of a generation. At the end of the 16th century, the Spanish looked dominant. Twenty-five years later, they were on their knees, over-extended, bankrupt, and incapable of coping with the emergent maritime powers of Britain and Holland. The British empire reached its fullest extent in 1930. Twenty years later, it was all over.

Today, it is reasonable to ask whether the United States, seemingly invincible a decade ago, will follow the same trajectory. America has suffered two convulsive blows in the last three years. The first was the financial crisis of 2008, whose consequences are yet to be properly felt. Although the immediate cause was the debacle in the mortgage market, the underlying problem was chronic imbalance in the economy.

For a number of years, America has been incapable of funding its domestic programmes and overseas commitments without resorting to massive help from China, its global rival. China has a pressing motive to assist: it needs to sustain US demand in order to provide a market for its exports and thus avert an economic crisis of its own. This situation is the contemporary equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the doctrine which prevented nuclear war breaking out between America and Russia.
Unlike MAD, this pact is unsustainable. But Barack Obama has not sought to address the problem. Instead, he responded to the crisis with the same failed policies that caused the trouble in the first place: easy credit and yet more debt. It is certain that America will, in due course, be forced into a massive adjustment both to its living standards at home and its commitments abroad.

This matters because, following the second convulsive blow, America’s global interests are under threat on a scale never before seen. Since 1956, when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles pulled the plug on Britain and France over Suez, the Arab world has been a US domain. At first, there were promises that it would tolerate independence and self-determination. But this did not last long; America chose to govern through brutal and corrupt dictators, supplied with arms, military training and advice from Washington.

The momentous importance of the last few weeks is that this profitable, though morally bankrupt, arrangement appears to be coming to an end. One of the choicest ironies of the bloody and macabre death throes of the regime in Libya is that Colonel Gaddafi would have been wiser to have stayed out of the US sphere of influence. When he joined forces with George Bush and Tony Blair five years ago, the ageing dictator was leaping on to a bandwagon that was about to grind to a halt.
In Washington, President Obama has not been stressing this aspect of affairs. Instead, after hesitation, he has presented the recent uprisings as democratic and even pro-American, indeed a triumph for the latest methods of Western communication such as Twitter and Facebook. Many sympathetic commentators have therefore claimed that the Arab revolutions bear comparison with the 1989 uprising of the peoples of Eastern Europe against Soviet tyranny.

I would guess that the analogy is apt. Just as 1989 saw the collapse of the Russian empire in Eastern Europe, so it now looks as if 2011 will mark the removal of many of America’s client regimes in the Arab world. It is highly unlikely, however, that events will thereafter take the tidy path the White House would prefer. Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate. They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption. It is too early to chart the future course of events with confidence, but it seems unlikely that these liberated peoples will look to Washington and New York as their political or economic model.
The great question is whether America will take its diminished status gracefully, or whether it will lash out, as empires in trouble are historically prone to do. Here the White House response gives cause for concern. American insensitivity is well demonstrated in the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA man who shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore. Hillary Clinton is trying to bully Pakistan into awarding Davis diplomatic immunity. This is incredible behaviour, which shows that the US continues to regard itself as above the law. Were President Zardari, already seen by his fellow countrymen as a pro-American stooge, to comply, his government would almost certainly fall.

Or take President Obama’s decision last week to veto the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Even America itself accepts that these settlements are illegal. At a time when the Middle East is already mutinous, this course of action looks mad.

The biggest problem is that America wants democracy, but only on its own terms. A very good example of this concerns the election of a Hamas government in Gaza in 2006. This should have been a hopeful moment for the Middle East peace process: the election of a government with the legitimacy and power to end violence. But America refused to engage with Hamas, just as it has refused to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or to acknowledge the well-founded regional aspirations of Iran.

The history of the Arab world since the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1922 can be divided schematically into two periods: open colonial rule under the British and French, followed by America’s invisible empire after the Second World War. Now we are entering a third epoch, when Arab nations, and in due course others, will assert their independence. It is highly unlikely that all of them will choose a path that the Americans want. From the evidence available, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are muddled and incapable of grasping the nature of current events.
This is where the British, who have deep historical connections with the region, and whose own loss of empire is still within living memory, ought to be able to offer wise and practical advice. So far the Prime Minister, a neophyte in foreign affairs, has not done so. His regional tour of Middle Eastern capitals with a caravan of arms dealers made sense only in terms of the broken settlement of the last 50 years. His speeches might have been scripted by Tony Blair a decade ago, with the identical evasions and hypocrisies. There was no acknowledgment of the great paradigm shift in global politics.

The links between the US and British defence, security and foreign policy establishments are so close that perhaps it is no longer possible for any British government to act independently. When challenged, our ministers always say that we use our influence “behind the scenes” with American allies, rather than challenge them in the open. But this, too, is a failed tactic. I am told, for example, that William Hague tried hard to persuade Hillary Clinton not to veto last week’s Security Council resolution, but was ignored. It is time we became a much more candid friend, because the world is changing faster than we know.

Why does anyone want to be president?

Pity Obama. Really, can it possibly be worth it? Look at the past week:

• The Chinese are threatening economic retaliation because we are trying to mend our dismal trade situation caused by their unfair trade practices and dollar manipulation.
• The deficits worsen and any suggestions made on how to fix it causes outcry from the left and the right.
• The Korean trade deal flops.
• The Iraqis are still trying to form a government.
• Christians getting slaughtered in Iraq
• Our troops keep getting slaughtered in Afghanistan.
• AQ still trying to knock down our planes.
• Foreclosures a mess that seems to be worsening.
• Dollar down, gold and oil up.
• Putin threatening hit squads on ex-KGB agents.
• Murder on the Mexican border.
• Democrats get trounced in House and state houses.
• G20 tells him no deal on China.
• US market down.
• Irish debt problems worsen.
• China downgrades US debt.
• Kanye West Cancels 'Today' Show Concert After Matt Lauer Spat.

and i'm sure Mitchell is no box of chocolates.

"We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,"

Sorry India, he is not what he seems to be.

Obama to use teleprompter for Hindi speech
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, November 06, 2010

Namaste India! In all likelihood that will be silver-tongued Barack Obama's opening line when he addresses the Indian parliament next week. But to help him pronounce Hindi words correctly will be a teleprompter which the US president uses ever so often for his hypnotising speeches.

According to parliament sources, a technical team from the US has helped the Lok Sabha secretariat install textbook-sized panes of glass around the podium that will give cues to Obama on his prepared remarks to 780 Indian MPs on the evening of Nov 8.

It will be a 20-minute speech at Parliament House's Central Hall that has been witness to some historic events, including first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's "tryst with destiny" speech when India became independent.

Obama will make history for more than one reason during the Nov 6-9 visit. This will be the first time a teleprompter will be used in the nearly 100-feet high dome-shaped hall that has portraits of eminent national leaders adorning its walls.

Indian politicians are known for making impromptu long speeches and perhaps that is why some parliament officials, who did not wish to be named, sounded rather surprised with the idea of a teleprompter for Obama.

"We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact," an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.

Obama is known to captivate audiences with his one-liners that sound like extempore and his deep gaze. But few in India know that the US president always carries the teleprompter with him wherever he speaks.

Teleprompters, also called autocue or telescript, are mostly used by TV anchors to read out texts scrolling on a screen and attached to a camera in front of them.

Parliament officials have had a busy week preparing for a red carpet welcome for Obama and his wife Michelle. Parliament House these days looks fresh with a new coat of paint, new carpeting and new green plants in mud vases decorating the corridors.

Sources said the Obamas will pose for a photograph with Indian leaders at one of the three well laid-out courtyards that have lush green lawns and fountains.

On the dais in the Central Hall will be Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar, Vice President Hamid Ansari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The sources said the event will be an hour-long affair and will start with Ansari's welcome address and end with a vote of thanks by Meira Kumar after the US president's address.

The Obamas would sign the Golden Book, the visitor's diary in parliament, before leaving the eight-decade old building.

"Thank god they won't eat anything or have tea or coffee from our canteen. We would have to go through a tough security drill otherwise," quipped an employee.

Security managers in parliament also had a tough job for the high profile visit even as the house is already highly protected following a terrorist attack in 2001.

A team of US security officials, including from the CIA, were in the Indian capital and visited the complex to review security measures to be taken during the parliament event.

Parliament security officials have decided that barring special invitees and former MPs, no visitor would be allowed inside when Obama addresses the MPs.

Only journalists who have permanent radio-frequency passes would be allowed inside the Central Hall to cover the event.

A Heck of a Job, Mr. President

Heck of a president

Washington Post


Kathleen Parker
Saturday, October 30, 2010

It's always risky to appear onstage with a comedian. Not only are funny guys funny, but they're also aggressive.

Indeed, humor is nothing but aggression harnessed and saddled - and nobody today rides that horse as well as Jon Stewart.

So what was President Obama thinking when he submitted to a nearly 30-minute interview with the Comedy Central star? He was thinking, of course, that he could rekindle some of the love with his base. Seventy-four percent of Stewart's audience falls into the 18-49 demographic otherwise known as - money.

Dude.

As others have noted, Stewart is a superb interviewer. No surprise there. The funniest people are also often the smartest people in the room.

Stewart asked all the right questions and managed to get the president to answer most of them. Should he have called the president "dude"? As a matter of decorum, the short answer is no. But in the context of the moment, who could resist?

Stewart had just asked Obama how he could square his campaign mantra of "change" with hiring economic advisers such as Larry Summers, who looks the same as those who had served in previous administrations. In response, Obama said that Summers had done a "heck of a job."

Whereupon, Stewart said, "You don't want to use that phrase, dude."

Everyone got the joke. George W. Bush used the same words to commend Michael "Brownie" Brown after his disastrous performance as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency following Hurricane Katrina. Translation: You're fired.



Everyone got the joke, that is, except for Obama. He got it eventually, after seeing the "oops" expression on Stewart's face, but he couldn't take the joke. There's a world of difference.

Instead of laughing at himself, he turned to the audience - a beat too late - and said, "Pun intended."

No, it wasn't. Anyone watching could see that. He slipped. Obama is a nice guy; he was trying to say something nice about Summers, and "heck of a job" just tumbled out. No big deal. We get it. Stuff happens. But Obama couldn't roll with the gut punch.

In that, among other moments, Obama revealed his fatal flaw. He has no sense of humor. He might be able to laugh at a joke. He can even tell one, as he demonstrated at the last White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Whoever wrote that script should send his rsum to Comedy Central. Oh, wait, some of the writers do work at Comedy Central.

No, what Obama revealed was that he has no sense of humor about himself. This is utterly huge.

It is entirely appropriate that the president take his job seriously. And no one would urge Obama (or anyone else) to try to be funny with Jon Stewart. He's the funny guy, and producers doubtless remind guests of that fact.

A good guest on "The Daily Show" is expected to be the straight man so that the comedian has some place to go with the material. I'm sure there's a Rolodex of "bad guests" who tried to out-funny the comedian.

But it is imperative that leaders not take themselves too seriously. What should Obama have done instead? How about saying: "I can't believe I just said that"? Or, "Oy!"? Whatever. Anything to signal to the audience that, "Oh, well, I'm human."

But Obama isn't very good at human. His smile is a beam of light, but too often it seems to turn on and off with a switch. Missing is the spontaneous response that says, dare I say it, "I'm you." (Pun intended.) More often, Obama comes across as a body snatcher. Good choice of pods, but we might need to add a little juice to the "emotion" grid.

Like a majority of Americans, I like Obama. He seems to be a thoroughly decent guy, but he's more suited to chess than schmooze. You can almost see him calculating his answers, even hinting at admiration when Stewart made a good comeback. He all but says, "Nice move."

Cutting the president some slack, we might acknowledge that these are tough times. Agree or not with his policies, Obama has had a very tough two years. The media are relentless. So are the Republicans.

But in the human game we call life, victory and failure are respectively sweeter and less bitter if one is able to laugh at one's very own self.

Heck of a job, Mr. President.

The Incredibly Shrinking Obama and John Stewart

Laughs in short supply as Barack Obama gets serious on The Daily Show

Obama makes history as first sitting president to be interviewed by Jon Stewart on Comedy Central show

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk,

Thursday 28 October 2010 06.35 BST

The last time Barack Obama appeared on the Daily Show, he was a young, up and coming senator vowing to change the way politics was done in Washington and trading wisecracks with presenter Jon Stewart.

Last night however, in making history as the first US president to be interviewed on Comedy Central's satirical news show, he struck a more sombre tone. Obama appeared to have decided that in the present political climate, with unemployment high and many voters expressing disappointment with his performance, jokes were inappropriate.

Even Stewart was subdued and generally respectful, referring to the president as "sir", except for one reflex moment when he could not help himself and called him "dude". It was also the first time the show was devoted to a single interview, with no monologue from Stewart as an opener or any satirical sketches.

Stewart repeatedly contrasted Obama's heady campaign trail rhetoric, of hope, change and audacity, with what he called the timidity of his legislative programme. Obama appeared agitated. Having been leaning back in his chair, he sat forward, pointing his finger at the desk separating him from Stewart.

"Jon, I love your show, but this is something where, you know, I have a profound disagreement with you," Obama said. "And I don't want to lump you in with a lot of other pundits, but this notion that health care is timid ..."

It produced a rare rejoinder from Stewart – "I'll tell you what I mean, and I don't mean to lump you in with other presidents" – which won laughs from the audience.

The show, normally recorded in New York, was shot in Washington because Stewart and his crew have moved to the capital in preparation for his 'Restore Sanity' rally on Saturday, a liberal riposte to recent conservative gatherings on the Mall. The audience of 550 was more partisan than the New York audiences and gave Obama a long standing ovation when he entered the studio.

Obama stuck with two key messages throughout the 30-minute interview: that he had done a good job in getting healthcare reform through Congress, and passing financial regulation laws. The White House said his appearance was mainly aimed at winning over young voters ahead of Tuesday's midterm elections.

The one news point in the interview was a hint that he favoured reform of the Senate's filibuster tactic that frequently obstructs legislation. But he did not tackle it when the Democrats had a big majority in the Senate and the chances of doing so in the next Congress, in which there will almost certainly be more Republicans, are slim.

Stewart teased the president about his campaign slogan "Yes, we can", suggesting that these days it was "Yes, we can, with conditions attached".

Obama replied: "When I say that when we promised during the campaign, change you can believe in, it wasn't change you can believe in in 18 months ...What I would say is, 'Yes, we can', but it is not going to happen overnight."

Stewart suggested one of the problems was that far from bringing about change, Obama had brought into power many of the same old faces, such as his economics adviser, Larry Summers, who is about to leave the administration and has been heavily criticised over the lacklustre state of the economy. "In fairness, Larry did a heck of a job," Obama said. Stewart interjected: "You don't want to use that phrase, dude."

George Bush used the same phrase to describe the hapless Michael Brown, who was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency during hurricane Katrina.

Fired Up or Just Burning Down?

"If you're willing to step up to the plate and realize that change is not a spectator sport, we will not just win this election—we are going to restore our economy, we are going to rebuild the middle class, we will reclaim the American dream for this generation." - Barack Hussein Obama

Why is Obama Pledging $400 million to Hamas?

Download:

FLVMP43GP

A Closet Muslim President and a Clueless Secretary of State

Barack Obama and Argentina President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner







This is the Left Wing President of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, talking about revolution to the Russians, obviously hosable, but you would not want her anywhere near a political office.

___________________________________

American neutrality on the Falklands is a symptom of US foreign policy drift

By James Corum World Last updated: February 26th, 2010
Telegraph

James Corum is Dean of the Baltic Defence College in Estonia. He has taught at American and British staff colleges and is the author of seven books on military history and counter-insurgency. He is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserve (rtd) and has 28 years' experience as an army officer.

The Bush administration got a lot of things wrong – but at least they usually had some idea of who America’s adversaries were and who America’s friends were. For example, Bush’s policy of maintaining the special relationship with Britain was a simple recognition of the close bonds of alliance, friendship and interests that the British and Americans have had since World War I.

In contrast, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are apparently clueless about some of the most basic aspects of foreign policy: supporting one’s friends and fencing in one’s adversaries. The declaration of neutrality on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands issued by the US State Department is clear proof of the uselessness of the Obama administration.

In the grand scheme of things it makes little sense for America to give moral support to the Kirchner government in Argentina. Kirchner is no friend of the US and Kirchner’s government is in deep domestic trouble for its gross mismanagement of the economy and its attempts to suppress the press criticism of the regime at home. One has to wonder what benefit America gets out of hurting Britain on this issue. Perhaps Obama thinks that the more Leftist Latin American regimes will somehow approve of the US. If that is the case, he is truly mistaken, as most Latin American nations dislike the Argentineans, and have little sympathy for the mess Argentina got into over the Falklands.

But this mess is just typical of the drift in US foreign policy – if one can say that it even HAS a coherent foreign policy these days. As I said, at the core of the problem is a simple inability to recognise and support our friends over adversaries. In his first year in office Obama made numerous apologies for America’s past to the Third World, he effusively greeted the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, he bowed low to the Saudi ruler, and called for a “reset” of relations with Russia – all the while implying that America was at fault for all these problems. At the same time he rudely undermined the security of America’s Eastern European allies by cancelling the ballistic missile defence with no notice and no prior discussion, he failed to push for a free trade agreement with Colombia – America’s strongest ally in South America – and he supported Chavez’s allies when they tried (luckily unsuccessfully) to unseat a democratic and pro-US government in Honduras.

A big part of the problem is a Secretary of State who is a lightweight as far as foreign policy is concerned. Obama brought Hillary Clinton into the cabinet for domestic policy considerations. He needed to put Mrs Clinton – and her husband – under tight control. As a powerful senator from New York, she would probably have taken over as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and been able to challenge Obama’s “Chicago Gang” for control of the party.

Despite the acclaim that America’s mainstream media has heaped on Hillary Clinton over the years, her foreign policy background and experience before becoming Secretary of State was to accompany her husband on foreign trips and preside over “first wives” dinners for the spouses of visiting heads of state. One learns a lot about protocol and ceremonies – but this is no preparation for the real work of making policy. Clinton has no experience or education in foreign policy. She speaks no foreign languages and has never lived abroad. She lacks the intellectual temperament to be a foreign policy leader. Like Obama, she has long surrounded herself with sycophants.

On assuming office, Obama’s vision of foreign policy was simple: he would repudiate past American policies and the whole world would melt before the president’s charm. The administration somehow thought that we really didn’t have enemies with agendas completely hostile to our own – there were just countries that had become offended by US actions and they would happily cooperate with America as soon as the evil Republicans were gone. Well, it hasn’t worked – and there was no Plan B.
With a president overwhelmed by domestic problems, Hillary Clinton has failed to step in and set a foreign policy vision. Simply put, she does not have the brains or the experience to develop a coherent foreign policy vision for America. This is how we get policy mistakes on issues such as the sovereignty of the Falklands.

Cool, Jaunty, Flippant, Arrogant and Stubbornly Wrong

The wrong tone at the wrong time. I found it painful to listen to Obama and watch the fools on the hill and the charade in front of him. I was tempted to say we deserve better than this, but then the collective decision was to pick this man at this time and that is proving to be very unfortunate.

I was listening for something hopeful, something different for this time, something that would have a chance at working. Instead, I watched a rehearsed, clipped and pasted attempt of an already failed presidency to save itself.

Obama is scaring people, the Democrats, his supporters and the tens of millions of Americans in deep, deep trouble. He is not strong enough, too inexperienced and has never been qualified lo lead. Obama has spent a year missing opportunities. Last night was no exception.

______________________


Obama's State of the Union: damaged but unrepentant

By Janet Daley World Last updated: January 28th, 2010 Telegraph

It was a difficult call: should he go for contrition or proud intransigence? Admit that he had misjudged the national mood, or refuse to give in to what he would characterise as Republican dirty tricks? In the end, Barack Obama veered more toward the latter than the former. The over-riding theme was summed up in one of the closing passages of this first State of the Union speech: “Americans don’t give up. I don’t give up.”

So officially at least, there was to be no backing down on healthcare reform – except that by now it had become health insurance reform. No more talk of a public option or of a genuinely nationalised healthcare programme: just legislation to curb the rights of health insurance providers to refuse cover to people with pre-existing conditions, etc. The great Obama revolution in health was now a matter of guaranteeing that people would be able to choose their healthcare plans “in a competitive market”.

As for those struggling middle class families which his administration has been accused of neglecting, they got a fair helping of reassurance that he felt their pain. But not a great deal that was new in concrete terms. From a British point of view what was most significant was that even this Left-of-centre president proudly boasted that he had cut the taxes of 95 per cent of working families and that he had not increased income tax by a penny. To loud applause he boasted of having cut 25 taxes which meant that “people had more to spend” which in turn helped businesses to retain jobs. And he was also absolutely clear that the way to create jobs was to cut business taxes. He would abolish captal gains tax on investment for small businesses which are the greatest generators of new jobs in the US as they are here. Yes, even the Left gets it in America: the way to promote growth is to reduce taxes.

His manner and tone were always going to be subject to lively scrutiny: had his nerve been broken? Would the “cool” Obama survive the catastrophic defeat in Massachusetts and the collapse of his approval ratings? Well, he was cool enough. Jaunty, even – which may prove to have been a misjudgement. He clearly wanted to look undaunted but he came across as almost flippant. A more sombre delivery might have seemed more in tune with the anger and frustration of voters who still see themselves as beset by crisis. I rather expect that many of them could have done without the high school valedictory peroration on the greatness of American ideals and how “our values are American values” rather than Democrat or Republican values, and that political opponents who just wanted to “say ‘no’ to everything” were underming those values, etc, etc.

Railing against the evils of partisan politics is the last refuge of the failing leader. It’s a bit desperate to be falling back on that tactic after only a year in office – especially when that year was spent with a firm lock on your congressional majority. If Obama is reduced to blaming Washington infighting for his inability to impress the nation after a year in which his party dominated government, what will the next three years be like?

_________________________

Chris Tingle forgot Obama was black last night.

Kennedy Led the Way. Dodd and Dorgan Quitting. Can the GOP Retake the Senate This Year?

Toby Harnden is the Daily Telegraph's US Editor, based in Washington DC. More about Toby. Contact toby.harnden@telegraph-usa.com.

Could Republicans win back the Senate in 2010?

By Toby Harnden World Last updated: January 6th, 2010
Telegraph

A few months ago, anyone suggesting that Republicans might be able to retake the Senate – where they currently have 40 seats compared to the Democrats’ 58 plus two Independents who caucus with Barack Obama’s party – would have been liable to be certified insane.

But with the shock decision of the Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, it’s beginning to go from impossible to long shot. Some 34 seats are up for grabs, 18 Republican and 16 Democratic. The GOP needs to pick up 11 seats to secure a majority.

I certainly wouldn’t bet the farm (or even an outbuilding) on a GOP win that gives it 50 seats - far from it. Obama’s poll fortunes would have to continue to slump and absolutely everything would have to go right for Republicans. But just remember that in 2002 just about everything went right Senatewise for the GOP and in 2008 a similar thing happened for Democrats. Here’s how it could happen for the GOP this time around:
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are safe Democratic seats. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah are safe GOP seats.

Connecticut (D) – Chris Dodd is highly vulnerable. Likely GOP pick-up. BREAKING NEWS UPDATE 12.05am EST Blimey, Dodd is to announce he won’t seek re-election. Actually, this will give the Dems a much better chance of keeping the seat. Moves it from likely to possible GOP pick-up, I’d say.
Arkansas (D) – Went heavily against Obama in 2008 and Blanche Lincoln has her vote for health-care reform to worry about. Likely GOP pick-up.

North Dakota (D) – Byron Dorgan looks likely to hold his seat but North Dakota is a Republican state and the GOP will fancy its chances, especially if Governor John Hoeven throws his hat into the ring. Likely GOP pick-up.

Nevada (D) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to be in big trouble. Possible GOP pick-up.

Colorado (D) – Always a swing state, it looks good for the GOP this time. Possible GOP pick-up.

Delaware (D) – Joe Biden’s state has been reliably Democratic in recent years but moderate GOP candidate Mike Castle has shown his ability to be elected statewide and could well take the veep’s old seat. He also has a sense of humour. Possible GOP pick-up.

Illinois (D) – Barack Obama’s state should be Democratic in any normal year but the Blagojevich fiasco, the Burris fiasco, attorney general Lisa Madigan deciding not to run and a strong GOP candidate in the person of Mark Kirk mean that the GOP could just do it. Possible GOP pick-up.

Pennsylvania (D) – Arlen Specter, who switched from the GOP, has a tough primary against Joe Sestak, who is running to his Left. If he survives that – or even if he doesn’t – Pat Toomey, once considered too conservative for the state, looks a very possible winner winner. Possible GOP pick-up.

California (D) – Here’s where it gets really tough for the Republicans. It’s one of the most liberal states in the Union but the GOP believes that Barbara Boxer’s record may be just a bit too liberal. And Carly Fiorina is a potentially powerful candidate. Losing California would be a Doomsday scenario for Democrats but Republicans can still dream.

If they won all of the above currently Democratic seats, Republicans would still have to also hold New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio and Missouri, all of which have degrees of vulnerability for them.
That would leave them with 49 seats to the Democrats’ 51.

But what if Joe Lieberman (I) flipped to the Republican party? Very possible, particularly if he was induced with a juicy committee chairmanship.

That would mean 50-50. But still Vice-President Joe Biden would hold the casting vote.

Then, as Thinking Independently points out, the Grim Reaper would be needed to secure Republican control. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is ailing and 92, though his state has a Democratic governor who would presumably fill the seat with a Democrat. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is 86 and healthy but his state now has a GOP governor. And Hawaii’s two Democratic Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inoue look fit enough but they are both 85 and the state where Obama was born (sorry, Birthers) has a Republican governor.

Of course, there’s a strong argument that 60 is the magic number in the Senate and anything less than that is not really control at all – and the closer to 50 you get, the less the degree of control. By that standard, the Democrats will surrender their grasp on the 100-member American House of Lords in a year’s time in any event.