Obama bans terms `Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security document

Comments Off on Obama bans terms `Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security document

Can you believe this? As Steve says…..you just couldn’t make this stuff up. I wonder if they’ll remove the term “right wing extremist” from the report as well?

Obama bans terms `Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security document

President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it.

But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used. (even if we are attacked first)

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a new beginning in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense, said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.  (Now do you believe they’d tell anyone that? Of course not.)

Ramamurthy runs the administration’s Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach in pursuit of a host of national security objectives. Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

“Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?” Ramamurthy said. (Is it just me or does that statement not make any sense to you either?)



Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

Comments Off on Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

Well you aren’t going to believe part of this. Although this may have good intentions, it appears to be the wrong idea and another example of inexperience at the wheel.  Even if someone attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyber attack we won’t retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers (Obama’s new redefined word for a “rogue nation”) like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

Read the entire article at NewYorkTimes.com

Do You Remember This?

Comments Off on Do You Remember This?

Well Tuesday Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current White House economic adviser said within the next five years we in the US will probably have a VAT (Value Added Tax), energy tax or a carbon tax. Why do we need all these new taxes?  GOVERNMENT SPENDING  that’s why!!! Did you think they would stop spending or cut back on spending to help the deficit? Well you thought wrong, the answer with this administration is to keep spending at full steam ahead and raise taxes to help pay for it. All this on top of the income tax, state and local sales tax and the new cost of Health Care as well. I’ve just given several good reasons to vote for anyone except a DEMOCRAT in November and stop this nonsense. As soon as I get this posted I’ll post another article to show you that we definitely have an inexperienced person at the wheel…….you won’t believe what he said today, but you’ll have to read the other article when I post it. Back to this article and plain spoken Paul Volcker.

Volcker on the VAT

Kudos for candor to Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current White House economic adviser, for admitting what other Democrats also know but don’t want to admit until after the November election: The political class is preparing to pass a European-style value-added tax.

Answering a question at the New York Historical Society on Tuesday, Mr. Volcker said that a VAT—a consumption tax levied along stages of production—”was not as toxic an idea” as it has been, and that both a VAT and some kind of tax on energy need to be on the table. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

We’ve long predicted that this would be the White House fiscal strategy, and its new deficit commission is bound to propose something along these lines. In Europe, a VAT rate that reaches 20% in some countries applies to countless products and services, so the middle class would be hit especially hard. (not incomes over $200,000…middle class America)

Though Mr. Volcker didn’t say this, he is acknowledging that taxes on the rich can’t begin to finance the levels of new spending that the current government has unleashed. Even the expiration of the Bush tax rates next January and the new taxes in the health-care bill won’t be enough.

In recent decades, the current tax code has yielded revenue on average of 18.5% or so of GDP, whether tax rates go up or down. The wealthy adjust their behavior or shield more income via loopholes, so income-tax increases never gain as much revenue as politicians claim. With spending as a share of GDP now at 25%, Democrats have to soak the middle class because that’s where the real money is. (No taxes on people making below $200,000 Remember?)

Look for media Democrats to begin explaining why a VAT is essential to U.S. well-being, even as they fail to recall Mr. Obama’s 2008 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. We told you that the U.S. can’t have a European welfare state without European tax rates, and so France, here we come.


Obama Hides Private Army in Health Care

Comments Off on Obama Hides Private Army in Health Care

Why has NOT ONE Senator, Congressman or Pundit said anything about this?????