Wake up America

The Valour-IT project Posted: 12 Nov 2008 12:16 PM CST It is that time again to help our military!! So listen up! From Project Valour-IT: The Valour-IT Veterans Day fundraiser, a friendly competition among blogs, will run through November 27, 2008 (Thanksgiving). See below for info on donating or joining the competition. To donate, click the Donate button for your favorite team below. Division by service branch is for the purpose of friendly competition; all funds ultimately go into the same account. You can join in here, I have joined the Army Team this year again, choose whatever team you wish. Donation Button HTML Codes HERE (for all teams) A description of what Valour-IT is and why it is important to do everything possible to help again this year: Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery. Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support our mission, but also offers a sponsorship option for laptops. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts. Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software that accompanies the laptops, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT's "eyes and ears" at several medical centers, identifying patients in need of laptops and other technological support for their recovery. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers: * Balboa Naval Hospital * Brooke Army Medical Center * Madigan Regional Medical Center * National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital) * Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton * Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms) * Walter Reed Army Medical Center Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop or other technology to support their recovery and independence. I don't know where to start. I was thrilled and truly appreciative of the laptop donation that Soldiers Angels sent. My neurology team is ecstatic with the progress that I have made, yet we all temper our excitement as I still have a long recovery ahead. Due to the great hearts (sponsors, donors, volunteers and others too numerous to mention) within Soldiers Angels I have become more mobile in my rehabilitation and the laptop is absolutely one of the tools that I have in my recovery toolbox. I use it to keep current on my schedule and have several applications that assist with recovery. I know that my recovery has been aided by the cards, letters, and notes sent by your Angels. I love to read them and have started to send Thank You's to many of them. I just want you and everyone to know that your organization is a Godsend to Soldiers. Please send this note of Thanks to the appropriate personnel, and if there is anything I can do to help, let me know. God Bless You and God Bless America. Lieutenant Colonel X More here. If you own a blog, join a team, if not, then donate what you can to help, if you cannot afford to do so, pass this along to everyone you know. No matter what your situation, you can find a way to help our men and women in the military....please consider doing so. (Note from WUA- We do not do fundraisers here as a rule, we link to them, we will advertise them if we feel they are important, but each year, whenever Soldiers Angels holds a fundraiser, we join in proudly. This group helps our troops, our men and women who signed on to protect us, take care of us and offer their lives to do so.) .

Obama-Malley: Positioning Against Israel? Posted: 12 Nov 2008 11:35 AM CST Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook Robert Malley Yasser Arafat President-elect Barack Obama In May 2008, TimesOnline reported that Barack Obama had "sacked" Robert Malley, his foreign policy adviser, who admitted to "regular contact" with Hamas, a U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization. November 5, 2008 Middle East Newsline's Washington office quoted Obama aides saying that he had dispatched his "senior foreign policy adviser Robert Malley" to Egypt and Syria "over the last few weeks. The aides said Malley, who served in the administration of President Bill Clinton, relayed a pledge from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo as well as reconcile with Damascus. "The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests," an aide said. IsraelNationalNews.com's Arutz Sheva, using the Middle East Newsline's report attributes this quote to a Robert Malley aide: "The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests," an aide to Malley was quoted as saying. The aide said Obama plans to launch a U.S. diplomatic initiative toward Syria. Malley met both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad "to explain Obama's agenda for the Middle East." Israel National News November 11, 2008: (IsraelNN.com) Hamas is claiming close and ongoing ties with America's upcoming Obama Administration, according to a report published Tuesday in the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat. The relationship was kept under wraps until after the U.S. elections so as not to harm Obama's election prospects. The U.S. has classified Hamas a terrorist organization. The London-based publication interviewed Gaza-based political chief Ahmad Yousuf, advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas regime in Gaza, which seized power in a bloody coup d'etat in 2007. Yousuf declared that Hamas has been in regular contact with President-elect Barack Obama's advisers for months. "We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza," the Hamas official was quoted as saying, "but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as that may have had a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain." Contacts allegedly began during the presidential race and Yousuf expects the relationship to continue. He has also predicted that there will be "a change" in American foreign policy in the Middle East once Obama enters the White House. So was Malley fired by Obama for close ties to Hamas, or told to lie-low until the name Malley was off the political radar? And does Malley deserve scrutiny? Here's a look at Robert Malley's well-documented background: American Thinker by Ed Lasky January 23, 2008 [Robert Malley's father] Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians. Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country. Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel. Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis. Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias. Malley is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure at DePaul University . Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world. Lasky on [Robert] Malley's involvement with the International Crisis Group (ICG): Robert Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group (ICG). Given the impressive title of the group, one might expect it to have along and impressive pedigree -- say long the lines of the well-regarded Council of Foreign Relations. In fact, the group is rather small and it has a short pedigree. More importantly, it has ties to George Soros. Soros is a man who has supported a wide variety of groups that have shown a propensity to criticize America and Israel; a man who has made clear his goal is to break the close bonds between America and Israel ; supported the views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose work on the issue of the "Israel Lobby" has been widely criticized for factual inaccuracies, shoddy research, and has been called "anti-Semitic" in the Washington Post; a man who has taken steps to counter the supposed political influence of the pro-Israel community in America; a man who has also been a key financial backer of Senator Obama's; and a man who can activate a wide variety of 527 (c) and other activist groups for any politician he supports. Soros is a funder of the ICG through his Open Society Institute ; he serves on its Board and on its Executive Committee. Other members of the Board include Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable) and Wesley Clark (who called US support for Israel during the Hezbollah War a "serious mistake"; who has flirted with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; and who has been the direct beneficiary of donations made by Soros ; Wesley Clark has defended the actions of George Soros. Lasky, five months before the supposed sacking of Malley from the Obama team, asks these questions: Why would Barack Obama have on his foreign policy staff a man who has been widely criticized for a revisionist history of the Middle East peace process sharply at odds with all other accounts of the proceedings? Why would Barack Obama give credibility to a man who seems to have an agenda that includes empowering our enemies and weakening our friends and allies? How did Robert Malley, with a record of writing that reveals a willingness to twist facts to serve a political agenda, come to be appointed by Obama to his foreign staff? Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert? What role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America? What does it say about Senator Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor? Or does it speak more to his true beliefs? From another Lasky American Thinker article, Barack Obama and Israel: One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates...Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions. As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain. Lasky discusses Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright: Wright routinely compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and considers blacks "The Chosen People". Wright sees his role not just as a religious counselor but also as an educator and political activist. As part of his schooling, he has posted [this] tutorial... Some in the media have taken notice. The New York Times did have one front-page article on Wright by Jodi Kantor in which Wright was quoted as saying that should more information come to light about himself, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell". After the article came out Wright attacked Jodi Kantor, referring to her Jewish heritage in a way that might create discomfort. So the question is, do we believe the Middle East Online report that Malley has continued to be a close adviser to Obama, even after he was supposedly sacked? Has Malley been in the Middle East recently on behalf of President-Elect Barack Obama. Bloggers repeatedly attempted to draw attention to the risks an Obama presidency posed to Israel, while the MSM refused to cover it, even knowing that Malley was a life-long anti-Semite. It's curious that American Jews didn't hesitate to vote for Barack Obama. Related: Obama's Israel-Hating Advisor - Robert Malley The Robert Malley - Arafat Connection

Moderate Democrats Attacked By Obama Cultists For Daring To Question 'The One' Posted: 12 Nov 2008 11:39 AM CST Anyone that has provided links to Barack Obama's questionable ties, his contradictory pledges that do not match his actions or previous votes, his connections to criminals and terrorists, his stated philosophies or any other information that is documented that shows him to be hypocritical or not telling the public the truth, inevitably finds themselves inundated with comments from the "Obama Cult." One would expect this to be a Right/Left issue. Obama, the far left Democrat being criticized by the Republicans and members from the right, so the Obama cultists run from comment section to comment section, ignoring the links provided, ignoring the documented information made available to defend "the one" without regard to the legitimate questions asked. Anyone with a blog, forum or comment section has witnessed these Obama cults in action, even now, after the election is over. This piece isn't about the battle to from the right to get information out about the "chosen one", nope, this is about how the "Obama Cult" will go all out to attack moderate Democrats, moderate liberals, that dare speak anything but the gospel about Obama. I have been going through a few liberal blogs to see whether the left is finally happy. After all, their candidate won the election, it should be a time to celebrate for them. They should be smiling, enjoying the win, right? Some are, but those folks cannot just enjoy, they now have gone on the attack against anyone in their own party that dares to criticize Obama. I have made it a point to always separate the moderate Democrats from the far far left extreme liberals of that party, just as I separate the moderate Republicans from the far far right extreme version of our party, and below I will offer an example of why I have always done so. I have always said extremism from either party is dangerous. What do I mean by "extremism?" Members of a party that are so busy "explaining", "excusing" or "justifying", "defending" their candidates and party, that they refuse to acknowledge the problems, the legitimate questions or the documented evidence showing a problem within their own party. In this case, the "extremists" are the Obama Cult members and the moderates of the party are those that backed Obama, against the Republicans, for their own reasons whether I agree with those reasons or not and were still were reasonable enough to not blindly try to excuse, justify, defend or explain the information brought out, but instead they were reasonable and honorable enough to ask the questions. Their crime, in the eyes of the Obama Cult, is that they demand accountability from Barack Obama. Which brings me to the example of Big Tent Democrat over at Talk Left and John Cole over at Balloon Juice who takes offense at BTD for daring to question "the one" about his positions. The latest infighting started when BTD from Talk Left criticized Obama for his position on torture in a piece called "Obama Transition Team "Clarifies" Position On Torture: He May Be For It." Change we can believe in? As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA's interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated. [But], [u]pon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight. You see the proposal is to have greater oversight over the torture. Change we can believe in! Evidently, a Democrat who dares point out a position of Obama's they do not agree with is considered a "wanker" by Cole from Balloon Juice, who sends them a message, via his blog, saying: Just please shut the fuck up until he actually does something you disagree with, you WATB. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been any better. We are at the end of an eight year nightmare and you loudmouth morons are cutting off Obama at the knees before he even sets foot in the damned White House as President. Wankers. BTD responded: As expected, the Obama Cult does not like to read any questioning of their Dear Leader. [...] What I can not understand is the ridiculous Cult of Obama who believes that not a negative or questioning word should be said about Obama ever. Oh sure, they'll say "wait till he is President." But then they'll say "wait till he finishes his first year." And after that, "wait for the mid terms." And then "wait until after reelection." In short, members of a cult can never have the leader of the cult criticized. That is how the Republicans have done it, and no one is as zealous as a convert. Not to worry, they'll be singing the "SYFP" song for the next 8 years and we'll keep ignoring them. For some of us, it is the issues, not the pol. Then of course the Obama Cultist member, Cole, declares that any moderate Democrat, ex-Hillary Clinton supporter, that officially backed Obama when Hillary lost the Democratic primaries, but didn't "fall in line" and refuse to question "the one", is nothing but a "concern troll." With Democrats like this, who needs Red State? If there was anyone who was more tedious during this last election cycle than Armando, aka Big Tent Democrat, let me know. Besides turning one of my favorite sites, TalkLeft, into a pseudo-Puma cess-pool during the primaries (But he supports Obama, dont'cha know- speaking for him only!), BTD's bigger sin was dispensing bad advice to the Obama campaign on an almost daily basis. If concern trolling was an art form, BTD would be Michelangelo and the 2008 Democratic primary his Sistine Chapel. Of course Cole from BJ, doesn't bother actually providing any examples or any proof of his assertions. Obama cult members rarely do, but he excuses his lack of providing evidence by saying he has no "patience" to go through the archives and find such examples: Because I am short on patience, and, at heart, a compassionate person, I am not going to go through the TalkLeft archives and dig up where BTD gravely intones that Obama can not win the white vote, can not win the Jewish vote, can not win the Hispanic vote, and on and on. I will not dig up all the stupid god damned advice he gave to the Obama campaign (which they, thank GOD, ignored). I will not look up the umpteen posts where the left's own pompous village idiot warned that Obama could not win without Hillary on the ticket. I will not dig up the polling data that he consistently misread and always curiously interpreted as showing a need for Hillary on the ticket. I will let you do that for yourself, and you can enjoy your own historical retrospective into BTD's idiocy. Yes, I voted for Bush twice, but I proudly state I am not as stupid as BTD. Period. BTD at Talk Left notices that lack of examples and any evidence as well. The Cult is riled up. The funny thing is the Cult, as usual, never actually addresses what is written and then makes stuff up. Indeed, this is the Cult's modus operandi: [...] The Cult will not because it can not. No such posts exist. I remind my dear readers and the Cult of two words that I used - "shoo-in." Before most. Those who actually can read and actually read my posts know precisely what I wrote. Indeed, what I wrote about John Brennan, a name not mentioned in The Cult's manic response. Then BTD throws out the challenge to the Obama Cult member, Cole: Now, I defy the Cult to actually quote what I wrote. I can quote him. And I just did. Will he do the same? Now, some might think this is just a little "thing" between the two sites, but others, not only conservatives, have noticed the same type of behavior from the Oama Cult, as evidenced by Corrente: Teh funny; ej m'amuse! No reader who pays any kind of attention at all could possibly confuse BTD with Johnson, exactly because BTD doesn't traffic in tapes that can't be shown to exist, and Cole produces no such diaries at NQ from BTD. It's a smear, an art form with which both Conservatives (even pony lovers, like Cole) and the OFB (e.g.) are intimately familiar and practice routinely. And teh pathetic. Everywhere in the Obamasphere, it's one variation or another "wait 'til he does something." Er, why? * I can hear it now: "You say Then it will be too late as if that were a bad thing!" UPDATE * Even more amazing, if we take Cole as a proxy, Obama's fans labored so hard to elect somebody when they didn't know what he was going to do. The real reason they have to wait, I hazard, is that since they established no policy standards for him in their own minds, they have nothing to hold him accountable for. The demand to Shut The Fuck Up, then, is mere self-medication for cognitive dissonance, since progressives, doncha know, progress. Like, in a direction. Maybe even in one direction as opposed to another. Alas, "change" without direction is mere speed without velocity. Reach me some more of that honeymoon cake, wouldja, hon? So, all this does have a point, and that is: Obamabots aka Obama Cult members do not just run around from conservative blogs or forums to spew talking points, to defend, justify, distract or excuse Obama's flaws, faults, lies, ties or associations...... they do it to everyone, they just cannot seem to help themselves from defending their Cult leader. (Disclaimer- I have used Talk Left as an example previously of moderate Democrats that I disagree with on a policy level and philosophy level, yet I always made a point of showing respect for the fact that while we disagreed politically, they were capable of questioning their own party's choices, putting principle over party in many instances.) .

More Lies From Obama, Re: Hamas Posted: 12 Nov 2008 09:40 AM CST Interesting piece over at PJM about secret meetings between team Obama and Hamas before the elections. Teaser: In an interview published Tuesday in the London-based Al-Hayat, Dr. Ahmad Yousef, political adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, said senior Hamas figures had held a secret meeting with advisers to Barack Obama in Gaza before the U.S. elections. [...] According to Yousef in the Al-Hayat interview, the Obama-Hamas talks were already ongoing during the U.S. election campaign: "We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to reveal this information as it may influence the elections or become manipulated by McCain's campaign." Yousef also claimed he personally had friendly relations with some of Obama's advisers and that "Haniyeh will draft a congratulatory letter to Obama for his victory." Go read the rest. Not much different than when Barack Obama made critical statements about NAFTA, just to have secret memos show that part of his team was telling other countries that his public words were just "political posturing". This is not the first time that Barack Obama has shown his public statements do not match his actions and I am sure it will not be the last. Some would wonder why those celebrating an Obama win the most around the world, are the terrorist states and organizations themselves. Recently we saw that Jihadi leaders were celebrating Obama's win, the thug president from Iran, and al-Qeada. Terrorists seem to love the president elect, now THAT is change we can believe in, huh? .

Video: Celebrating our Warriors in Las Vegas Posted: 11 Nov 2008 06:03 PM CST Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook YouTube.com Giving our warriors an "atta boy, we love you."

Discovering Kryptonite, Disabling Superman Posted: 11 Nov 2008 05:19 PM CST Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook Barack Obama's none-too-subtle globalist tendencies, and the U.N.'s enraptured enchantment with Islam will fit each other like a silken glove. How does America refuse to race down this dangerous super-highway? How do we expose the U.N.'s capitulation to Arab nations wanting Israel destroyed? How has the free world allowed this to happen? How does the corruption in the U.N. become a pressing issue to Americans? How do we get the American taxpayer to listen to, and recognize, the truth? General Assembly Ignored Sudan, But Condemned Israel 22 Times The countless anti-Israel resolutions and related debates consume an astonishing proportion of the UN community's precious resources. This year, during the 61th Session of the General Assembly (2006-2007), the time spent by ambassadors on enacting the 22nd anti-Israel resolution of the year was time not spent on passing a single resolution on Sudan's genocide in Darfur. Anne Bayefsky, writing for National Review Online, looks at the future of U.S.-U.N. relations with Obama in the Oval Office, and looks back at the mistakes of George W. Bush. U.N. American Agenda National Review Online by Anne Bayefsky Nobody is happier about the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States than the folks at the United Nations. It is as if they finally discovered kryptonite, and Superman will soon be disabled. The U.N. is an uncomplicated place. Every sick, unsatiated tyrant, European has-been, or miserable wretch brainwashed about the Great Satan wants to take America down – unless they are able to immigrate of course. Their modus operandi? The United Nations. The beauty of it, from the perspective of the majority, is that Americans are paying for their own demise. Americans are even convinced that the flagellation must be deserved. President Obama will take over from where what might be called "Bush III" left off. The foreign policy of Bush II was so different than that of the man currently in office, it's hard to ascribe them to the same human being. Even die-hard U.N. enthusiasts admit they were pleased with many aspects of the American-UN relationship over the last few years, particularly after Bush III fed Bush II's U.N. ambassador John Bolton to the wolves. Ongoing genocide in Darfur was shuffled off to the ponderous International Criminal Court. The Israel-Lebanon war was "solved" with a Security Council resolution. The U.N. reform package, and any serious effort at economic oversight after Kofi Annan's Oil-for-food scandal, was tossed out the window. The green light was given to a multi-billion dollar renovation of U.N. headquarters in midtown Manhattan, notwithstanding advice that it could have done for a fraction of the cost. Efforts to tie reform or accountability to American U.N. contributions were abandoned, and five billion a year flows smoothly from American taxpayers to U.N. bank accounts. On November 13, 2008, Bush III will chum around with Saudi mobster King Abdullah at U.N. premises in New York. The occasion is a Saudi-initiated event on "a culture of peace" which a U.N. spokesperson describes as "religious dialogue, plus." The spectacle completes the Bush III metamorphosis. Think back to the image of Christian American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to protect the country from Saddam Hussein, but forced to hide the crosses around their necks because their public display is a criminal act in the Kingdom? Bush III notwithstanding, President Obama will have what his friends will call an unprecedented opportunity to tie American foreign policy to the U.N. ship of state, lance it down, and sail off into the sunset, never to be separated again. The predicament of the Saudi wife would be an apt comparison. The U.N. apparatus has mapped out the priorities for President Obama's early days in office (taking it for granted he'll be hightailing it out of Iraq), and the only question is how fast President Obama will say "I do." Here's the plan now sitting on the President-elect's desk: Run for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council as a vote of confidence in the U.N. "human rights" apparatus and the ability to change it from the inside. (Forget that the U.S. would have one vote, that the Western regional group of states is overwhelmingly outnumbered, and that reform of an agency serving the human rights abusers is the last thing of interest to the abusers firmly in control.) Decide to participate in the Durban II "anti-racism" conference in April 2009, and send along a high-level emissary such as the Secretary of State. It would be hard to run for re-election to the Human Rights Council without attending the Council's number-one priority, which is scheduled to take place shortly before the election. (Ignore that Durban II is a unredeemable and dangerous fraud. It adopts an anti-racism mantra to foment racism, the demonization of Israel and the defeat of free speech.) Revitalize the Middle East Quartet, which drives the Arab-Israeli conflict through a multilateral prism with the U.N. as a full and equal partner. (Dismiss the fact that the U.N. partner always weighs in on just one side of the conflict, adopting the predetermined position that Israel is the "root" of the problem and any Arab "peace" proposal is the solution.) Put Israel on the chopping block. "Israel first" has long been the calling card of the UN. The U.N. governing principle is this: "if only Israel did x, y, and z," (the list to be expanded in response to successive Arab no's), animus against the West would cease, terrorism would stop, the messiah would appear, and there would be no more war. (This might be called the "ass-backwards approach to Middle East politics," since Israel is actually on the front line of the war against democracy and America's way of life, not bringing up the rear. Serving up an Israeli hors d'oeuvre is just that – first course.) Drive the effort to stop terrorism through the 2006 United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. (The strategy contains no definition of terrorism since U.N. members can't agree on what counts as terrorism. It inverts priorities by focusing first and foremost on alleged "conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism," such as "poverty" and "youth unemployment" "religious discrimination" and "socio-economic marginalization." Plain old Jew-hatred or enmity of freedom and equality are mysteriously absent from the list of causes.) Agree to some form of global taxation, giving rise to an even more powerful, wealthy, and undemocratic U.N. fiefdom (and a poorer America). All that remains is for President Obama to put a date beside each one of the items on the U.N.'s first "to do" list. And down we'll go. — Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610