ON SUNDAY, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
ordered his country's nuclear agency to begin enriching uranium
to a purity of 20 percent, well beyond the level needed to fuel a nuclear power plant.
The following day, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that Tehran was going to "punch" Western nations during this week's anniversary of the Islamic revolution "in a way that will leave them stunned."
Welcome to a second year of Barack Obama's "engagement" with Iran.
The president's outreach to the brutal theocracy in Tehran began in the very first moments of his presidency.
"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent," he said in his inaugural address, "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Tehran promptly responded by calling Obama "the hand of Satan in a new sleeve." A spokesman for Khamenei sneered: "The Great Satan now has a black face."
That initial exchange set the pattern for the year that followed.
Over and over, Obama has sought to "extend a hand" to the Iran's rulers -- taping a message of goodwill for Nowruz, the Iranian New Year; remaining silent after the rigged Iranian election in June; insisting that "dialogue between our two countries" would go on despite the government's bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters -- and each time the regime has pointedly declined to unclench its fist. Khamenei's reply to Obama's New Year greeting was to accuse the president of having "insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day." He spurned Obama's private overtures with public contempt; to negotiate with the United States, he said in November, would be "naïve and perverted."
Tehran has been equally contemptuous of the deadlines set by the administration for Iran to respond to international concerns about its nuclear program. Washington can announce "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care," Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of supporters in December. And why would they care, when each deadline has come and gone with Iran's refusal to cooperate triggering no credible response from the White House?
For a year, the Obama administration bent over backward to show that the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran could best be defused through patient engagement. Iran's despots spent that year enlarging their uranium-enrichment capabilities, flouting international law, perfecting a ballistic missile with a 1,200-mile range, pouring weapons and money into terrorist groups abroad, and arresting, torturing, and even hanging dissidents at home.
Tehran's apocalyptic Khomeinists have not unclenched their fists, and no amount of gentle diplomacy or goodwill is going to persuade them to do so. Perhaps that wasn't clear to Obama a year ago. Now it is clear to almost everyone.
The closer Iran's regime gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the more critical it becomes to ostracize and change that regime. It isn't only hawkish right-wingers who think so. In a recent New York Times essay headlined "There's Only One Way to Stop Iran," Alan J. Kuperman, a scholar at the University of Texas and director of its Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program -- as well as a former aide to such congressional liberals as Charles Schumer and Thomas Foley -- called unambiguously for American air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes, urging Obama to order such strikes before it is too late, notes that a majority of Americans, as measured in recent polls, favors using force to keep Iran from going nuclear.
In recent weeks, both houses of Congress passed bills imposing stiff sanctions on Iran, particularly by cutting off its access to the gasoline imports on which it heavily depends. The legislation passed unanimously in the Senate, and by a 412-to-12 vote in the House. Not much in Washington these days commands such overwhelming and bipartisan support.
"In my view, there is no greater threat to the world than the prospect of a nuclear Iran," says Representative Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It may still be possible to neutralize that threat without military force, but we will never find out unless the president jettisons his fantasy of engagement. Millions of Iranian dissidents yearn for a decent government. The unabashed support of the Obama administration, backed up by very tough sanctions, would powerfully aid their cause.
The mullahs will never willingly unclench their fists. By now, most Americans acknowledge that reality. It's time the president did too.
'Engagement' won't unclench the mullahs' fist
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
February 10, 2010
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens