Tag Archives: Diplomacy

Obama overrides Congress to send $192 million to Palestinian Authority

From the Times of Israel. (H/T Rightscoop via BadBlue)

Excerpt:

US President Barack Obama has lifted a ban on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Obama stated that the aid was “important to the security interests of the United States.”

The US Congress froze a $192 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority after its president, Mahmoud Abbas, defied US pressure and sought to attain UN endorsement of Palestinian statehood last September. The presidential waiver means that aid can now be delivered. …

Section 3 of Congress’s Palestinian Accountability Act, which applies to 2012, stipulates that “no funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama has now signed a waiver, however, the White House said Friday, and asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to inform Congress accordingly.

The AFP news agency quoted White House spokesman Tommy Vietor as saying the $192 million aid package would be devoted to “ensuring the continued viability of the moderate PA government under the leadership of [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.”

Vietor added that the PA had fulfilled its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.

Just for reference, here is a recent rocket attack from the Palestinian area that occurred in March, and one that occurred in April. My opinion is that we should not be sending any foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority when they cannot stop the rocket attacks against Israel.

Obama’s neutrality on the Falklands dispute puts special relationship at risk

From the UK Telegraph, an outraged statement from across the pond.

Excerpt:

Barack Obama may have rolled out the red carpet for David Cameron at the White House last month, flown the Prime Minister on Air Force One to Ohio, and lavished him with a state dinner, but he still won’t back America’s closest ally over the Falklands, sticking to a policy of “neutrality”.

[…]The President and his Secretary of State refuse to back the right of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, and have not said a word condemning the increasingly belligerent stance and actions of Buenos Aires, including its threats to blockade the Islands and isolate it economically. The State Department has given no indication whatsoever that it has moved away from its support for direct negotiations between Argentina and Great Britain over the sovereignty of the Falklands. In fact, far from being neutral, the Obama administration has been siding with Argentina’s position for the last three years.

For all its PR spin during the Cameron visit, when the prime minister was blatantly used as an election prop and a fundraising foil for Obama’s re-election campaign, the Obama administration could not care less for the Special Relationship. If Mr Obama really believed in the alliance with Britain he would be actively siding with the British people over the Falklands, instead of continuing to appease Buenos Aires and its South American cohorts, including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.

Britain is standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan and in the wider war against Islamist terrorism, and on countless fronts is an indispensable ally to Washington. Yet the current US president can’t even bring himself to support the right of 3,000 overwhelmingly British Falkland Islanders to continue to live under the protection of the Union Jack, 30 years after their liberation from Argentine occupation. A stance of “neutrality” is an act of cowardice by Barack Obama in the face of Latin American pressure, and another slap in the face for Britain.

You can read more about the special relationship between the USA and the UK here, in case you are not familiar with the term.

This administration has done everything possible to support our enemies (like Iran) while simultaneously stabbing our allies (like Israel and Georgia) in the back.

Should the Obama administration be apologizing to Afghanistan?

From National Review. (H/T Doug Groothuis via Mary)

Excerpt:

We have officially lost our minds.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan’s ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president — “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known.

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

Of course, these facts may not become widely known, because no one is supposed to mention the main significance of what has happened here. First, as usual, Muslims — not al-Qaeda terrorists, but ordinary, mainstream Muslims — are rioting and murdering over the burning (indeed, theinadvertent burning) of a book. Yes, it’s the Koran, but it’s a book all the same — and one that, moderate Muslims never tire of telling us, doesn’t really mean everything it says anyhow.

Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about “proportionality” in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the “you burn books, we kill people” law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence byrationalizing that “Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.” Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh?

Then there’s the second not-to-be-uttered truth: Defiling the Koran becomes an issue for Muslims only when it has been done by non-Muslims. Observe that the unintentional burning would not have occurred if these “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. They were Muslim prisoners who annotated the “holy” pages with what a U.S. military official described as “extremist inscriptions” in covert messages sent back and forth, just as the jihadists held at Gitmo have been known to do (notwithstanding that Muslim prisoners get their Korans courtesy of the American taxpayers they construe the book to justify killing).

Do you know why you are supposed to stay mum about the intentional Muslim sacrilege but plead to be forgiven for the accidental American offense? Because you would otherwise have to observe that the Koran and other Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims that they are in a civilizational jihad against non-Muslims, and that it is therefore permissible for them to do whatever is necessary — including scrawl militant graffiti on their holy book — if it advances the cause. Abdul Sattar Khawasi — not a member of al-Qaeda but a member in good standing of the Afghan government for which our troops are inexplicably fighting and dying — put it this way: “Americans are invaders, and jihad against the Americans is an obligation.”

Because exploiting America’s hyper-sensitivity to things Islamic advances the jihad, the ostensible abuse of the Koran by using it for secret communiqués is to be overlooked. Actionable abuse occurs only when the book is touched by the bare hands of, or otherwise maltreated by, an infidel.

We’re doomed. Our foreign policy is being run by idiots.

ECM sent me this article that talks about how the U.S. Navy wants to engage in affirmative action in order to get more non-white SEALs. That’s right. Affirmative action for an ELITE military unit. Because elderly gay Hispanic women are not well represented in the Navy SEALs.