Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer says Democrats made a mistake passing ObamaCare in 2010. Put all focus on wrong problem amid recession, should've focused on helping middle class. Spoke at Nat. Press Club-Bloomberg

11/25/14, "Schumer Says Democrats Erred by Passing Health Care in 2010," Bloomberg, Kathleen Hunter

"Democrats made a mistake by passing President Barack Obama’s health-care law in 2010 instead of focusing more directly on helping the middle class, third-ranking U.S. Senate Democrat Charles Schumer said today.

Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them” in electing Obama and a Democratic Congress in 2008 amid a recession, “We took their mandate and put all our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform.” Schumer of New York said in a speech in Washington. 

Schumer said Democrats should have addressed issues aiding the middle class to build confidence among voters before turning to revamping the health-care system. He said he opposed the timing of the health-care vote and was overruled by other party members. 

“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships created by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” the senator said. But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make” in the 2008 election

Schumer’s comments represent an unusual public intra-party critique of the way Obama’s signature legislative achievement was enacted. The senator spoke at the National Press Club to analyze the results of this month’s election, when Republicans took control of the Senate and increased their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Democrats’ pro-government posture “has the natural high political ground” when the middle class is frustrated as voters were before this month’s congressional election, Schumer said. At the same time, he said, Republicans were encouraging distrust toward government. 

“That doesn’t mean we always win,” he cautioned. “When we don’t present a coherent, believable pro-government plan and message -- when we allow government to mess up--we can easily lose.”
To win in 2016, “Democrats must embrace government, not run away from it,” Schumer said. Voter discontent will continue until one of the political parties convinces middle-class Americans that it has an agenda for helping them, he said." via Free Rep.


TV anchors met secretly with Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown, Darren Wilson's reps. decided to arrange off the record meetings with '60 Minutes' and others-CNN, Stelter

"The police officer's representatives decided to arrange meetings with people from "60 Minutes" and people from several other networks."...
11/23/14, "Exclusive: Why TV anchors met secretly with Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown," CNN,

Practically every journalist covering the death of Michael Brown would like to interview Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Brown.

In the pursuit of that interview, several high-profile television anchors have secretly met with Wilson, according to sources at several TV networks. All of the meetings were off the record, meaning the anchors could not describe what was said.

These meetings are a normal part of the TV guest booking process, but they're significant in this case because Wilson has not been seen in public since Brown's death in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9. 

Among the anchors who have met with Wilson are Matt Lauer of NBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC, Scott Pelley of CBS, and Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon of CNN. 

It is unclear if Wilson, through his representatives, has agreed to be interviewed by any of the journalists. 

Shortly after I named the anchors on my CNN media program "Reliable Sources" on Sunday morning, something happened that I was not expecting: Cooper and Lemon confirmed on Twitter that the meetings had taken place. 

"For the record, I met briefly with Darren Wilson a few days ago to see if he wanted to do an interview with me. That's standard procedure," Cooper wrote on Twitter. 

Cooper apparently decided to tweet about it because some viewers who saw my "Reliable Sources" segment thought the meetings were inappropriate and said so on Twitter. Some commenters even suggested -- conspiratorially -- that the meetings revealed bias on the part of the anchors. 

Cooper pointed out that he'd repeatedly interviewed Brown's family members and their attorneys. 

"I'd also like to interview the grand jury," Cooper wrote. "There is no conspiracy here. Reporters want to interview people and sometimes you have to meet them first." 

He added that Wilson had chosen "not to do an interview with me." 

Separately, Lemon wrote on Twitter that his meeting with Wilson was "not out of the ordinary," and that "We've interviewed the Brown family, Dorian Johnson and all witnesses. Of course we'd want to interview Wilson." 

None of the other anchors have commented. Representatives for NBC, ABC and CBS declined to comment. 

Two of my network sources -- who spoke on condition of anonymity -- said that the CBS newsmagazine "60 Minutes" has been in especially hot pursuit of an interview with Wilson. 

The police officer's representatives decided to arrange meetings with people from "60 Minutes" and people from several other networks. 

None of the sources would say where or when the meetings took place. 

In the meetings, according to the sources, the anchors did most of the talking. The purpose was the same with Wilson as with any high-profile interview subject: to establish trust and comfort. 

Cooper, on Twitter, drew a comparison to another man in the news that many journalists wanted to interview earlier this year: disgraced Los Angeles Clippers team owner Donald Sterling. 

"Prior to interviewing Donald Sterling, for example, I also met with him to ask him to do an interview. That's how you ask for an interview," Cooper wrote. 

It's worth keeping in mind that Wilson could choose not to be interviewed by anyone

"Inside Edition" chief correspondent Jim Moret, my guest on "Reliable Sources," said "the perception of the network, the perception of the venue and the perception of the interviewer all come into play" when subjects are thinking about breaking their silence."


In Ferguson we're witnessing The Left's War on Civil Society-Mark Levin

11/25/14, "Ferguson," Mark Levin Facebook

"Ferguson burns and violence has been unleashed thanks to the reckless liberal media, the lawless administration (especially Eric Holder) exploiting the shooting to smear police departments across the nation, phony civil rights demagogues, race-baiting politicians, and radical hate groups. 

The lies about why and how Officer Darrin Wilson shot Michael Brown started on day one and never ended. The indisputable facts are that Brown was shot because he assaulted a police officer, attempted to take the officer's pistol resulting in two close range gun shots in the police cruiser, and then turned around and charged the officer as he was being pursued. The entire event was precipitated by Brown earlier stealing cigars from a local store and assaulting the owner. 

What we are witnessing now is the left's war on the civil societyIt's time to speak out in defense of law enforcement and others trying to protect the community and uphold the rule law." via Free Rep.

Among Free Republic comments to above: Why did they announce this at night?


"To: Biggirl

Why didn't the governor order the National Guard to do something instead of sitting there and watching Ferguson burn through the night?
It was a horrible mistake to wait until the dark of night to announce the decision instead of doing so when there was still delight. Horrible.

10 posted on 11/25/2014, 10:02:25 AM by john mirse


Darren Wilson met secretly with TV anchors:

11/23/14, "Exclusive: Why TV anchors met secretly with Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown," CNN,


GOP House leadership seeks to misinform and convince the public that defunding anything Obama proposes will lead to a gov. shutdown and default for which they'll be blamed-Corbin and Parks

11/24/14, "It’s Time To Exercise the Legislative “Veto”," David Corbin and Matt Parks, The Federalist 

"In our day of pseudo-law executive orders and claims of prosecutorial discretion, pseudo-treaty executive agreements, and a dormant Congressional power to declare war, presidents have seized the initiative in almost every area of policy-making. As a result, Congress must consciously and publicly reconceive its appropriation (and correlative defunding) power as not only policy-making, but policy-stopping.

To inactivate or deactivate programs and agencies with the power of the purse is legislative activity fully within its Constitutional authority.
In quiet ways, of course, this is already done. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis writes:
Congress adds riders and prohibitions to appropriations bills all the time. Why? Because it can [“Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution”]:
‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law[.]‘
And from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.”
What has yet to happen, however, is for Congress to make the political case, in any kind of systematic or persuasive way, that defunding parts of the federal bureaucracy is not a precursor to a Congress-initiated government shutdown and default, the two horsemen of the Progressive fiscal apocalypse (see Prof. Epps), but a defensive mechanism needed to protect Congress from the “depredations” of the president.
Congressional Republicans, in other words, would improve their ability to respond to the president’s assaults if they spent more time talking about the need for a Constitutional course correction and less time making idle and often insincere threats
When the crisis point in the game of chicken comes, it is too late for a previously chest-thumping Congress, with all the rhetorical disadvantages of diffuse leadership and political division (not to mention a hostile press), to win the sympathy of the general public.

Unfortunately, the lesson Republicans have learned from their previous encounters with President Obama is that a “shutdown” must be avoided at all costs. But if not satisfying the president’s fiscal demands is tantamount to causing a shutdown, we’re back where we started on the immigration question: heads the president win; tails Republicans lose.

Madison wrote in Federalist 48: “It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” This is the state of affairs that President Obama has furthered and taken advantage of in his personal appropriation of legislative power on a host of issues. The One Hundred Fourteenth United States Congress would go down as the one of the finest and most dutifully active and vigilant if it were to employ its power of the purse to ensure that constitutional government of, by, and for the American people did not perish on its watch."
"David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City." via Levin twitter


11/21/14, "Will Boehner's House Unilaterally Nullify Its Power of the Purse?" CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey

"The Constitution is unambiguous about which branch of the federal government has the authority to make laws governing immigration and control all money spent from the Treasury. It is Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

For President Obama to succeed in carrying out his plan to unilaterally change the status of illegal immigrants, two things must happen: 

1) He must usurp the constitutional authority of Congress to make immigration laws, and 

2) Congress must decline to use its constitutional power of the purse to stop him.

Now a third thing could happen: The Republican-controlled House, led by Speaker John Boehner, may not only decline to use its power of the purse to stop Obama from usurping authority over immigration laws, it may also try persuade the nation it does not actually have that power when it comes to immigration laws.

On Thursday, a New York Times blog published a statement from the House Appropriations Committee that suggested Congress had no control over the funding of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and that therefore the agency could "expand operations as under a new executive order" no matter what Congress said in a continuing resolution to fund the government.

I contacted the committee via email to confirm the statement published by the Times and to ask if the committee believes that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution applies to CIS.

The committee sent me verbatim exactly the same statement that had been published by the Times. It said:

"The primary agency for implementing the president's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify' program. Therefore, the appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown."

Responding on background, an Appropriations Committee aide said in an email: "You could 'defund' the CIS, but it would take an authorization/change to underlying statute that impacts their use of fees. This is an authorization issue, not an appropriations issue."

"Even if such an authorization change were to be attached to an omnibus bill via a rider, the president would veto the bill, and the government would shut down," said the aide. "At that point, the CIS would still not be defunded and would continue to operate, given that it is fee-funded."

I followed up by sending the staffer a passage from Justice Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States." Story was named to the court by President James Madison, a leading Framer of the Constitution.

"The object is apparent upon the slightest examination," Story wrote about the Article 1, Section 9 power of the purse. "It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money. As all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources, are to be applied to the discharge of the expenses, and debts, and other engagements of the government, it is highly proper, that congress should possess the power to decide, how and when any money should be applied for these purposes. If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure."

I asked: "Is it not a different thing to say the president would veto it than to say the committee does not have the power to stop the expenditure of funds on this? Also, does the committee reject Joseph Story's interpretation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 when he said that it applied to "all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources"? ... Does the committee believe that fees collected by a federal agency and then drawn from the Treasury and spent are not covered by its power under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?"

Speaking again on background, the committee aide responded via email: "As per the underlying statute, CIS is funded outside of appropriations. The fees are collected and spent according to the underlying authorization (The Immigration and Nationality Act), and are not subject to the appropriations process. Congress can indeed change CIS's ability to collect and spend fees, but it would require a change in the authorization."

Three observations:

1) If Obama spends "fees" collected into the Treasury by CIS to implement unilateral executive actions he is not acting on the "underlying authorization," he is defying it.

2) It does not matter whether the government brings money into the Treasury through a tax, a fee or selling debt to the People's Republic of China, the Constitution says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

3) It appears that Republican congressional leaders do not want to take any effective action to protect either the constitutional authority of Congress to make the immigration laws or the power of the purse that protects Americans against a president spending money from the Treasury "at his pleasure.""


Rep. Dave Brat, R-Richmond, the economist who defeated Eric Cantor, supports power of the purse to defund Obama executive order:

"Brat acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August to determine how the agency spends those fees."...

11/21/14, "Brat: 'Not one thin dime' for Obama's immigration plan," Richmond Times-Dispatch, by Allison Brophy Champion Culpeper Star-Exponent

"The 7th District's newly elected Congressman vowed via Twitter Thursday night that he supports, "Not one thin dime," to fund the proposed actions outlined by President Barack Obama to deal with the broken immigration system.

"I support using the power of the purse to defund Obama's amnesty," tweeted Rep. Dave Brat, R-Richmond, the economist, replacing Eric Cantor, who recently took office in Washington....

Brat said he would not vote to fund a program "that subverts the law or encourages tens of thousands more people to risk their lives illegally crossing our border." He said the U.S. House should "use its power of the purse" to defund in the current budget bill "Obama's illegal executive action."

"We must fund the rest of government with a short-term bill while, in a separate bill, defund the appropriations for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services programs that the president intends to use to carry out this act," Brat said.

The newly elected 7th District representative called the presidential action an "attempt to give amnesty to five million illegal aliens," saying it was unfair to others "waiting in line to become citizens the right way." Brat said the president's actions would encourage more children to attempt to illegally enter the U.S.

"In addition, crony insiders will now get the amnesty they lobbied for to provide a cheap supply of labor while millions of Americans remain unemployed," he said.

A statement Thursday from the House Appropriations Committee indicated that Congress could not use the budget appropriations process to cut funding for the president's proposed actions through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Brat acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August to determine how the agency spends those fees.

The committee said in its statement Thursday that the immigration services agency could continue to collect its fees, operate and expand operations under the president's new executive order "without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.""...



The Forgotten Americans: What if a candidate said there were too many lawyers and it was time to stop all state and fed. subsidies to universities?-Victor Davis Hanson

11/25/14, "The Forgotten Americans," Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
"Obama’s coalition is held together only by his personal mythography."

"When President Obama promised to all but end the use of coal and to send electric rates soaring, would his own friends and associates be affected? What if a candidate from an Appalachian state had argued there that were too many lawyers like Obama and that it was well past time to stop all state and federal subsidies to universities that keep turning out redundant subsidized graduates? Or if he had argued that affirmative action should be based on class rather than racial considerations?

When Justice Sonya Sotomayor talked of a “wise Latina,” it may have sounded chic to those who believe in identity politics, but for millions of Americans it raised disturbing questions. If there were “wise Latinas,” were there logically also “wise white people” or “unwise Latinas”? When Eric Holder talked of “my people,” was the logical corollary that other Americans for Holder were not “my people”? Are we now a nation of my people, by your people, and for their people?

Once one goes down the road of racial chauvinism, the contradictions of prejudice only magnify. Al Sharpton may have his own cable news show and be courted by politicians, but many forgotten Americans remember that he is a serial tax cheat and a veritable racist. When Dinesh D’Souza is convicted and sentenced for an improper campaign donation, how exactly did Sharpton with impunity refuse for decades to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back state and federal taxes? Why was he never indicted? When Sharpton charges America with racism, the forgotten Americans instead remember Sharpton’s own history of gay-baiting, anti-Semitism, and cheap anti-white demagoguery — and wonder how he weaseled his way into being an Obama adviser.

Fairly or not, the Democratic party is now associated with European-style redistribution. It is seen as being 

opposed to the creation of blue-collar jobs in industries like mining, oil and gas production, timber, and irrigated agriculture, 

being shrill on issues like abortion and gay marriage, and 

being more worried about undocumented immigrants than about Americans who pay the additional costs or foreigners who play by the immigration-law rules. 

Any one or two of these issues might have been massaged or downplayed, but in toto they send a message to the middle class and working class that they are irrelevant or, worse, despised rather than just ignored. Their livelihoods are seen as unimportant while their culture is written off; they do not receive the empathy accorded the poor or the deference shown the refined tastes of the wealthy.

For six years, the Democratic party had boasted openly about its new constituency in contrast to a played-out, old, white, male — and shrinking — Republican electorate. Herein it committed two terrible blunders well beyond the serial and gratuitous smears. One, its coalition was predicated on the landmark candidacy of Barack Obama and his unprecedented personal popularity among minority groups and young singles. These groups were interested in Obama as the first black president, and not so much because of his liberal social agenda. So, when he is on the ballot, young people and minorities turn out to vote for the iconic, cool person, but they are not necessarily as enamored of his policies. When Obama is not on the ballot, his new base of identity-politics voters stays home, and the ballyhooed coalition dissipates.

Second, each time the progressive coalition panders to an identity group and uses the rhetoric of “my people” or “punish our enemies,” it turns off one voter for each one it energizes. Few have written of the astounding ability of Obamites — Joe Biden, John Brennan, Steven Chu, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Jonathan Gruber, Lisa Jackson, Van Jones, Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, Kathleen Sebelius, and a host of others — to insult the intelligence of Americans on grounds of their supposed naïveté or illiberality or both.

In crude terms, the percentage of white and middle-class voters who support progressive Democrats is shrinking at a rapid clip at the very time when astronomical rates of participation by new minority and young voters are needed — groups that thus far show no predictable record of maintaining their historic turnouts when Obama is not on the ballot.  Hope and change was about Barack Hussein Obama’s youth, charisma, rhetorical skills,* race, nontraditional background, and multicultural-sounding tripartite name, but not about an otherwise reactionary liberal agenda.

So the progressives won small and lost big: They got Obama elected twice and have nearly ruined his party in the process."
"— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution"...


*Comment: "Rhetorical skills?" He can read words put in front of him. He has a deep voice. Neither of these things necessarily define "rhetorical skills."

Merriam Webster definition of "rhetorical:"

"Of, relating to, or concerned with the art of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people."


Remember, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, shortly before the Nov. 2008 election, thrilled that Obama was going to win, freely admitted they knew nothing about him except that "he went to Harvard Law School.


Also: Rhetoric concerns writing as well as speaking. The first of two books attributed to Obama, "Dreams of my father" is written in a style unlike anything else that exists under his name. This has been documented in detail. Meaning the actual writing of the book, the rhetoric, couldn't possibly have been Obama's. 


P.S. It must be said that the GOP E favors the same things democrats do from European style redistribution, to open borders, on down the list.


Ted Cruz: If Obama can impose his own laws, so can the next President

11/24/14, "Cruz: If Obama Can Impose His Own Laws, So Can the Next President," CNS News, Melanie Hunter

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on “Fox News Sunday” that if President Barack Obama can impose his own immigration laws without Congress, then the next president can also impose his own laws.

“The substance is very damaging to working men and women across the country, but it's a far broader danger for anyone concerned about liberty, because if this president can impose his own immigration laws unilaterally, then the next president can impose his own laws, whether it's immigration, whether it's tax, whether it's labor, whether it's environmental –” Cruz said."...

Image: "Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)"

Monday, November 24, 2014

Obama's rude and cavalier behavior in Australia may adversely effect entire US presence in the Pacific-Herald-Sun, Australian

11/24/14, "Attention America: your windbag president is pushing Australia China’s way," Australia Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt

"This is more like it-and Barack Obama could be further punished for his pathetic politicking by Australia now joining China’s regional infrastructure bank:

(The Australian, subscription): "TRADE and Investment Minister Andrew Robb ... has sent Barack Obama a sharp return-fire message: that
Australia expects to be treated with respect-not insulted and that the President’s remarks in Brisbane were wrong, misinformed and unnecessary… 

The Robb remarks are both an honest expression of sentiment in much of the Abbott cabinet and a useful message to the Obama White House about the President’s gratuitous intervention in Australian politics against the Abbott government 
Robb told Sky News’s Australian Agenda program yesterday he was “surprised” by Obama’s speech, he believed the President was “not informed” about Australia’s climate change policy, that his “content was wrong”, that Australia’s 2020 targets were “roughly comparable” to those of the US and other nations, that his speech gave “no sense” to government efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef and that his remarks were “misinformed” and “unnecessary”. 
In short, Robb dumped all over Obama… 

Mr Robb also intensified pressure within the government to alter its position and join the China regional infrastructure bank, playing down the security factors that led cabinet’s National Security Committee to reject membership at this time. 

The Obama administration lobbied the Abbott government heavily to stay aloof from the bank, with Ms Bishop winning a cabinet struggle against the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, who is keen for Australia to participate… 

Robb said the Chinese had told him the bank would operate on “world-class governance standards"… and that Australia would be a “big beneficiary” of its operations.""

 11/24/14, "Major blowback from Obama's insult to Australia at the G20 in Brisbane," American Thinker, Thomas Lifson

"Barack Obama has managed to damage the formerly close relationship between the United States and Australia, a cornerstone of our presence in the PacificUnless you read American Thinker, you probably don’t know about the fuss created when President Obama stuck his nose in Australian domestic politics and insulted that ally during his closing remarks at the G20 Summit in Brisbane last week:
Federal Coalition members are ... angry at the US President’s public intervention in the Australian climate change debate at the G20 last Saturday, when most of his remarks in the summit’s closed session on energy, where the issue was discussed, were devoted to US gas supplies and production that have been boosted by coal-seam gas and shale oil…
Senior Queensland government MPs are so angry at Mr Obama’s remarks about the Great Barrier Reef and his attack on coal production in a resources state that they are considering a formal complaint.
The reverberations are now being felt. Australia’s most widely read poltical blogger, columnist, and television commentator, Andrew Bolt, writes in the Melbourne Herald-Sun:"... 

Added: Obama's speech to college students at the University of Queensland in Brisbane promoting the $1 billion a day imaginary global warming industry was the result of a last minute request he made of his Australian hosts:

"Despite repeated Australian requests, White House officials refused to provide a text of the speech to their Australian hosts in advance, and did not provide a summary of what would be contained in the speech."... 

11/21/14, "Obama ignored Embassy's warning's on climate change speech," The Weekend Australian, Greg Sheridan

"Barack Obama defied the ­advice of his embassy in Canberra to deliver a stinging attack on the Abbott government’s climate policies in Brisbane last weekend.

The US embassy, under the leadership of ambassador John Berry, advised the President, through his senior staff, not to couch his climate change comments in a way that would be seen as disobliging to the Abbott government, sources have revealed.

When The Weekend Australian put this information to the US embassy, a spokesman said: “As is the case with all presidential speeches, President Obama's remarks at the University of Queensland in Brisbane were prepared by the White House.

It is normal practice when the US President makes an overseas visit that the ambassador in the country he is visiting is consulted about the contents of major speeches. It is unusual, though not unprecedented, for an embassy’s advice to be ignored.

The Obama speech in Brisbane was added to the President’s program at the last minute. During his extensive talks with Tony Abbott in Beijing at APEC,

Mr. Obama did not make any mention of a desire to make a speech, 

or of any of the contentious climate change content of the speech.

Only in Naypyidaw, in Myanmar, immediately prior to the leaders travelling to Brisbane for the G20 summit, did the US party demand that the President make a speech 

and that it be to an audience of young people
At the speech, the President did not ­acknowledge the presence of Governor-General Peter Cosgrove."

[click excerpts below to enlarge]



Some excerpts above from The Australian are from FreeRepublic.com

11/21/14, "Obama ignored Embassy's warning's on climate change speech," The Weekend Australian, Greg Sheridan


Ed. note: The Australian is subscription. Part of the Australian story above was copied on the GWPF site. I found a few additional excerpts from the Australian article at Free Republic. What they had I copied above. The two portions above with grey background are screenshots from the article posted on GWPF. For whatever reason, GWPF is among sites along with PamelaGeller.com, DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com from which I can't copy and paste. One is free to imagine why someone would want to limit public exposure to these websites. via WUWT, via Climate Depot


JFK speech in support of Israel at Zionists of America Convention Aug. 1960, 9 wks. before he was elected president

8/26/1960,  "Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Zionists of America Convention, Statler Hilton Hotel," New York, NY, presidency.ucsb. edu

"Prophecy is a Jewish tradition, and the World Zionist movement, in which all of you have played so important a role, has continued this tradition. It has turned the dreams of its leaders into acts of statesmanship. It has converted the hopes of the Jewish people into concrete facts of life. 

When the first Zionist conference met in 1897, Palestine was a neglected wasteland. A few scattered Jewish colonies had resettled there, but they had come to die in the Holy Land, rather than to make it live again in greatness. Most of the governments of the world were indifferent. 

But now all is changed. Israel became a triumphant and enduring reality exactly 50 years after Theodore Herzl, the prophet of Zionism, had proclaimed the ideal of nationhood. It was the classic case of an ancient dream finding a young leader, for Herzl was then only 37 years of age. Perhaps I may be allowed the observation that the Jewish people - ever since David slew Goliath - have never considered youth as a barrier to leadership, or measured experience and maturity by mere length of days. 

I first saw Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of Ottoman misrule were slowly being transformed by miracles of labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939, rather than a land of fulfillment. I returned in 1951 to see the grandeur of Israel. In 3 years this new state had opened its doors to 600,000 immigrants and refugees. Even while fighting for its own survival, Israel had given new hope to the persecuted and new dignity to the pattern of Jewish life. I left with the conviction that the United Nations may have conferred on Israel the credentials of nationhood; but its own idealism and courage, its own sacrifice and generosity, had earned the credentials of immortality

Some do not agree. Three weeks ago I said in a public statement: "Israel is here to stay." The next day I was attacked by Cairo radio, rebuking me for my faith in Israel, and quoting this criticism from the Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria:
As for the question of the existence and the nonexistence of Israel, Mr. Kennedy says that Israel has been created in order to exist. Time will judge between us, Mr. Kennedy.
I agree. Time will judge whether Israel will continue to exist. But I wish I could be as sure of all my prophecies as I am of my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay

For Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom. 

It is worth remembering, too, that Israel is a cause that stands beyond the ordinary changes and chances of American public life. In our pluralistic society, it has not been a Jewish cause - any more than Irish independence was solely the concern of Americans of Irish descent. The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been repeatedly endorsed by Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment. 

Yet within this tradition of friendship there is a special obligation on the Democratic Party. It was President Woodrow Wilson who forecast with prophetic wisdom the creation of a Jewish homeland.

It was President Franklin Roosevelt who kept alive the hopes of Jewish redemption during the Nazi terror. It was President Harry Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs. And may I add that it would be my hope and my pledge to continue this Democratic tradition - and to be worthy of it. 

What is needed now is leadership - impartial but firm, deliberate but bold - leadership instead of rhetoric. There has been enough rhetoric in recent years about free transit through the Suez Canal - but there has been no leadership. Our policy in Washington and in the United Nations has permitted defiance of our pledge with impunity - indeed, with economic reward. 

If America's word in the world community is to have meaning - if the mutual security amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Douglas is to have meaning - and if the clear, thoughtful language of the Democratic platform is to have meaning - the influence of this Nation and other maritime powers must be brought to bear on a just solution that removes all discrimination at the Suez Canal for all times. And the White House must take the lead. 

We have also had much rhetoric in recent years about opposing an arms race and a solution by force in the Middle East. The rhetoric has not only been empty and negative. Even more fundamental is the premise that if the United States and the United Nations are to reject a solution based on force, then they must accept the task of finding a solution based on reason and justice. 

We can no longer shun this task by pleading that the problem is too difficult. The danger is already acute from delay. Russia's position is more entrenched. The Arab States are more divided and restless.  

The influence of the Western nations has steadily diminished. 

When I talked with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on his most recent visit to this country, he told me of dangerous signs of unrest beneath the deceptive quiet that has fallen over the Middle East. For there is no peace in that region today - only an embittered truce between renewed alarms

American intervention, on the other hand, will not now be easy for the record is not one to which we can point with pride:

"The humble plea by the George Allen mission to Cairo, to urge Egyptian reconsideration of their acceptance of Soviet arms;

The series of incredible American blunders which led to the Suez crisis of 1956, events in which the role of our Government has never been fully explained;

The so-called Eisenhower doctrine, now repudiated by some of the very nations which accepted our aid, and the cause even at that time of widespread antagonism from Middle Eastern leaders who felt we were cynically trying to use them for our own cold war ends;

And, in general, a deterioration in our relations with all Middle Eastern nations, primarily because neither Israel nor the Arabs knew exactly what to expect from us. At times it must have appeared to many in the area that the shortest route to Washington was through Moscow. At times it must have appeared that champions of democracy and freedom were being punished for their virtues, by being taken for granted by a neglectful administration that suddenly showed concern only when it was displeased by their conduct."

Peace in the Middle East is not one step nearer reality today than it was 8 years ago - but Russian influence is immeasurably greater.

What can a new President do? More weakness and timidity will not do. More stubborn errors redeemed at the last moment by impulsive action - will not do. 

Now we must take the risk of leadership, and use our influence to compose this ugly situation before it breaks out in a new threat to peace. And I know we will not be alone in searching for a peaceful settlement - if our aims are high, and if they are centered solely on the genuine needs of the Middle East, and on an honorable end to these ancient quarrels. 

First: I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics. 

Second: I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 - that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. And to complete the effectiveness of this guarantee, I propose that we invite all like-minded nations to join with us in signing, registering, and depositing this declaration with the United Nations. 

At present the tripartite declaration is too uncertain of execution and effect to be a useful shield for peace. With countries so close to one another in a sensitive tension-ridden area, a delay of only a few days in international reaction to aggression might well be fatal to a nation's freedom and indeed the peace of the entire world. Once the nations of the Middle East have a firm and precise guarantee, the need for continuing the arms race will disappear, the easing of tensions inevitably will follow, and both sides will be able to devote their energies and talents to peaceful pursuits. 

Third: I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life - and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance. 

The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative. 

For I have always believed that there is no real conflict or contradiction between the genuine aspirations of the Arab nations and the genuine aspirations of Israel. The Arab peoples rose to freedom and independence in the very years which saw the rise of Israel. From the cooperation of these two awakened nationalisms could come a new golden age for the Middle East. But from their destructive vendetta can come nothing but misery and poverty and the risk of war.

The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks; bread, not bombs.*** There is already little enough available in the way of financial and physical resources for either side to be devoting its energies to huge defense budgets. The present state of tensions serves only the worst interests of Arab and Israeli alike. But a new spirit of comity could well serve the highest ideals of both.

For the original Zionist philosophy has always maintained that the people of Israel would use their national genius not for selfish purposes but for the enrichment and glory of the entire Middle East.

The earliest leaders of the Zionist movement spoke of a Jewish state which would have no military power and which would be content with victories of the spirit. 

The compulsions of a harsh and inescapable necessity have compelled Israel to abandon this hope.

But I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate. And I cannot believe that the Arab world would not find a better basis for unity in a united attack on all their accumulated social problems - an attack in which they could benefit immensely from a closer cooperation with the people of Israel. 

The technical skills and genius of Israel have already brought their blessings to Burma and to Ethiopia. Still other nations in Asia and in Africa are eager to benefit from the special skills available in that bustling land. Why should the Middle East alone be cut off from this partnership? And why should not the people of Israel receive the blessings available to them from association with the Arab world?

When we think of the possibilities of this association, an emotion of soaring hope replaces our somber anxieties about the Middle East. Ancient rivers would give their power to new industries. The desert would yield to civilization. Disease would be eradicated, especially the disease that strikes down helpless children. The blight of poverty would be replaced by the blessings of abundance. 

But it is a long and painful step from the era of the boycott to the era of partnership - and that step needs the direct encouragement and help of the White House. The next President of the United States should always be personally available to stimulate every experiment in cooperation, from the joint development of a river, to a reconsideration of the Arab refugee problem, to the crowning mercy of the final reconciliation that can be brought only by a true peace settlement. 

Peace is our primary objective in the Middle East - and peace is partly our responsibility. "Seek peace, and pursue it" commands the psalmist. And that we must do. With open minds, open hearts, and the priceless asset of our American heritage, we shall seek peace in the Middle East, as elsewhere. And when history writes its verdict, let it be said that we pursued the peace with all the courage, all the strength, and all the resourcefulness at our command.

In this task, I ask for your assistance, your patience, your wisdom, and your support - until we can say to Jew and Arab alike "Peace be within thy walls and plenteousness within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sake, I will wish thee prosperity."" via Free Rep.


***Re: Reference to Middle East need for water in 1960:

Israel began desalination in 1973 and added five large plants in 2008. The cost of desalination has decreased over time. Israel now has plenty of water, even exports it to help neighboring countries. 

1/24/14, "Over and drought: Why the end of Israel's water shortage is a secret," Haaretz, Yuval Elizur.

Water was among topics discussed by Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown and Israel PM Netanyahu in March 2014:
3/5/2014: "During a meeting at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, the two emphasized their joint interests in cybersecurity, energy sources and water conservation, and suggested Israel — an arid country with a growing population — might be able to help California cope with its ongoing drought.
California doesn’t need to have a water problem,” Netanyahu said. “Israel has no water problems because we are the number one recyclers of waste water, we stop water leaks, we use drip irrigation and desalination.” 
Brown said he would welcome their ideas.Israel has demonstrated how efficient a country can be, and there is a great opportunity for collaboration,” Brown said."...

3/5/14, "Netanyahu, Gov. Brown Sign Pro-Business Pact," AP via losangeles.cbslocal.com
Added: Desalination has had a delayed start in the US but "currently there are about a dozen proposed projects" ongoing in California. A plant in Santa Barbara dismantled in 1992 may be revived: 
5/4/14, "California city looks to sea for water in drought," AP, Alicia Chang, Science Writer
"Santa Barbara is uniquely positioned with a desalination plant in storage. But getting it humming again won't be as simple as flipping a switch.

After the plant was powered down in 1992, the city sold off parts to a Saudi Arabia company. The guts remain as a time capsule — a white elephant of sorts — walled off behind a gate near the Funk Zone, a corridor of art galleries, wineries and eateries tucked between the Pacific and U.S. 101....

"We live in a desert. We can expect droughts. It's just inevitable that desalination is going to become a part of our regular water portfolio," Haggmark said."...

Image: "In this April 25, 2014 photo, Joshua Haggmark, interim resources manager for Santa Barbara, Calif., stands next to a desalination plant, which removes salt from ocean water, that has been in storage for more than two decades in Santa Barbara, Calif. The city is considering restarting the plant as California withers in a drought. (AP Photo/Alicia Chang)The Associated Press"

"Australia, Singapore, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other thirsty countries are big desalination supporters, but tougher regulatory requirements have made it a harder sell in the U.S."...