Russia to deploy short-range missiles near Poland

MOSCOW – Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama’s election.

In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.

Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from four — a change that could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia and play into the hands of his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin.

Extending the presidential term could mean a possible 12 more years in the top office for the popular Putin.

Echoing Putin, who made criticism of Washington and the West a hallmark of his two-term, eight-year presidency, Medvedev used the speech in an ornate Kremlin reception hall to cast Russia as a nation threatened by encroaching American military might.

“From what we have seen in recent years — the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO — we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength,” Medvedev said.

He signaled Moscow would not give in to Western calls to pull troops from Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rescind its recognition of their independence following the August war.

“We will not retreat in the Caucasus,” he said, winning one of many rounds of applause during the televised 85-minute address.

Talking tough, he fleshed out long-promised military measures in response to U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites now in NATO. The Kremlin claims the system is meant to weaken Russia, not defend against Iran, as Washington insists.

Medvedev said Iskander missiles would be deployed to Russia’s western enclave of Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, “to neutralize, if necessary, a missile defense system.”

The Iskander has a range of about 280 kilometers (175 miles), which would allow it to reach targets in Poland but not in the Czech Republic — but officials have said its range could be increased. Medvedev did not say whether the missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Russia will also deploy electronic jamming equipment, Medvedev said.

After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was “counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other’s interests into account.”

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack emphasized that the planned missile defenses were not aimed at Russia.

“The steps that the Russian government announced today are disappointing,” McCormack said. “But, again, this is not directed at them. Hopefully one day they’ll realize that.”

Medvedev appeared to be trying to improve Russia’s bargaining position in potential talks with the Obama administration on missile defense. His wording suggested Russia would reverse the decision if the U.S. scraps its missile defense plans.

“Moscow isn’t interested in confrontation, and if Obama makes some conciliatory gestures it will respond correspondingly,” said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at Moscow’s Institute for World Economy and International Relations.

But independent military analyst Alexander Golts said Medvedev’s “confrontational tone” could further harm relations with the United States, which plunged to a post-Cold War low over the war in Georgia.

“Russia itself is cutting off the route toward better ties,” he said.

Regional leaders criticized Medvedev’s missile warning. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said it was “certainly the wrong signal at the wrong time” and urged the U.S. and Russia to see change in the White House as an “opportunity for a new beginning.”

Medvedev suggested the U.S. must make the first move to break the chill. The Kremlin hopes the incoming administration “will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” he said.

In addition to calling for a six-year presidential term, he said parliament’s term should be extended to five years instead of four and its power over the executive branch increased.

Both changes could strengthen the hand of Putin, who can run for president again in 2012 and now heads the dominant United Russia party.

Tags: Barack Obama Wins Election Missile Defense System Russia Threat Obama Oba

0 comments View Entry

By: Tracy Karol I got a taste of this from The Huffington Post and MoveOn.org. I knew we might need someone to help de-program these people’s brains, but so soon? I thought it would be later, when he shows he is not truly The One (or The Messiah, if you prefer). But apparently withdrawal has set in, so I’m stepping up to do my part by giving Obama lovers something to fixate on: McCain supporters! Yes You Can still hate us! Pretty weird actually — I received so much hate mail the day after the election from people I don’t know (or remember) who apparently had crossed paths or read something I’d written about “The One” and said they were just waiting to tell me what a terrible person I was. Wow, didn’t know I’d impacted their lives in such a way! Had John McCain won, I can honestly say I would never have considered calling, writing or otherwise contacting an Obama supporter to gloat or, worse, call them names. But to continue helping you Obama lovers (that includes you, Chris Matthews), I’ll keep on exposing anything I see that Obama does to destroy our country. And you can keep hating me for it. I just haven’t fallen for him yet — maybe that day will come (doubtful), but for now I still see him as the typical corrupt Chicago machine politician who basically bought this election.

Tags: Chris Matthews Huffington Post Moveon.org Obama Campaign Obama Love Ob

0 comments View Entry

By: Tracy Karol

Barack Obama has acted swiftly to announce a few key positions in his new administration. I’ll discuss more of them later, but two deserve mention now. Let’s just say it doesn’t look like Obama is bringing “change” to Washington — unless it’s Chicago-style change (AKA corrupt machine politics). Where’s the hope, Obama? C’mon, you’re letting down your supporters? Well, maybe not with Axelrod — he came through during the campaign and bought brought you a win. But considering David Axelrod comes from the same team (and days) as Mayor Daley, he’s right up there on my corruption scale. He’s certainly nothing new and not what I’d call a hope for a better tomorrow. For more information, the phone number for the transition headquarters is 202-540-3000. Website is www.change.gov. 

Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel

Emanuel is an Illinois lawmaker who worked for seven years as a senior aide to President Clinton. He’s widely viewed as one of the toughest, ruthless and most partisan politicians on Capitol Hill. His ability to work effectively with Republicans is doubtful, so Obama’s first, critical choice shows he isn’t really serious about bipartisanship. Perhaps, as Emanuel says, he’s changed, or mellowed. One can only hope. You can view his record for yourself at http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=MIL33496.

David Axelrod: White House Senior Advisor

Axelrod was Obama’s chief campaign strategist and responsible for staging his biggest campaign events (who could forget those Hollywood-style pillars, the special arena for Obama’s DNC acceptance speech, even Grant Park?) and is not above staging campaign ads and passing them off as his own. As mentioned, he used to work for Mayor Daley in Chicago and owns a political advertising firm in — you guessed it — Chicago. For more on Axelrod, see profile at http://redstate.com/diaries/2008/sep/22/who-is-david-axelrod. Personally, I found out more than I could stomach when researching Obama’s Chicago connections (see older story). More to come on Axelrod.

Will keep you updated on the transition team. Let’s hope it gets better than this. Certainly not any “change” as of yet.

Tags: Change.gov Obama Brings Chicago Politicians To Washington Obama David Axe

0 comments View Entry

By: Tracy Karol

When Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, he talked a big game about education reform, even going so far as to say that he and his wife would never be where they are today if they “weren’t given a chance at education.”
While he made sweeping promises in that speech, his past, as usual, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, and in this instance it’s a story most Americans don’t know and all should.
What did Obama say in his speech that is so at odds with his true background regarding education?

“America, now is not the time for small plans. Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.” [1]

Let it never be said that Obama’s principles get in the way of his politics.

Obama’s Dirty Little Education Secrets
A quick look at his ties to the Chicago Teachers Union shows that he is, in fact, in favor of high salaries for teachers – just not at the expense of actual education for children.

Of course, Obama does not send his own children to public school and has flip-flopped on the issue of charter schools and merit pay tied to student performance – something teachers’ unions typically strongly oppose (and he is endorsed by the teachers’ unions). During the primary race with Hillary Clinton, however, the American Federation of Teachers backed Clinton, not Obama.[2]

Yet the Chicago Teachers Union broke apart and stuck with typical Chicago machine politics, bucking the national union in the primary as the only teachers’ union to endorse Obama.

Obama has a long history with the CTU, and it belies his speech of a “moral obligation” of providing children with a “world-class education.” Does Obama believe teachers should make more money? From his allies at CTU, one would have to conclude yes. Entry-level teachers there earn $43,702, plus $3,059 in pension benefits. This is despite working only until about 1:30 in the afternoon and fewer days than almost any district in the country. The teachers, if they take no additional classes, will make $60,000 by 2012 and if they do take graduate-level courses will be making six figures by the end of their careers – and that doesn’t count administrators. [3]

The national average for entry-level teachers that same year was $30,000 – and they worked a full day. [4]

No one argues that teachers are often underpaid, but in Chicago, it’s the students who are short-changed. While these teachers – who even Mayor Richard Daly can barely negotiate with – make more than almost any in the nation, they teach such short days that most students can’t take laboratories or foreign language classes. In 2005, the graduation rate was 54 percent and the college entrance rate was just 6 percent. [5]

One might think that a world-famous presidential candidate would do something, anything, about this atrocity taking place in his own backyard. He does. He makes sure that he’s always available for the CTU.

“I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way,” he has said. [6]

Perhaps he doesn’t consider it corrupting, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be meeting the “moral obligation” he claims he wants for American children, nor does he hold these teachers accountable for the abysmal failure of Chicago schools.
Obama Campaign Spins – And the Media Bites

Obama, perhaps realizing that this might come back to bite him, seems to be trying to get ahead of this story – though no one has really paid attention to it and it’s doubtful most American teachers are aware of the shocking failures of the Chicago school system, Obama’s ties to it, or his lies to the American public regarding education reform. If so, decent teachers across the nation would likely denounce Obama in a heartbeat.

Yet a glowing story in the New York Times on September 9, 2008, was so naïve as to be laughable as the headline blasted “IF ELECTED ...Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan”[7]

That’s a scary thought, considering the state of education in Chicago. Yet the article was clearly written by a starry-eyed reporter who believes Obama has learned from the past:

“Barack has been very engaged, very inquisitive about the dynamics of how do you improve public schools,” said Scott Smith, a former publisher of The Chicago Tribune who has collaborated with Mr. Obama on education projects here for a decade. One of the biggest lessons Mr. Obama drew from his experiences in Chicago, associates said, is that student achievement is highly dependent on teacher quality. [8]

Funny how Obama can rewrite history like that. Scary, though, is what is brought up later in the article and described in glowing terms, as if Obama had single-handedly taken on education and shaken things up in Chicago – while nothing could be further from the truth:

“Mr. Obama immersed himself in education issues after his return to Chicago, where he began lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School and joined the boards of two education foundations. Chicago received $49 million from a $500 million endowment by Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher, for school reform efforts nationwide, and the city added $98 million in matching funds for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a philanthropic campaign that financed enrichment projects at a third of the city’s 600 schools.” [9]

The writer then makes a passing reference to the fact that William Ayers, admitted terrorist, was part of this same foundation – but is clearly biased and dismisses it out of hand:

“Supporters of Mr. McCain have been trying to taint Mr. Obama by highlighting his ties to William Ayers, a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s, by pointing out that they worked on the Challenge project together. Mr. Ayers was indicted on conspiracy charges that were later thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
Mr. Obama has acknowledged that he is a friend of Mr. Ayers but has sought to minimize their interactions. Records show that Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, helped write the Challenge proposal. The records also show that he and Mr. Obama worked on the Challenge project together and that they attended some of the same meetings.” [10]

Wow, almost sounds like a press release Obama’s campaign could have put out. Media bias is clear, though, and the truth is hard to dodge.

Obama, Ayers, and the Annenberg Scandal
The truth is that the New York Times itself printed a story about William Ayers, ironically enough on September 11, 2001, albeit before the 9/11 attacks were carried out:

“I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ‘I feel we didn't do enough.’ Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground…writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.”

The story goes on to explain a bit more about Ayers’ background, in his own words:

“Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ‘Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [11]

While Obama has tried to distance himself from Ayers, he also defends him on his website at least four time. One sample:

"William Ayers is a school reform activist, Distinguished Professor of Education, and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he teaches courses in interpretive research, urban school change, and youth and the modern predicament. He is the founder of the Center for Youth and Society and founder and co-director of the Small Schools Workshop. A graduate of the Bank Street College of Education and Teachers College, Columbia University, he has written extensively about social justice, democracy and education. His interests focus on the political and cultural contexts of schooling as well as the meaning and ethical purposes of teachers, students, and families.” [12]

Maybe he’ll with that glowing recommendation, if elected president Obama will make the admitted and unrepentant terrorist secretary of education, so he can oversee what all American children learn.

The Obama/Ayers/education connection gets worse, though, because as usual it is one that is mired in corruption. A more unbiased, thorough look than the New York Times story shows the actual timetable of Obama’s appointment to the Annenberg Challenge, as well as what he did for these boards once he was elected to political office:

“When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues.”  [13]

Ayers also held a fundraiser in his home for Obama, helping Obama first get elected to public office. Once in office, Obama made sure to send public funds to pet projects of Ayers, as he usually does for his cronies – Tony Rezko, convicted slumlord among them.
It’s clear now why he wouldn’t hesitate to take calls from the CTU: Obama has never let principles get in the way of his politics. And with friends like these, and an adoring media that has even most of Hollywood ready to faint at his feet, a little thing like America’s schoolchildren isn’t about to get in the way of the man who would be president.

Sources:

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
[2]http://nyceducator.com/2007/10/aft-endorses-clinton-for-president.html

[3]http://article.nationalreview.com/q=Y2E1MTFkZTVjZTlkOTBiYWFlYWUyM2RjYTRjNjhkMmM=
[4]http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2006/nr061114.html
[5]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2E1MTFkZTVjZTlkOTBiYWFlYWUyM2RjYTRjNjhkMmM=
[6] The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

[7]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10educate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[8]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10educate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[9]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10educate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10educate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[11]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewant ed=all

[12] www.barackobama.com

[13]http://article.nationalreview.com/?=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=#more

Tags: Obama Ayers Annenberg Ctu Obama Annenberg Challenge Chicago Machine Poli

0 comments View Entry

"Let's Get This Right Coalition endorses Barb Davis White for the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota."

For_Immediate_Release:

United States of America (Press Release) August 15, 2008 -- For Immediate Release

August 15, 2008

The Let's Get This Right Coalition today announced its endorsement of Barb Davis White for the 5th Congressional District in Minnesota.

Dr. Bill Smith, National Political Director and Chad Everson, State Political Director, MN, carefullly chose White as a candidate to support. Let's Get This Right (www.letsgetthisright.com) currently supports a core group of Republican candidates across the country.

White is running on a platform of renewing our committment to our country and assimilating diverse people and ideas into our culture.

"Let us stop apologizing for our nation. We must renew our commitment to this country," she writes on her website, www.barbdaviswhite.com.

Let's Get This Right is the outgrowth of the unofficial online efforts in support of John McCain for President. Those efforts include www.McCainVictory08.com, www.McCainNow.com, www.McCainGoogleGroups.com and 25 additional websites, 275+ affiliated blogs and roughly 25,000 volunteers/supporters nationwide.

The goal of Let's Get This Right is to provide financial, online and "boots on the ground" volunteer support to a growing slate of conservative candidates.

Let's Get This Right is neither a PAC nor a 527 organization. It is not affiliated with any candidate, candidate committee, the RNC, NRSC or NRCC. It accepts no donations directly but rather fundraises for candidate campaigns through Slatecard.com, a utility to support and enhance Republican activism.

"Slatecard" is Slatecard.com PAC. Slatecard.com PAC is an independent, federally registered political action committee (PAC) which acts as a "conduit" to raise money online to help Republican candidates for federal office in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Media requests should be sent to mediarelations@letsgetthisright.com.

Tags: Barb Davis White Minnesota 5th District News Release Candidates

1 comments View Entry

By: Tracy Karol

“Read the papers here, and you might think little has changed from the days when Chicago politicians got money from Al Capone.”

So writes Amanda Paulson in The Christian Science Monitor on February 4, 2005. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p02s01-ussc.html)

Unfortunately for the citizens of Chicago, Paulson was all too correct, and one of the worst offenders, the man who paints himself as an agent of “hope and change,” as non-partisan – indeed as a great reformer – the man who would be president – was none other than Barack Obama.

The story Paulson was writing about was known as the “Hired Truck” scandal and it’s a bit hard to follow if you aren’t familiar with the city’s politics – or have an accounting degree. It was one of many scandals to hit the city at the time, a year after Obama had made his debut on the national scene at the Democratic National Convention and was soon elected to the United States Senate. But before that, he was an Illinois State senator, and he played the game well, first in Chicago under his friend and ally Mayor Richard Daley, and later in Springfield under his mentor, State Senate President Emil Jones.

Daley, who is still mayor of Chicago, was defended at the time by his “handler,” and he has always avoided prosecution, though most people view him as skirting the line when it comes to ethics – hiring family members, known felons, etc. But what did his handler at the time say about him to deflect blame?

“He doesn't need contractors, he doesn't need patronage armies to get elected mayor of the city of Chicago. All he needs to do is run on his record," says David Axelrod, a political consultant who works for Daley. Corruption is "not something you can fully eradicate in any city, and it's not something that happens overnight." (Christian Science Monitor).

Axelrod, the same man who now handles Barack Obama. More about him in a later story.

But Obama’s dirty politics started nearly a decade earlier, in 1996, when he made his first bid for the Illinois legislature – and won. Of course, it would have been difficult to lose, since he ran uncontested – though not for lack of trying on his opponents’ parts. He simply had their names taken off the ballot, so voters had no choice but to elect him.

That was perhaps the beginning of Obama’s official dirty acts. One of his mentors, Alice Palmer, was the incumbent in that election, and she had promised to endorse Obama for her seat if she won her bid for the US Congress. But she lost, and she wasn’t ready to give up her seat after all. And Obama decided he didn’t want to wait for it, which was, of course, his choice – he could always run against her. However, he chose instead to have his campaign staff go through the signatures on her petition – which required 757 to get her on the ballot, but actually contained almost 1600 – and disqualify them.

Alice Palmer had been a state senator since 1991 and was a popular South Side activist. She was not the only other person on the ballot, besides Barack Obama. She was, however, arguably the most electable and probably would have won – had Obama’s campaign not, within a matter of days, found ways to disqualify more than half her petition signatures and get her thrown off the ballot – an incumbent senator.

They didn’t stop there, of course. To be safe, they ensured the other three candidates running were disqualified as well, leaving, literally, a clear path for Barack Obama to win his first election.

One of the candidates who tried to run told the Chicago Tribune about it in 2007: “Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?” (Showing his bare knuckles,” Chicago Tribune, Apr. 4. 2007).

This is the same man who had run “Project Vote” several years earlier, a campaign to register voters that was very successful in the black community and had people talking already about Obama as the kind of man, a “reformer,” who might one day run for office against opponents and win. Of course he did run, and he did win. He just managed to do so unopposed.

When Obama first ran for office, before Alice Palmer reneged on their “deal,” he had already begun fundraising. Palmer meanwhile, had the backing of Jesse Jackson Jr. She certainly should have won, but Obama stopped her cold. And Mayor Richard Daley was likely pleased: Palmer was considered, at the time, a possible mayoral candidate, and if not her, then her husband.

So who was backing the young Barack Obama? One of his earliest donors: Tony Rezko, who gave about $15,000 to Obama in that election. Rezko got a healthy return on his investment, just as Al Capone always did on his investments in politicians he backed.

Who is Tony Rezko ? He was convicted of more than a dozen felony counts dealing with public corruption, fraud, money laundering and bribery while Barack Obama was in a hotly contested primary with Hillary Clinton. Tony Rezko – who bought the empty lot next to the “dream house” the Obama’s wanted to buy and subsequently were able to purchase for $300,000 below the asking price (a “sweetheart” deal).

Tony Rezko – whose construction company (though he had no experience in construction) Obama steered public funds (millions of dollars) toward so Rezko could build low-income housing in and near Obama’s senate district – buildings that are now condemned as slums and that literally had no heat, because Rezko claimed not to have the money to turn it on while donating, the same day, $1000 to Obama’s campaign fund. (Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune, various articles).

Obama would say, after Rezko was convicted, “that’s not the Tony I know,” a familiar statement Obama has made about many of his associates, but one that doesn’t ring true, considering his close relationship with these people. He was friends and did business with Rezko for 15 years. He’s either a lousy judge of character, or a liar.

Rezko wasn’t the only developer Obama steered funds toward, but he’s the best known. And he’s a perfect example of the political patronage Obama engages in – just like in the dirty days of Al Capone. There are many more, beyond the scope of this article.
What Obama did wasn’t criminal – it was just politics as usual in Chicago. Dirty politics, but nothing new. And that’s the point: from the start of his career, Obama has never offered the promise of change, the hope of something new. And as we will see, once he got into office and became even more entrenched in the Chicago political machine, Barack Obama was just another dirty politician, doing dirty deeds for his pals.

Coming soon – Part 2: Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap

Tags: Barack Obama Dirty Chicago Obama Al Capone Tony Rezko Obama Daley Obama

2 comments View Entry