Putin Rewards Obama’s Kumbaya Maneuvers with a Defiant “Nyet”

Can’t say I didn’t warn Mr. Hopey-Changey.

Now that you have fatuously pissed off our allies by taking away the long-range missile shield from the Poles and Czechs in an obvious attempt to entice the Russians into joining the U.S. in sanctions against Iran, and now that you have been given the Russian finger in return,  I have just one question:   How does it feel to be played like a fool, Obama?

Get used to it.

Russia’s Putin warns against intimidating Iran
Wed Oct 14, 2009
By Darya Korsunskaya

BEIJING (Reuters) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was “premature”.

Putin, who many diplomats, analysts, and Russian citizens believe is still Russia’s paramount leader despite stepping down as president last year, was speaking after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Moscow for two days of talks.

“There is no need to frighten the Iranians,” Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

“We need to look for a compromise. If a compromise is not found, and the discussions end in a fiasco, then we will see.”

“And if now, before making any steps (towards holding talks) we start announcing some sanctions, then we won’t be creating favourable conditions for them (talks) to end positively. This is why it is premature to talk about this now.”

Clinton failed to secure any specific assurances from Russia on Iran during her visit, leaving her open to criticism at home that she had not received anything from Moscow after earlier U.S. concessions on missile defence.

[…]

Anthropogenic Global Warming Now Shoved Down Our Throats as a Threat to National Security

LOL!  These fools are getting pretty desperate!

Tying climate change to national security

By LISA LERER | 10/14/09 – Politico

Climate-legislation supporters are increasingly turning to national security to bolster their pitch for a bill this year.

So far, the climate debate has largely focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, drafting an international climate change treaty and fostering new, cleaner sources of energy and so-called green jobs.

[It must be nice to be able to make such a blanket statement without presenting any irrefutable proof. ]

But for nearly two years, military and intelligence experts have been issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action.

[You do know that the Military has also had a plan to invade Canada, don’t you?  Also, they have issued plans for a full-out, balls to the walls, pre-emptive nuclear strike.   These are contingency plans and are there on the off chance that something unusual happens.  As Jonah Golberg said, “it would be a scandal for the Pentagon not to have plans.”  But, leave it to the Lefturd Al-Goracle worshipers to take a theoretical exercise in military planning as gospel and “proof” that AGW is real.]

Now, with Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry emerging as a key player in the Senate climate debate, Democrats believe national security could emerge as a persuasive argument.

Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been reaching out to Republican Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana and John McCain of Arizona, who have long focused on U.S. security issues.

This week, Operation Free, a coalition of national security and veterans organizations, is sending a group of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans on a 21-state, biodiesel-fueled bus tour to promote the message that climate change could hurt American security. The group was launched in August, a month after the House passed the climate and energy bill.

And Votevets, a left-leaning veterans group, bought $500,000 worth of radio ads featuring Iraq war veterans making the case that the climate bill would help the country become more energy independent and less reliant on oil from the Middle East.

“It’s not just a question of American energy; it’s a question of American power,” concludes the ad.

Uh, you mean it’s a question of power over the lives of Americans…

Okay, I couldn’t stomach any more of this BS.  If you aren’t so prone to emesis, CLICK HERE to continue reading.

FCC Commissioner Freaked Out Over “Diversity” Czar’s Agenda

If that doesn’t give you pause…then you are probably a Commie:

FCC Commissioner Says Diversity Chief’s Ideas for Regulating Free Speech Are ‘Troubling’
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell said Tuesday that statements about regulating freedom of speech in broadcasting made by FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd are “troubling.”  Everyone should be concerned when federal regulators have the power to impact freedom of speech, McDowell added.

[…]

“I find such ideas troubling,” McDowell told CNSNews.com. “Certainly, he has a right to express them. The chairman, as CEO of the commission, has, I guess, a right to employ him. And I’ve been told by him and the chairman that he’s working on other matters not related to those issues.”

[…]

“We should continue to see if there is any effort to make such ideas commission policy, and I hope at the end of our process that would be brought to light and there would be opportunity for public comment and scrutiny,” said McDowell.

“I think that we should always remain vigilant whenever a regulatory agency can impact freedom of speech,” he said. “So as we go forward with our media ownership and localism proceedings next year, I think everyone should watch very carefully what the FCC attempts to do.”

While serving as a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, Lloyd called for the government to reduce the number of broadcast outlets a company own as a means of reducing the number of radio stations carrying conservative programs. He wrote that “no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.”

Lloyd also said that no one entity should own “more than four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial stations).”

Currently, an entity may own no more than eight stations in a large market. Lloyd’s recommendation, were it to become policy, could force station owners carrying programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin to sell their stations.