Obama Announces American Weakness at UN

Oh my. Right there at the top of Memeorandum is the text of Obama's UN speech. Should I read it? Will it enrage me? Is it another apology speech? Augh!

I've been away from the computer and blog for some 36 hours - an eternity in the news loop. I had to work at school 13 hours yesterday - got home around 8. Today? No planning period - giving a PLAN test instead. So it's been a busy day. No time to click over to Hot Air or Memeorandum during the day! And holy crap, I pulled up in my driveway this afternoon to find that my neighbor is getting a new roof. We have a double driveway between our houses which means MY driveway is somewhere under pallets of shingles, nails, and roof debris. How long before I get a flat?

What did Obama say? I guess I better go look.

Hmph. I only got to sentence two before I had a gripe. I'm wondering what exactly he means when he says he is "determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad"? Because I don't think those protesting for freedom and for a fair election in Iran think he acted "boldly...on behalf of justice" abroad. I'm not sure General McChrystal is prepared to say that's what Obama is doing either. But, I'll keep going...

Well, well. Cue the Kumbaya Chorus: "I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." Naive dolt. Does Iran know about this? Did they get that memo?

Later in the speech he says "if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable." I'm not sure what he means by "accountable" other than sanctions and we all know how well sanctions work. Like, not at all?

Overall, I think the speech is not so much anti-Americanism as what he has displayed in speeches abroad, although there is some of that, as it is a display of submission and weakness. When he says "For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin." For my part, I'd rather be armed with serious hardware weaponry when they come after me rather than the "hope" that they'll leave me alone. Call me paranoid, but I think it's pretty clear that the terrorists aren't impressed with his hope, change, love, and pretty words. By the way, gun sales are way up in the U.S.; same for ammunition.

I think all in all, after reading the whole speech, that he does nothing to appease our allies whom he has alienated to an alarming degree in just nine months. He does more to appease those that hate us and want to destroy us. He completely disavowed the moral superiority of America that we have held dear for so long, that we have fought for so long, and that is at the root of who we are. He makes us no more relative, important or superior in the total world scheme of things than Iran or any other tiny little country.

He did Israel no favors in the speech either. And according to the NYT text, he got an applause when he said he made sure we quit torturing people. It doesn't seem like he's as committed to upholding our national security as he is in trying to be sure that the world "likes" us.

Overall, I'd call the speech incredibly weak and naive. It's an embarrassing day if you ask me. Depressing.

$900 Million for Gaza?

Money grows on trees you know, and despite our tanking economy we apparently have enough cash to funnel $900 million to Gaza.

A New York Times story this morning explains that this aid is to help rebuild Gaza "after the Israeli incursion" last month. The Times does not point out that Israel, fed up with Hamas rocket attacks, was defending itself. That's beside the point.

This aid follows on the heels of the the "Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza" order signed by Obama on January 27, 2009. The order allocated $20.3 million for the purpose of resettling Gaza refugees and would be distributed by the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency).

The new $900 million influx would also be handled by the UNRWA. Andy McCarthy, writing for National Review, expressed concern about UNRWA in a post this morning and it seems his fears are well founded. He says "the UNRWA is effectively an arm of Hamas in Gaza (and elsewhere). In its second term, the Bush State Department was reckless in enabling Palestinian terrorists on its utopian quest for Middle East peace. As in so much else, Obama is taking that parlous policy and multiplying it by a hundred."

During the election there were concerns about Obama's anti-Israel position. He was associated with several anti-Israel characters such as Rashid Khalidi (remember the 2003 tape suppressed by the LA Times in which Obama attended a farewell bash, along with Bill Ayers, for Khalidi?). I wrote about my own concerns here, here, and here. Obama's radical associations alarmed me, but many scoffed at me and said I should not to judge him by his friends. Fair enough.

But now we are giving aid to Gaza and to assume that this money won't find its way into the hands of Hamas is naive. Asaf Romirowsky, in an article published in 2007 by the Jewish Policy Center, wrote about how UNRWA supports Hamas and it is worth your time time to read.

Romirowsky points out that the UNRWA benefits from the continued conflict because without the conflict there would be no more purpose for them. The agency is staffed mainly by locals - "more than 23,000" of them and they are not screened against any terrorist watch list.

Khalidi himself explained that UNRWA employs "members of different political groups such as...Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group." The workers are even allowed to associate with terrorist groups.

Rominrowsky writes:

"There have also been widespread reports of terrorism from UNRWA-supervised facilities, including sniper attacks from UNRWA-run schools, bomb and arms factories in UNRWA camps, the transport of terrorists to their target zones in UNRWA ambulances, and even UNRWA employees directly tied to terrorist attacks against civilians.

Nidal Abd al-Fattah Abdallah Nazzal, an ambulance driver for UNRWA from Kalqiliya in the West Bank, was arrested by Israeli security services in August 2002. Nidal admitted that he was a Hamas activist and that he had transported weapons and explosives to terrorists in his ambulance, taking advantage of the freedom of movement afforded to UNRWA vehicles by the Israelis."

In addition, the UNRWA allowed terrorist groups to use their schools for the purpose of training Palestinian children how to make roadside bombs. Is this what we should be funding as U.S. taxpayers? There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that Hamas operates freely within UNRWA. So by extension, our government is funding terrorist organizations?

How might our ally Israel feel about all this influx of cash in the direction of Hamas?

If we want to weaken Hamas to the point where they can no longer terrorize Israel or anyone else, shouldn't we CUT their funding rather than making it easier for them to operate?