French more hawkish than US?; Arguing with your military General; Yes, it WILL cover abortion; The Czar State

"Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." —John Quincy Adams 1) French Atomic Pique  Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality. President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement. Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion. …Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions. …"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama. We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are (emphasis mine). See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html 1a) Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia GENEVA — Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said. Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing — if it happens — would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit. If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/middleeast/02nuke.html?_r=1&bl 1b) Iran officials make Washington visit Bolton: Radicals 'appear to be well on the way to seducing Western diplomats' UNITED NATIONS – On the same day the Obama administration opened up talks with Iran in Geneva on its nuclear "research" program, Tehran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told reporters at the United Nations he had just returned from an unannounced visit to Washington, D.C. …Mottaki stressed that while the U.S. and the Islamic Republic have no diplomatic relations, cultural relations dating back to the time of the late Shah had continued and were the reason for the visit.  But Mottaki refused to say whether any "unofficial" contact with administration officials took place during the brief visit.  The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that Mottaki did meet with "two leading" congressmen on Capitol Hill, but did not identify them. Iran's "interests" section in Washington is housed in the Pakistan embassy.  On the meetings in Geneva, Mottaki called the atmosphere "constructive" and an improvement from indirect contacts held with U.S. officials during the Bush administration. …Former U.S./U.N. ambassador John Bolton, who also headed the arms control section at the state department in the administration of George W. Bush, was not impressed by Mottaki's statements:  "Yet again, Iran appears to be well on the way to seducing Western diplomats by vague generalities and promises to meet again. Iran is simply gaining more time to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs," he said. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111632 2) Top officials challenge General McChrystal's assessment Senior White House officials have begun to make the case for a policy shift in Afghanistan that would send few, if any, new combat troops to the country and instead focus on faster military training of Afghan forces, continued assassinations of al-Qaeda leaders and support for the government of neighboring Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban. In a three-hour meeting Wednesday at the White House, senior advisers challenged some of the key assumptions in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's blunt assessment of the nearly eight-year-old war, which President Obama has said is being fought to destroy al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and the ungoverned border areas of Pakistan. Second-guessing your military General…yeah, that sounds like a good strategy for winning a war. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33132724/ns/world_news-washington_post/ 2a) On War, Obama Could Turn to GOP With much of his party largely opposed to expanding military operations in Afghanistan, President Obama could be forced into the awkward political position of turning to congressional Republicans for support if he follows the recommendations of the commanding U.S. general there.  Congressional Democrats have begun promoting a compromise package of additional resources for Afghanistan that would emphasize training for Afghan security forces but deny Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal the additional combat troops he has indicated he needs to regain the initiative against the Taliban insurgency. The emerging Democratic consensus is likely to constrain the president as he considers how best to proceed with an increasingly unpopular war. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093005114.html 3) Morning Bell: The Obama Czar State Is About To Kill The Economy Last week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill that would have withheld federal funds for some 18 “czars” appointed by the Obama administration and not confirmed by the Senate. “There is no careful Senate examination of their character and qualifications. And we are speaking here of some of the most senior positions within our government,” Collins told USA Today. Senate Democrats went on to kill Collins’ amendment using a procedural tactic which “deeply disappointed” Collins. It is a shame the Collins amendment was not allowed a vote. But Senate oversight is no solution to the proliferation of czars under the Obama administration. The problem is much more fundamental to our Constitutional system and far predates President Barack Obama. Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities across the country. The EPA claims it has the authority to issue these regulations pursuant to the 1970 Clean Air Act which authorizes the EPA to regulate any source that emits more than 250 tons of a recognized “pollutant” each year. The problem is, the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon emissions so the 250 ton threshold would inflict job killing regulations on millions of small businesses nationwide. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has estimated that if the EPA regulated carbon objectively under the law, the economy would suffer annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years and a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029. But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she has a solution to this problem. “We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions,” said Jackson. This rule would not cover “every cow and Dunkin’ Donuts.” So Jackson has written the new rule to apply to only sources that emit at least 250,000 tons of greenhouse gas a year. But is that legal? Former EPA official Jeff Holmstead tells the Associated Press: “Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA’s legal justification for today’s proposal.” And that is the true danger behind a Czar State: the undermining of our Constitution and the rule of law in favor of an unconstitutional rule of experts. …The most egregious violation of this principle was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which granted the Secretary of the Treasury unchecked power to do whatever he wanted without any meaningful checks. The result was a schizophrenic management of the Troubled Asset Relief Program which undermined the rule of law, destroyed market confidence, and led to the nationalization of America’s largest automobile manufacturer. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting for the government takeover of General Motors last September? No. Did anyone in Congress believe they were voting to allow the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions from Dunkin Donuts in 1970? No. Such are the evils of the Czar State. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/01/morning-bell-the-obama-czar-state-is-about-to-kill-the-economy/ 4) Senate Committee Rejects Stronger Anti-Abortion Language in Health Care Bill: Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions already in the legislation. Members of the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment Wednesday to strengthen anti-abortion provisions on the panel's sixth day of hashing out a health care reform bill. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, whose amendment lost 13 to 10, argued before the panel that tightening is needed to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. "I want assurances that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortions," said Hatch. "Let's put specific language from my amendment into the bill." The senator argued that women should be required to purchase abortion coverage through unsubsidized, supplemental plans called "riders." …The committee on Thursday rejected a separate amendment from Grassley that requires photo identification for federal health benefits. Grassley argued that his amendment would have helped cut fraud in health care programs for low-income people -- and said it would have required applicants to present a government-issued ID when applying for Medicaid or the children's health care program.  But Senate Democrats said unscrupulous medical providers -- not beneficiaries -- are usually the ones responsible for fraud, and struck it down by a vote of 13 to 10.  See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/senate-committee-rejects-stronger-anti-abortion-language-health-care/?test=latestnews 5) Michelle Obama: It's a 'sacrifice' to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I'm doing it for the kids. In her speech in Copenhagen today, First Lady Michelle Obama said her trip to Denmark, along with the travel of her "dear friend" and "chit-chat buddy" Oprah Winfrey, as well as tomorrow's visit by President Obama, is a "sacrifice" on behalf of the children of Chicago and the United States.  Ah, yes, a “sacrifice” to fly on Air Force One to Copenhagen. It’s “for the children” don’t you know… See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Michelle-Obama-Its-a-sacrifice-to-travel-to-Europe-to-pitch-for-the-Olympics--For-Oprah-and-the-president-too--But-were-doing-it-for-the-kids-62928957.html 6) Support for Abortion Rights Declines Under Obama Popular support for abortion rights has dropped seven points in the past year due in part to the election of a pro-choice Democratic president, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said Thursday. In the largest shift in sentiment since pollsters began asking about the topic in 1995, support dropped from 54 to 47 percent in one year. Opposition rose from 40 to 44 percent and the percentage of undecided rose from 6 to 9 percent. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/10/02/support-abortion-rights-declines-obama/?test=latestnews 7) Maine fines group for criticizing Islam Christian organization files lawsuit to challenge censorship A Christian organization in Maine has filed a lawsuit to challenge a bureaucratic decision to impose a $4,000 fine for its "criticism" of Islam, expressed in a mailing to supporters.  The action was taken on behalf of the Christian Action Network by Liberty Counsel, where founder Mathew Staver said the state is out of line. …The issue developed following a Christian Action Network fundraising letter several months ago. The letter exposed "how some public schools were promoting Islam by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran," according to the complaint against the state.  "The letter pointed out that some schools have provided a 'prayer room' for Muslims and one textbook that told seventh grade students they 'will become Muslim.' The letter listed Gov. John Baldacci as a person who is over the public schools and someone to whom the recipients of the letter should voice their opinion," the complaint said.  State officials then alleged the letter contained "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message" and used the governor's name without his permission and canceled the group's registration, imposed a $4,000 fine and said it no longer could send out letters. …"Clearly this is a case based on selective prosecution using a law that is patently unconstitutional," he said at the time.  He said the motive, however, is clear.  "The state of Maine believes our letter is offensive to Muslims and they want us to shut up or pay up. They are accusing us of 'hate speech' without directly calling it 'hate speech.' They want to set a legal precedent which other states can follow for suppressing free speech they find offensive," he said. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111630 8) Boy in a Bikini & Other Pro-Gay Films Aired in California Schools A San Francisco group billing itself as "the best in LGBT media" is claiming hundreds of public schools in California have signed up to show its films and use accompanying discussion materials. One film features a boy "coming out" by wearing his mother's bikini. Another film incorporates Native American spiritualism to cast LGBT (lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender) persons as "two-spirit" people. …The films are accompanied by a "curriculum guide" and "action guide." Among other things, the guides encourage students to question whether religious and cultural celebrations, such as Jewish bar mitzvahs, wrongly discourage homosexual and transgender lifestyles (emphasis mine). The list of schools claimed to use these materials include scores of high schools throughout the state, as well as a few middle and junior high schools, and at least one elementary school in San Leandro, California (emphasis mine). See: http://www.breitbart.tv/boy-in-a-bikini-other-pro-gay-films-aired-in-california-schools/ And: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5129611573.html 9) Feds lift ban on 'Jesus' on Capitol Christmas tree 'Happy Birthday' to be allowed on 2009 recognition of holiday Just one day after WND reported that rules for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree program prevented children from submitting decorations with themes such as "Happy Birthday, Jesus" and "Merry Christmas," state and federal officials are confirming the policy has been rescinded. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111655