Fausta's Blog

Remember that Jimmy Carter was heading to Cuba? He was invited by the Cuban government, and supposedly was going to get Alan Gross released.

Well, he got there, dressed like the natives, kissed up to the Castro brothers, called Fidel “an old friend”,

asked the US to release five convicts,

Bypassing ancillary issues such as the lack of freedom on the island and the enslavement of 11-million Cubans, Carter instead demanded that the U.S. release the Cuban 5. Those are the same five convicted Cuban spies who are serving prison time for espionage and the murder of four innocent American pilots who were shot down over international waters by Castro MiGs.

met with Yoani Sanchez, her husband, Claudia Cadelo and Laritza Diversent, and Alan Gross remains in jail

when the 86-year-old ex-president flew off in the afternoon without Alan Gross on board, it dashed the hopes of Washington officials and relatives who had hoped Carter would be able to bring the Maryland native home.

The Obama administration missed the opportunity months ago when it eased restrictions on Cuba without demanding Gross’s released.

As Instapundit puts it,

And we probably have decades of similar stuff to look forward to once Barack Obama is an ex-president.

Indeed.

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Real Clear World.

It’ll be like a school reunion. I bet they might even play dominoes and drink beer, like old men do all over the Caribbean,
Jimmy Carter To Visit His Favorite Communist Dictators
Jimmy’s heading there to get Alan Gross released, but don’t expect much anything else – aside from the usual kissing-up to Communists.

Jimmy Carter’s drunk brother’s gas station won’t be added to the historic site on our dime YET; $17 million for 30 acres and a gas station in the Georgia boondocks is a pile of money:

Barrasso stops Billy Carter Service Station Museum from becoming national park

The gas station of former President Jimmy Carter’s beer drinking brother will not become a national historic site paid for by taxpayers — at least, not yet.

Legislation that would expand the former president’s national historic site by 30 acres at a cost of $17 million over five years was pulled from consideration during a Senate committee meeting Thursday. Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming offered an amendment preventing the Billy Carter Service Station Museum from being included in the expansion, making the Georgia museum a national park. The House has already passed similar legislation.

“The Los Angeles Times posed the question best: ‘In the age of the $787-billion stimulus package, it is, perhaps, a modest question: Should the American taxpayer foot the bill to enshrine the gas station run by the late Billy Carter?’’ Barrasso said during the meeting. “I believe the answer is no.”

Thank you, John Barrasso.

CNN Money/Fortune have an interesting article on the jobs bill, where they directly compare Obama’s plan with that of Jimmy Carter, which by now many of us remember with a sense of deja vu,
Obama’s disco-era jobs bill

The article points out
- the potential for waste,

It’s estimated that of the companies that claimed the tax credit under Carter’s plan, two-thirds would have hired those employees regardless of the tax break.

“It’s a windfall for companies that want to expand anyway,” says Rea Hederman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Should the bill pass, Hederman says the big beneficiaries of the tax credit this time around would be companies in the big-growth areas of health care and education.

- lack of useful information for businesses who may not know about the tax credit, particularly small businesses

- the bill won’t do much,

Bartik estimates that with its $13 billion price tag, the law would create 350,000 jobs at best — a drop in the bucket compared with the over eight million jobs lost since the end of 2007.

On this, may I point out that the government would be taking tax money from businesses to come up with 350,000 jobs at best, at a cost of at least $37,143 each, so the business can deduct how much? from their taxes. It’s a scam with the government at the center.

- in order to qualify for the tax break, an employer has to hire someone who has been out of work for at least 60 days. What became of hiring the best qualified candidate?

And, the article doesn’t mention it directly, but any business that can wait to hire would not hire them immediately but rather postpone until the tax credit goes into effect.

Why not cut taxes on businesses instead?

Larry Kudlow explains (emphasis added),

The future of the U.S. economy — including jobs, growth and the stock market — hangs in the balance. Government-controlled health care, with Senate vote-purchasing and union special-interest loopholes, is not the answer. Nor is a $2 trillion tax hike on banks, multinational corporations, capital gains, inheritance and successful upper-income earners. Nor is a doubling of the publicly held federal debt to $19 trillion, or nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product. Nor is a federal spending ratio of 25 percent of the economy. Nor is a budget deficit at a 10 percent share of GDP for as far as the eye can see.

Again, Washington doesn’t get it. Politicians are delivering a fiscal product that no one in America wants. It’s no wonder small businesses aren’t hiring. Yes, there is a cyclical recovery going on, but it is incomplete without the jobs.

The so-called $85 billion jobs program is not a jobs program at all. It is a spending bill. Temporary tax credits to hire new workers have virtually no permanent job-creating effect. In budget terms, these kinds of temporary tax credits are scored as tax expenditures — i.e., spending. Only a permanent reduction in the marginal business tax rate has the incentive effect for long-run job creation. Reducing the business tax rate makes firms more profitable after-tax. And it gives them more cash flow. Those incentives will work to expand investment and jobs.

And taxing capital is the worst idea of all. That’s why the capital-gains tax must not be increased. Plus, raising the top two income tax brackets from 33 percent to 35 percent, and then from 35 percent to 40 percent, thereby penalizing those who own about half of the small-business income, is a job-destroyer.

But, to the Obama administration, it’s back to the dying days of disco.

Der Speigel’s harsh assessment of Obama’s trip to China:
Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage
When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Spiegel even ends the article by quoting Newt Gingrich and saying Obama’s “a lot like Jimmy Carter.”

Even harsher than Spiegel, via Taylor Marsh, the Saturday Night Live skit:

UPDATE
Whoa. MoDo starting to wake up? Chris Matthews saying Obama’s making “Carteresque” mistakes?

A memo, released late on a Friday night, Obama Drops Key Clause in Jerusalem Embassy Memo

Late on Friday The Washington Times’ Christian Bourge obtained a copy of Presidential Determination 2009-19, latest in a series of pro forma memos to the Secretary of State entitled “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act.” This determination is a legally required waiver under said act to continue to delay the May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Nearly identical memos like this have been issued every six months for the last decade. Standard procedure, no big deal, right? Well in the Bush years the memo contained the sentence,

“My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.”

The Obama team has edited that passage out. This explains the Friday evening release. Congress should revisit the Jerusalem Embassy Act and remove the loophole that has allowed this charade to continue for ten years. Meanwhile the president should explain exactly what his policy is on this issue, and why he is not committed to beginning the process of moving the embassy.

Jimmy Carter, for one, is delighted over Obama’s Israel policy:
Ex-President Carter praises Obama Mideast policy Do read the article, but the main points are:

• Carter wants Netanyahu to do exactly what Obama wants – whether it’s in the bests interests of Israel or not.
• Carter doesn’t think that Iran won’t attack Israel. If 400 days of Iranian hostage crisis didn’t teach him not to trust Iran, nothing will.

Carter, a vile little man, will stand forever against Israel.

UPDATE A skeptic’s guide to President Obama’s Cairo speech

can he?

Jimmy Carter reported to accept coca invitation from Evo Morales

Let’s hope it’s a hoax.

UPDATE
Well, it’s starting to look like Jimmy really is. El Universal also has the story:

“Puesto que el presidente Morales ha venido a mi propiedad y evidentemente ha cosechado algunos maníes, yo espero que en mi próxima visita pueda ir al Chapare, donde él me va a llevar a cosechar hojas de coca”, respondió Carter, lo que también arrancó una mueca de felicidad en Morales.
(my translation:)
“Since president Morales has come to my property and evidently harvested some peanuts, I hope that in my next visit I can go to Chapare, where he’ll take me to harvest coca leaves,” replied Carter, which brought out a smile on Morales.”

Best Friends Forever!

(h/t Larwyn & Ronald Saucedo M)

Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift
Symbolic gesture gives assurances that US does not want to topple Islamic regime

Officials of Barack Obama’s administration have drafted a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks, the Guardian has learned.

The US state department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected on 4 November last year. It is in reply to a lengthy letter of congratulations sent by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on 6 November.

Seems to me that Iran’s unfrozen enough as it is.

One question on unilateralism (of which Bush was frequently accused by the Dems): Has the Obama administration consulted on this with the EU? Because the EU has been critical of Obama’s notion that “Iran is a tiny country that presents no threat to us”. Nicolas Sarkozy even called Obama an empty suit whose stance on Iran is utterly immature. Way to go! Alienate the EU while writing “HEALING LETTERS” to your enemies!

That question aside, I’m having a Jimmy Carter déjà vu moment here.

The State Department’s working on a draft to reply to a November letter, while yesterday Ahmadinejad let it rip with such abandon that the Beeb was blushing, shocked at his vitriol. While there might be a chance that the letter is timed to influence the Ayatollas thinking in the upcoming election (where Khatami might challenge ‘Jad) the Iranians (not just crazy little ‘Jad), are demanding that

a US letter would have to be accompanied by security guarantees and an agreement to drop economic sanctions. “If they send such a letter it will be a very significant step towards better ties, but they should be careful in not thinking Tehran will respond immediately,” he said.

Yes siree, this is the start of the replay of the Carter years.

Others posting on this
Dearest A’Jad
‘Please take a letter to the Ayatollah’
It begins: Obama drafting letter to new pen pals in Iran
Hat In Hand to Tehran?
Obama Drafts Love Letter to Ahmadinejad
Obama admin writes letter to Ahmeanie
Memeorandum has more.
In Spanish, Diario de Obama: Día 1 – La mano tendida, via Kate
PATHETIC ‘MESSAGE’: OBAMA’S ODD ISLAMIC OUTREACH
Kum Ba Yah Ahmadinejad
Via Larwyn, But, but . . . We’ve DONE All That
List of twenty-eight publicly documented talks of Bush Administration Contacts with Iran: Direct and Indirect

Share on Facebook

… we should be talking to the Iranians because,

“They are rational people like all of us in this room.”

At least as rational as he, considering he’s also blabbing about how Israel had 150 nuclear weapons.

The Iranians continue to withold information on their nuclear program, but Carter was too busy talking at the Hay-on-Wye literature festival to care.

Carter’s day was not complete without also telling Hillary to drop out after June 3. He’s ready for Obama to carry out Carter’s second term.

Just in time, Doug Ross posts the Jimmy Carter Threat Level Advisory System.

Share on Facebook

At Real Clear Politics and Hot Air, Ed Morrissey points out Rookie mistakes again: Obama owns appeasement

No one in the US who runs for public office has suggested that the US break with Israel to appease terrorists. Obama certainly hasn’t suggested that, and perhaps apart from the really lunatic fringes of both Left and Right, that notion doesn’t get any oxygen at all here. Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing – and I mean nothing – in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.

Let’s see why:

The Democrat party has a long history of appeasement. You can look back to Jimmy Carter’s entire administration, Madeline Albright’s meetings with Arafat and Kim Jong-il, and many other instances. Let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi’s Hermes tour of Damascus. More recently, Jimmy Carter’s “give Hamas a chance” tour and Bill Richardson’s heartwarming handshake of Chavez continue to show you that the Dems can’t stop loving the murderous thug-du-jour. As the Wall Street Journal said,

When the party’s top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.

In this particular instance of Pres. Bush’s speech, however, Marc Armbinder reports that President Bush was referring to Carter’s Hamas junket when talking about appeasement. Noel Sheppard posted the entire transcript of Pres. Bush’s speech.

Obama took it personal. Thick skin doesn’t wear well on presidential candidates.

But the important thing here is that Obama himself has declared that he would hold unconditional face-to-face talks with Iran and that Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate grievances (h/t Pamela); and that now he’s saying that he’s under “a false political attack” and that discussing his foreign policy is “dishonest and divisive” (emphasis added):

“I’m a strong believer in civility and I’m a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we’ve seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days,”

Absolutely not: Discussing where any Presidential candidate stands on foreign policy is an essential issue of a campaign, as it has world-wide repercussions.

The Obama campaign doesn’t want people to discuss why Hamas is Betsy asks,

Why isn’t it a legitimate question to ponder why Hamas supports Obama?

After all, Hamas is phone banking for Obama:

Indeed, we should be asking why do the Palestinians like Obama so much.

Ed says that the Obama campaign’s made a rookie mistake in taking offense at “appeasement” charges. Or you can say that the Obamanians have identified themselves with appeasement to the point that when the word is mentioned, they hear their names called.

UPDATE
Via Patrick, Madeline Albright’s ‘Gossip Buddy’ Drastically Misinterprets McCain

Share on Facebook