Over the weekend, the NYT ran a report stating that the US and Iran had agreed to bilateral talks, then rewrote the story quietly after White House creatures stated there was no agreement. Obama had infamously stated years ago that he would be willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and there's now some buzz that he may have been doing that already for some time. Whether that's the case or not—and if it's true, it's something that shouldn't be hidden from Congress or American citizens—the FARS news agency has reported that Obama has agreed that Iran has the right to nuclear development, whatever that may mean.
Through the ACLU and other agencies, the administration has also invited UN election observers to keep an eye on polling places throughout the USA on November 6, watching for voter suppression. Considering the track record of the UN, that's rather rich, especially given Obama administration behavior concerning New Black Panthers, state attempts to cleanse voter rolls and to implement ID requirements, the reaction to Honduras' assertion of its own constitutional right to depose a President who violated its laws, the calculated violation of campaign funding laws by permitting foreigners to pump money into his campaigns both this year and in 2008, and a multitude of other policies and executive orders designed to undermine US sovereignty in favor of ceding control to the unelected bureaucrats at the UN, where Susan Rice 'represents' us.
People ask what the point of the skewed polling leading up to this election may be. The MSM are apoplectic in many quarters already at the idea that American citizens award them historically abysmal trust, according to the pollsters. Yes, contending that Obama may not be trailing Mitt by 7 points among likely voters, as Gallup's numbers show, may help to keep Obama's base from becoming hopelessly demoralized, but the big picture is that skewing the numbers in Obama's favor also helps to create the impression, should Romney win, that there may have been shenanigans involved . . . the same strategy that played out in 2000, when Al Gore tried to cherry pick ballots in cherry picked Florida districts after networks had stupidly declared Gore the winner of the election, before the Panhandle votes were reasonably sampled. The famous recounts with their hanging chads got litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and fed speculation that George Bush had stolen the election.
In the aftermath, Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, and leftists everywhere advocated doing away with the Electoral College entirely. Now, many of the same are hoping that Barack Obama can lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote. But should Romney win, they are hoping that they can use the same tactic they used against Bush to make him appear, at least to the base, to be illegitimate.
The UN and the Obama administration both would like to see a still weaker USA. Obama has done everything he can do, including bemoaning having to work with a legislature and trying to find ways around doing it, to turn the US into a banana republic, and this invitation to the UN election monitors, which cannot have been sent without his wink and nod, helps to complete the process. This is the same UN that put Libya under Gaddafi on the Security Council and that Obama went before to express his outrage over the video that was supposed to have "sparked" the murders of 4 Americans there, even after Morsi had stated baldly that the attack was performed by terrorists. Meanwhile, the President is offended that anyone would question his integrity or that of the people who colluded in trying to spread that lie, invented for political purposes, because pushing back against it supposedly politicizes it.
I don't often make common purpose with toe suckers, but Dick Morris is absolutely right when he states that inviting the UN to monitor the US election is outrageous. The UN is not anything close to a disinterested referee in this case. It is being utilized as a means to undermine US sovereignty by implication to serve the cause of one-world hegemony. There are a handful of states whose constitutions permit UN election observers. It would be interesting to find out who pushed those initiatives in their respective legislatures and what their political connections are. As for others that might be considering letting them in, I can only observe that doing so would be selling out state sovereignty—an important part of the Obama agenda—which in turn will make it easier to sell out US sovereignty generally.
State sovereignty is not the President's to take. Nor is national sovereignty his to give away. But when one sees leftists lauding ersatz Indonesian Prince Obama's "naturally regal" bearing, with all the echoes of noble blood, it shouldn't surprise that they're on board with the project.
Tonight's debate is on foreign policy. Obama's has been catastrophic. Bob Schieffer, who had something to do with the reporting of the election results in 2000, will be 'moderating' . . . in Boca Raton. I hope Mitt comes out swinging, because Obama, as he asked Medvedev to transmit to Putin, would have more flexibility in a second term.