A place to discuss, disagree, and vent your opinions on issues related to government, terrorism, and homeland security. This is the home of the "Stupid Awards" program.
A recent article by Reuters caught my eye. it discusses the impact of Chinese investments in Silicon Valley, particularly in new High-tech areas, such as drones, and next generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cyber Security. The Article, "China's penetration of Silicon Valley creates risks for startups" by Heather Somerville, appeared in the digital edition of Reuters News on June 28th. You can read it here.
There is a lot to learn from Somerville's article, not the least of which is that Silicon Valley is increasingly looking to countries such as China, for funding from simple investments to becoming major players in technology areas the United States needs to keep secure as long as possible.
The United States is already the 'beneficiary' of hacking, theft of intellectual secrets, and other malicious actions by the Chinese, as they attempt to extend their capabilities and interests throughout the world. On the one side, a nation as large as China, with its own unique requirements for connectivity and protection, clearly demonstrates a need to intersect with other world leaders in technology. Together, the advances to be made could be astronomical.
Conversely, China has also demonstrated amply that at least part of its mission to advance has been delegated to its armed forces and its intelligence community. In that regard, standard practice has become a concentrated effort through both formal and informal organizations to mimic, and even improve upon American intelligence gathering processes to achieve their goals.
In 2012, Peter Mattis published a seminal article on the capabilities of Chinese Intelligence Agencies in the Journal Studies in Intelligence, titled "The Analytic Challenge of Understanding Chinese Intelligence Services". That article can be found here. In that article, Mattis indicates the Chinese Intelligence effort is much like our own, saying in part, "In large measure, this perception stems from Chinese attempts to acquire, legally and otherwise, Western technology information to support Chinese modernization and economic priorities. These efforts have been equated with Chinese intelligence collection and have been labeled the “mosaic” or “grains of sand” approach."
"Chinese intelligence, it has been argued in this context, has four basic tenets: • Chinese intelligence focuses on ethnic Chinese as sources; • It relies on amateur collectors rather than professional intelligence officers; • It does not use intelligence tradecraft familiar to Western services; • It pursues high volumes of low-grade (if not entirely unclassified) information."
"This view falls down on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Conceptually, both US and Chinese analysts describe intelligence in similar terms—a specialized form of knowledge for reducing uncertainty during decision making. Empirically, the cases linked to the Chinese intelligence services—not simply the illegal activities of Chinese nationals or companies—demonstrate that professional Chinese intelligence officers use familiar tradecraft in formalized intelligence relationships with their sources. Additionally, cases are not limited to ethnic-Chinese whatever their nationality."
What Mattis expressed some years ago is still true today. The Chinese have, in the past used various means to secure data and technology, and they continue to do so today. A newer means is the funding of venture capital groups to 'buy into' American firms early in their startup mode to be ready for technology acquisition.
One of these Danhua Capital, cited in the Somerville article, has been described in Asian Age as a firm which "..has invested in some of Silicon Valley’s most promising startups in areas like drones, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. The venture capital firm is based just outside Stanford University, the epicenter of US technology entrepreneurship."
"Yet it was also established and funded with help from the Chinese government. And it is not alone. More than 20 Silicon Valley venture capital firms have close ties to a Chinese government fund or state-owned entity, according to interviews with venture capital sources and publicly available information." "While the US government is taking an increasingly hard line against Chinese acquisitions of US public companies, investments in startups, even by state-backed entities, have been largely untouched."
While the US Government has finally started to rein in some of these firms, beginning to recognize the dangers inherent in higher levels of Chinese investment in American high-tech, it remains to be seen what they will actually do to reduce their influence. The regulation the Government proposes still does nothing for direct espionage, pilfering, duplication or outright theft of American technology. The Chinese are merely finding other ways to have their foot in the marketplace.
There are a number of economists and others who consider the efforts of the President to enact tariffs in steel and aluminum imports as significant violations of the current "Free Trade' Environment. The proponents of globalism--led by the liberal left, Obama, and others, such as the Euro Union, are aghast that he would even consider tariffs in any commodity, much less steel and aluminum. A recent article in the Washington Times titled "Donald Trump and Trade" speaks to this in very direct terms. Stephen Moore, the author, says, "The markets rallied as this new plan that targets the tariffs to the countries like China and Russia that are cheating and stealing. It was a reminder that with Mr. Trump it always comes down to the art of the deal." In that, he is right.
Trump shows no reticence in calling lop-sided trade deficits what it is, "Bad for America". Further, these tariffs against our own American goods are not new--they have been in place in the EU for years, and in a number of categories. What The President tries to say is that he wants a level playing field--if another country levies tariffs, or supports product development, then the US has the right to bring equivalent pressure to make the trade paradigm fair and equitable, to the extent it can.
Every country has the right to get the maximum it can from its trading partners--and every trading partner has the right to either decline to trade, or make imports more expensive so that its own domestic production does not suffer. That concept is just as valid an economic perspective as it is for those that say "Throw everything into the market, and let's see what the goods will bear." If that were the case, everyone would be in the same economic plane.
Regrettably, several of the larger industrial nations choose to subsidize their manufacturing, bringing down the costs of manufacture. Others have no unions to contend with, or, as in the case of China and others, have vast populations who are forced to accept artificially low wages to produce goods for export. That leads to the imbalance Trump is trying to correct, with this first step in steel and aluminum.
As the press has indicated, he is also holding out an olive branch--a proposed deal--that would exempt Canada and Mexico, and perhaps China, if the market conditions and value propositions are stabilized. A new NAFTA agreement would go a long way to solving that problem for two of the partners, and, in the case of China, a bilateral agreement on pricing could also work in favor of both countries. Only time will tell if those conditions are met. For others, the message is clear--tariffs are coming to correct major imbalances, and also that Trump is not afraid of either the EU or the PTT partners in that regard. The American exchanges seem to feel he is taking solid steps, and their rise reflect that stance.
[Previously published in LinkedIn, October 2, 2017]
We see more incidents of ‘terrorism’ daily. Just today (October 2, 2017) as I write this short piece, the news is reporting a horrific mass-murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, with over 50 killed and hundreds wounded from automatic weapon fire into a country music festival attended by over 20,000 people. Here, the head of the Sheriff’s Department calls the crime one of mass-murder rather than terrorism, saying that labeling the crime terrorism requires him to apply a set of criteria, including determining the purpose for committing the atrocity before he would call it terrorism. With the killer dead, that change many never come.
That horrific act drove other incidents to the inner pages, and further down in the radio and television news, which only a day earlier was full of yet another bombing, a knifing and other mayhem in France; in Edmonton, Ontario, Canada, a policewoman was shot, and others are injured in walkways by the same killer. In those cases, the authorities called it terrorism. Each week we need other incidents involving knifings, bombing, attacks by automobile, truck, knives and guns, and, in most cases the label is also quickly applied.
But are these cases terrorism? If they are, do we have an evolving definition and purpose for the crime, and its peculiar circumstances? If it is not, then what is actually happening, in increasing numbers of localities throughout the world? What do we call it, and how do we react?
First, let’s look at what terrorism is supposed to be.
The trouble is that terrorism has too many definitions, not all of them in agreement with the others. Part of the problem of defining terrorism lies in what Cronin (2002) has called ‘an unassailable definition’, one which can stand scrutiny in a wide range of situations and occurrences. The problem with his suggestion is that people guard their definitions tightly, even though they may be in violent agreement with others. Thus, there has not emerged to date any single definition to which all can agree.
We can start simply, perhaps with the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. In their view, Terrorism is the“systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.That gets a bit along the path, but what are many of these ‘terrorists’ trying to coerce?
Going a bit further, Dumas (2012) approaches a definition from a political perspective, indicating that “the word ‘terrorist’ often refers to someone who uses violence to further a cause with which the speaker disagrees,” He goes further, and indicates that, to him, terrorism is a tactic, and not an end to itself. Laqueur (2000) goes even further in saying that the greatest difficulty in arriving at a consensus definition, beyond it simply being a tactic, is that there are multiple forms of terrorism, each with its own peculiar characteristics, and even these are constantly changing.
So, where does that leave us? We have our Merriam-Webster definition that terrorism involves coercion, and others who tell us that coercion is often a tactic designed to force change. But on whom? So far, we are creating as many questions as we are trying to answer.
There is a common thread here, though. Terrorists of whatever persuasion have a purpose for their actions. Al-Qaeda started as a support movement for expelling the Russians from Afghanistan, quickly included hatred for the United States as well because, in their religious view, the presence of infidel troops on the Holy Ground of Saudi Arabia was sinful, and its king should be deposed for his actions.
ISIS, now calling itself simply the Islamic State or Daesh, has a stated purpose of re-establishing Islam as the primary force in all those lands where Islam once ruled. Their leader, al-Baghdadi, styles himself the ‘Khaliffa’, a reference to leaders of Islam descended from Muhammed. Other terrorist groups, both religious and political also state some purpose for their actions, and utilize terror to bring forward their aims and purpose.
The Global Terrorist Database (GTD), maintained by the University of Maryland, and one of the few authoritative sets of data on terrorism, lists over 42,000 incidents which meet its definition of a terrorist act. GTD emerged from work originally done by the Pinkerton Global Intelligence Service (PGIS), a private security organization. Data collected by Pinkerton from 1970 through 1997 became the basis for the first GTD effort. Since that time, GTD has evolved and became a full-time project of the Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Responses to Terrorism (START Center) now at U. Md. In 2011. GTD (2016) is the latest complete year of data added to the Database.
In addition to PGIS, other data sources were also included in the consolidated database, and coded according to the definition initially applied by PGIS:
"the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."
As it assumed responsibility for the database starting in 1998, START revised its definition, breaking it into components, which could then be coded for analysis as events occurred. While doing so, the Center also expressed its concerns.
“It is well-recognized that divergent definitions of terrorism abound and that the nature and causes of terrorism are hotly contested by both governments and scholars. While certain broad elements of terrorism are generally agreed upon (such as the intentional use of violence), many other factors (such as whether the victims of terrorism must be non-combatants or whether terrorism requires a political motive) continue to be debated. Indeed, even where there is some consensus at the broadest level, there is often disagreement on the details.” Source: START GTD Methodology. Found at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/using-gtd/
One critical change occurred as the definition evolved. In the latest versions of the GTD, to qualify for inclusion in the database, the act or acts had to be an’ intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor.’ That was in addition to three other carefully selected criteria, including (1) The act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal, (2) An intent to coerce, intimidate or convey a message to an audience other than the immediate victims, and (3) The action was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law. These criteria enabled the documentation of numbers of criminal acts which, to some criteria could be called terrorism, but to others, they might be excluded. Coding enabled this varied analysis.
So, how does this help to define terrorism, and how do we apply it to current events? Let’s look at several recent events.
First, the killing of the policewoman and the injuries to pedestrians in Edmonton, Ontario in Canada was by a man who shot her, yelling ‘Alahu Akbar’, a common radical Islamists expression, an ISIS flag was found on the seat of his van, and he had been cited in social media in several places claiming solidarity with ISIS. He could certainly be called a ‘non-state actor’, and he at least claimed some political if not religious affinity to ISIS. Most will believe that his actions were not intended simply to kill the policewoman and injure other without reason. In terms of the final criteria, his actions in coming both murder and mayhem as well as injuries to the innocent pedestrians are well outside the norms of both domestic and international law.
Can we call this person a terrorist? A lone terrorist? Personally, I would vote for his inclusion in the database, even if the actual link to ISIS cannot be provided.
Conversely, looking at the gunman in Las Vegas, Nevada, making the same set of comparisons to the criteria is much harder. The man is probably a non-state actor, but we have no idea of his purpose in committing the crime; only that he was dedicated to whatever purpose he had by carefully planning his crime for days before the commission of it. Likewise, without knowing the purpose, we cannot attribute his actions against the people at the concert to some other group against which he looked on with enough disfavor to injure innocent people to make his statement. He certainly fulfilled the last criteria by committing large-scale murder.
The same type application of criteria occurs, or should occur before the term ‘terrorist’ is applied following some horrific crime. If we accept the views of Dumas (2013) and Laqueur (2000), the crimes are themselves tactics, designed to influence political, religious, or other behavior by those leaders whom the assailant cannot directly influence.
Coming full-circle to our original question, and the title of this article, “Is Terrorism the New Normal”?
The answer to that question remains complex. On the one hand, the answer is probably YES, when viewed from the perspective that these types of attacks will continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps get worse, and spawn myriad acts by those wanting attention from the media, those with significant serious mental illness, and those who seek to strike back for some perceived injustice, usually to themselves.
On the other hand, people should not live in constant fear that these types of activities will happen to them. The actions are so varied, so dispersed, and so asynchronous, it is impossible to pre-determine where, when, or how they will occur. People can only continue to live their lives with some degree of safety, observe their surroundings, and stay alert, but not coerced by the possibility of events happening to them.
Perhaps the time has come for some great national commission in each country, bringing together disparate political, social, religious, and economic views, to sit down and discuss how their society can live, be properly protected, and secure, laying the groundwork for a plan to address these issues of terrorism, without the usual arguments and rancor. Perhaps it is time to rethink how we want society to function.
If we do nothing, then terrorism can indeed become the new normal and rule our lives. Let’s agree on what it is and prepare; let’s also agree on what it is not, and treat those situations for that they are-crimes which earn punishment in a reasonable society.
Bibliography:
Cronin, A. K (2002). "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." International Security 27( 3) (Winter 2002/03): 30-58.
Laqueur, W. (2000). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. New York: Oxford Press. P.6.
Merriam-Webster (2013) “Terrorism”. Dictionary definition from Internet .com site
START (2016). Global Terrorism Database, University of Maryland, Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Found at: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
Now we have a chance to escape the image of the US being weak and indecisive: A Series
Part 1 - Attacks on Law Enforcement Personnel
The election of Donald Trump last November was, in my view, a turning point for America.
Why would I say that?
The most obvious reason is that President Trump has done more in his first 80 days or so in office to bring spirit and patriotism back to the people. These last four years under former President Obama have been insulting to American ideals--backing away from virtually every major crisis, afraid to face Putin and other world leaders from a position of strength, and creating 'red lines in the sand' that turned out to be joke. All this, and racial divisions we have not seen since the sixties, and an economy that continues to improve very slowly--urged on by some of the most anemic economic growth in years, perhaps since the depression.
Let's look at some specific issues in the coming series:
Increases in attacks on police and other first-responders
Reducing military preparedness and capability to its worst state, possibly since World War I
The Unaffordable "Affordable Care Act" or Obamacare, if you prefer
American Jobs
International Trade
American Law versus the United Nations
Religious Freedom
First, let's address the increasing attacks on police and other first responders. From the earliest days of the Obama administration, the dividing lines between grew into a great chasm. Most of this responded to the perception that white officers discriminated against minority citizens in large numbers. Obama's record was abysmal in trying to reduce that divide, first calling out an officer in Cambridge, MA for stopping and detaining a Harvard professor trying to climb into a window in his home since he had no key to the door. Following after, the debacle in Florida with Treavon martin, again in the late evening, and again, this time a member of the local neighborhood watch. A shooting occurred, Martin died, and Obama quickly came out condemning the situation without then knowing the facts. More situations arose, and in each case, Obama came out quickly with statements decrying the incident, and leaning heavily on racial disparity. In most of those instances, the police were actually in the right, but it did not matter--the perception of a portion of the public was all that mattered-- in the this case the minority portion.
Several other incidents also occurred during the same periods--one in Utah where a black officer killed a white student--but neither the White House nor the media chose to cover that, and other similar stories. For many, it quickly became evident to them that this was simple political expediency. Obama's Justice Department quickly moved to investigate, prosecute, and demand consent decrees in numbers of cities where these events occurred, regardless of who was at fault. In each case, it was not the crime that precipitated the event, but the facts that white officers injured or killed minority citizens. When numbers of the cases brought by the justice Department did not produce convictions, civil disturbances, looting, fires, and more injuries occurred day after day in some cities. In only very few instances did Obama and his administration ask for stops in the violence, leaving that to days after it had occurred, and yet another phalanx of Justice Department lawyers had already descended on the local city or town, usually first providing crisis counselors rather than investigators.
Under the Trump Administration, this has changed dramatically in several areas. first, There is no longer an automatic assumption that an incident involving a police officer, particularly a white police officer, and a black citizen is automatically racist until proven otherwise. Instead, under Attorney-general Sessions, it appears that each case of police action which results in a death of a citizen, where the possibility exits that the death was unnecessary, will be investigated separately--whether the victim was white, black, or another ethic group.
Second, the Attorney-general has made it clear that those who foment violence, MS-13, individual gangs, illegals, or terrorists are the priority of administration. Their slogan seems to be 'deal with the most critical crimes first, and solve them expeditiously.' While some ethnic groups have already said that discriminates against them, it seems to be a much more even-handed administration of justice to take a case when it goes, rather than make early assumptions.
Crime is an explosive issue, especially when it involves minority citizens and police or first responders, such as the neighborhood patrols. We cannot, in my view, simply assume crimes have taken place until we decide if there really was a crime.
A brief overview of the history of perhaps a premature 'death'
If you look through the news feeds on Google News, and others, there seems to be a lot of comment lately, possibly due to the positions of both US political candidates, that globalization as we know it, may be dead or at least dying. let me pose two questions here about that issue:
Is it possible to stop the global flow of commerce and economics?
If it is possible, how can it happen in this 'connected' world?
Answering one or both of those questions many not be as easy as it seems. Let's look at some of the rhetoric and see what they say, but first, let's define what we really mean by globalization. Merriam-Webster gives us a simple definition, that is:
"The act or process of globalizing: the state of being globalized; especially : the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets"
So, what do we have; First, a Process, a State; Second, developing an increasingly integrated economy; Third, Free trade;, Fourth Free flow of Capital; and Fifth, Tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets.
Globalization is truly a process, an organized and dedicated effort to design, produce, and sell products and services. it is also a state, not in a physical sense, but more allied with the logic of combining resources of all kinds to produce products and services people want around the world. Not every nation or region has all the resources needed for the products or services they seek; it falls to others to provide those additional resources and it is logical that, if they work together, the end result is something acceptable to all from an economic and social perspective.
That concept of process and state logically leads to the sense of an increasingly integrated economy. This is not a new concept; in fact, the Ancient China trade through the original Silk Road lent itself to a similar economic model. China produced silk and other goods, some from their own capabilities, or imports from other local areas and provided finished goods available for purchase. Traders took those goods, arranged caravans, and moved along the Silk Road, selling goods and they progressed, using the available resources for housing, shelter, food, and other necessities along the way, and creating a somewhat integrated trading environment, at least for its time. At the end of Silk Road, stood Constantinople (Byzantium) and other ports along the Mediterranean Sea with access to Europe, where people, thanks in part to the Polo family, had introduced these goods to those who wanted them throughout Europe. In turn, art, sculpture,m recipes for food and some manufacturing made their way back through the route to the East, whi9ch extended their capabilities and introduced Western culture and ideas.
Further along the historical timeline, early banking houses turned barter into trade with money exchange, and eventually the early mail services.
Importantly, for this type of trade to occur, freedom across boundaries was critical, where they existed, and while profit dictated who could buy, the imposition of government tariffs and imposts came much later. Since much of the early trade involved barter rather than exchange of gold or silver along the route, doing business with locals was simpler--you received what you wanted for what you had to trade.
The Chinese were the first to create the currency markets; using measures of silver and then gold to price their goods. By the time of the Polo's and others, caravans carried with them various forms of gold and silver to supplement their trading. Precious metals were a universal medium for exchange, but also dangerous to carry on a long trip.
The fifth part of the definition, cheap foreign labor markets, was the easiest part in earlier days. Kings and other rulers simply took the people they wanted to work the fields or produce goods, paying them nothing, and eventually either killing them or sending them back to the farms. Over the centuries, this form of labor continued in the East, and the West through the feudal system as it developed, and eventually into colonialism as the Age of Exploration began in the early 15th Century in earnest, lasting until the middle of the 20th Century. People with power took the people, resources, and labor capabilities and sold them, or lost them to the highest bidder, caring little for its effect on the local economy, but supporting the Age of Industrialization with it factories and need for expansive raw materials and labor.
The real difficulty is that, once globalizing efforts have begun, stopping them is an extremely difficult proposition. Think about this from a practical perspective. Manufacturers want to sell their goods to the widest possible audience. Similarly, they also want to manufacture their goods or provide their services at the lowest possible cost, increasing their profit. In those instances where there is little inhibition to importing goods for sale, costs for taxes and imposts are reduced if not eliminated. Labor, the single largest part of the cost equation, is at its lowest in those areas where there are no unions, low wages, and large numbers of people willing to work for those wage levels. Locations such as these are not generally located within developed countries; rather, they exist more plentifully is so-called 'third world' countries, and that is where the trans-national firms go for their labor force.
Breaking that chain requires much more than simply winning an election in the US or one of the other industrialized countries., Where one country reduces its investments, others will quickly follow, especially countries such as China which want expanded markets and manufacturing capability. In a world where access to any nations is virtually hours away, and economically nations share currencies, products and services and resources, globalization, in my view at least, will not die. it may evolve somewhat, but it will remain a major player in markets.
Please note in closing that I have not discussed either the ethics or the governmental controls over globalized efforts. These I will discuss in future articles.
July 14th, Bastille Day, is the National Independence Day celebration in France. It is the one day that all parts of France join together to celebrate "Liberte, Fraternite, Equalite" with massive events and fireworks, not unlike its adopted son, the United States.
This year, however, everything was different. Thousands descended on Nice, along the southern coast, near Monaco, to enjoy the parades, fireworks, and they were treated instead to the spectacle of a truck barrelling through crowds, killing at last count nearly 85 people, and injuring a similar number, some of who are in near-to-death circumstances. Bodies were strewn along the street, men, women, and even small children, run over until the truck eventually stopped, and the driver started shooting in all directions to kill even more. It was a truly horrific scene.
As horrible as the physical circumstances were, the implications of this latest attack are even more concerning when you look at some of the circumstances that seem to surround it as an act of terror. Several things come quickly to mind.
First, terrorism, by its nature, whether Radical Islamic Terrorism, as this seems to be, or other forms of similar activity, instills fear in people, communities and even entire nations by their actions. I have said many times in my articles that the methods terrorists use are 'asynchronous', that is they seldom do the same things in the same way every time. Rather, these terrorists choose different methods (i.e. trucks, bombs, guns, etc.) to prevent effective advanced planning, which might otherwise be possible. While they plan their activities in advance, the execution of those plans usually adds to the collective sense of fear in a community.
Take a look at France. First, the Charlie Hebdo attack in response to a cover showing Muhammad (Something considered sacrilegious by some in Islam) was an assault on a specific place for an announced purpose. That attack was followed by two in Belgium which concentrated on first a shopping mall and restaurant, and then an attempt to attack police, all by local terrorists. The situation then returned to France for the restaurant shootings, but this time it was different; they not only attacked one restaurant, but three places apart from each other, and the killings were not concentrated on one specific place, but the shooters this time simply went down the street killing and injuring indiscriminately.
The current attack was completely different, and in a city far from Paris where the other attacks took place, and by a completely different medium--a large truck with a driver bent on killing as many as possible, and then being killed himself. Again, a local person, although originally from Tunisia, according to the police.
The second aspect is the ability of the terrorists to blend into the community both before, and often after the crimes they commit. This is made easier when, as in France, there are enclaves which provide cover for the terrorists; this was the case in both Paris and Nice, both of which have large areas where French police and French Law give way to Shariah Law and rule. Here in the US, while these self-ruled areas are less common, the larger incidents have also occurred in areas with significant populations of immigrants from which the newly radicalized terrorists come, and receive support. These enclaves and protected areas make it difficult to either find the terrorists, if they escape, or identify them before they commit crimes. As in the latest case in Nice, while the person had committed relatively minor prior offenses, that did not place him on a high priority police watch list for any future actions.
Combining the availability of cover for the terrorists planning events, and the inability to plan effectively for actions in every possible scenario, it is clear that law enforcement is on the defensive--another facet of fear that works to the advantage of the terrorist who commits a crime and is perfectly willing to die for it. There is no simple answer or solution to this evolving phenomenon.
"Obama administration says 64 to 116 civilians killed in drone strikes, but rights groups are skeptical" (LA Times, Sunday, July 3rd)
Once again the Obama news machine aiming for his legacy is probably caught in a lie. As the LA Times says, there is considerable skepticism, and for good reasons. Let's look at some statistics from various organization, taking Pakistan as the example.
The Journal of Investigative Journalism produced a chart showing all forms of deaths from Drones during the last Bush Administration, and into the Obama Administration JUST FOR PAKISTAN.As you can easily see, the numbers add up to much more than the 116 claimed by the Obama people.
Just to be fair, this second chart contrasts the Journal, other organizations, and the official estimates on the ground by the Pakistan Government.
There are very obvious differences here, far beyond honest pessimism. Remember, this is just Pakistan-- you have to add in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to even get close to the Obama Administration numbers, and even then the numbers appear even more ridiculous.
Well, the vote is indeed over; the BREXITERS WON. But what did they win? The answer to that questions is still very much up in the air.
First, under the European Union Framework, the UK has a complex set of procedures to follow to actually remove itself from the Union. That will take time; probably much more than the two years or so that the opponents argues during the campaign.
First, of course, the UK Parliament has to confirm that exit strategy with legislation. That may not be as easy as it seems. Both the electorates in Northern Ireland and Scotland opposed leaving the Union, and for very substantial reasons. Their representatives in parliament will undoubtedly oppose any legislation, unless it provides an escape hatch to allow those political entities to continue to deal with the Union. That may be unlikely, and could cause both local parliaments to vote for separation, causing the UK to dissolve.
Second, the path to actual separation may not be what the UK (or whatever is left) really wants, or is capable of negotiating. The possibility that the UK will withdraw from some of the International bodies, such as the International Court, The European Court for Human Rights, and others, is complex in itself. If they do withdraw, they still leave themselves possible subject to adverse rulings they will not be able to adequately defend. More likely, UK will simply decide not to renegotiate those issues, and stay within some part of the EU system.
Then there are the trade and economic issues. These are even more complex, despite the fact that UK never adopted the Euro, but did adopt the European Free Trade System, which it may now not be able to retain, at least in its present form. Renegotiation in this area will take years to accomplish.
It is still too early to see what other impacts might occur, diplomatically, economically, and socially, but there will be many fiery flareups over the next several years, and the UK Government has to be prepared to face them. One of the unfortunate parts of democracy is that Governments change on the whim of the people. By the time the incoming UK government enters the fray, it may not have enough time to actually separate the country from its commitments, and another, less strident government team may arrive on the scene with differing views. We can only hope that this does not become a festering problem that brings down the pound completely.
Again, only time will tell what actually results from this vote. People need to be patient, and think carefully what they expect their future to be, and then work toward it.
Well, the people of the United Kingdom have apparently spoken--and loudly, about their views on the European Union. They voted to start the process of getting out. That voted confounded many, but should it have?
I would argue NOT. The voting trend in the UK was very similar to what is presently happening in the US. Big city liberals here opted in numbers in the cities to stay in the Union. Those in the Middle of the country--the industrial centers with large blue-collar populations noted just as strongly to get out, and quickly. There are exceptions, of course, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but for wholly differing reasons than their economic self-sufficiency.
This trend in their vote is roughly similar to what we are seeing in the US, with the larger, more liberal-tending city populations moving toward Clinton, and others, primarily the middle-class blue-collar workers moving toward Trump. As in Britain, there is a significant slice of the population in the middle of the two (roughly 20%) which will decide the eventual presidential outcome. As in Britain, President Obama is an avowed globalist, like David Cameron, as apparently is Hillary Clinton, while Donald Trump has made some amount of protectionism a major pillar of his campaign.
What about the broader issue of globalization? Is there a significant. lasting impact as a result of BREXIT? Sticking my own neck out, I will say probably not, but there will be turbulence and turmoil for some time to come. The notion and even philosophy of globalization is here to stay. There is, in my view, virtually no major calamity which could wipe that process off the map. it may be reduced somewhat, but it will remain, especially when foreign direct investment dollars are pouring into the US and other developed countries, and so many of these same countries have virtually given up their middle-class jobs and farmed them out to what used to be the 'third world.'
Corporations exist to make money. With one of the largest resource drains being salaries, wages, and benefits, it is highly unlikely that these same major corporations will simply return to higher costs in the US or Europe. Moreover, with countries such as India, China, and South Africa, as well as Brazil and other South American countries now vying for 'second world power' status economically, they will resist strongly any effort to decrease their impact on the world economic stage.
What will probably happen is a compromise. Britain will initially be 'punished' for leaving by making it extremely difficult for them to renegotiate their agreements and treaties. They will most probably still be subject to some organizations, such as the International Courts, such as the International Tribunal at the Hague, and the European Human Right Tribunal, and despite the current US President's comments that UK will "go to the end of the cue", the US will continue to support them. They have no choice, really, since the UK is the only real ally the US has in Europe.
Bottom line: Tough times for a few weeks, extended negotiations for Britain with the rest of Europe, and the markets will come back to normal in the near future as yet another 'economic crisis' is simply forgotten. All will be right as well with the broader reach of globalization efforts once the rhetoric dies.
Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States
The Citation reads:
Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is awarded the STUPID AWARD WITH CLUSTER for exceptionally rude, ignorant, and unnecessary comments in his speech at the United States Treasury Department following the horrific massacre of forty-nine innocent people ,along with the wounding of another nearly 50 people, many of them seriously injured. During his speech, Mr. Obama spent less that two minutes expressing the feelings of the Nation on the massacre, arguably the most important event of the day; and concentrating instead on irrelevant banking restrictions, gun control, and political gibberish directed at a presumptive candidate in the coming national election.
Mr. Obama showed particular disdain for the dead and injured, showing complete indifference to their plight, and that of their families. He took an opportunity to be the Great Healer of the Nation, and instead drove headlong into divisiveness and political rhetoric, which should have no place in public discourse during the evolving of these kinds of tragic events.
Mr. Obama, through his efforts, distracted the national discussion on reducing these situations, instead driving an even larger divide of bigotry and cultural baiting.
For his efforts, Mr. Obama is the unanimous choice of the selection committee for the STUPID AWARD WITH CLUSTER, the first time this level of award is presented, for his unique contributions to this situation, and the continuation of the Great National Nightmare which has marked his administration.
In his address on Tuesday, June 14th, President Obama went out of his way to discuss the importance of the term “Radical Islam”, indicating that use of the term does nothing to solve the problem of Terrorism. In that regard, he is correct, but unfortunately missed the point completely.
Critics of Obama’s policies have been hammering, both from the left to the right—liberal to conservative—that he needed to identify clearly what we Americans are facing as a threat. Specifically, many have called for Obama to indicate clearly that the threat is “Radical Islamic Terrorism”, or “Radical Islamic Jihad”, and not use other terms, such as “workplace violence”, or simply “extremism” in discussing this critical issue.
To frame the issues here, let’s look at what these terms mean.
Radical Islam, also called ‘Fundamentalist Islam’ is historically seen as an Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values (i.e. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam) in all spheres of life[i]. Basically, it is a movement to return to the original precepts of Islam defined by Muhammad in the Qur’an. These Islamists reject modernization in any form, but they concentrate primarily on their own people, and their own religious practices. The 1979 takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fundamentalists, with the objective of turning Iran away from western modernism back toward fundamental Islam, is an excellent example of what we are calling Radical Islam.
Radical Islamic Terrorism, or Radical Islamic Jihad, takes these fundamental religious principles and moves them forward into another dimension. This type of movement, claiming to represent the mainstream of Islam, is dedicated to complete extermination of Western philosophy and culture, and installing a very conservative, fundamentalist form of Islam under its own version of the law- Shariah Law, with religious courts replacing those in the secular communities. These groups will use any means at their disposal toward that end, including warfare, guerrilla tactics, bombings, executions, etc.; anything which will instill uncertainty and fear into a population, eventually reducing their will to resist takeover.
These radicals are not mainstream members of Islam. They instead twist and pervert the words of the Qur’an to their own ends. Unfortunately, that is relatively easy to do, since there is no single ‘authoritative’ source for interpretation of their scriptures. Instead, individual religious leaders, Imams and Ayatollahs, provide their own interpretation for their followers. When these religious leaders profess fundamentalist views, they can easily encourage their adherents to follow their views and take actions that can cause significant damage, both physically and emotionally.
It is these, non-mainstream members of the Islamic Faith, and those who profess to adhere to the Islamic Faith, and feel they have the right to cause upheaval who are those we describe as Radical Islamic Terrorists; the term that much of the political spectrum across America wishes the President would use in his descriptions of the dangers we face. Instead, Obama has chosen to parse words carefully, dismiss the proper allocation of the term to these individuals and groups, and contributes to the increasing fear among the public.
It is equally important to differentiate other groups which may be inflicting terrorism on the people of the US, or any other country. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of religion, or lack thereof. When some individual or group knowingly inflicts pain and suffering on others to gain control of their lives and make them subservient to the terrorists’ wishes, then these people should be called terrorists.
The use of the term Radical Islamic Terrorist is not simply political jargon; when well-established that some fundamentalist group, or some person claiming association with such a group commits an atrocity, they should be labelled for what they are. If the terrorists claim a religious affiliation publicly, it is perfectly appropriate to include the religious connotation in labeling their actions. The only political implication is when a leader who know who is committing these atrocities either refuses to correctly identify them, or falsely mislabels them out of a sense of political expediency.
In a free society, its people have the right to know the adversity they face, and they look toward their leaders for the correct information they need to understand what they face.
Listening to all the rhetoric coming out of the White house, including his latest interview with Good morning America yesterday (6-13-2016), it appears that US, in terms of Obama, has several problems:
He has become basically a caretaker in office, refusing to take stands on issues (Except, of course, gun control), and is simply waiting in hope that world does not fall down around his shoulders before the end of his term. LEGACY is most important now.
His consistent refusal to admit that much domestic terrorism is linked to international terrorism is appalling, and not rational. During the ABC interview, he carefully parsed his words to indicate his view that this was a lone gunman, not affiliated with anyone, and certainly not ISIL. Yet, from what information the FBI has already provided, it is clear that he had early and consistent desires to follow the radical Islamic terror path—trying to support ISIL in Syria, speaking about his friend who died there, being investigated for the very things Obama claims he was not connected with, and finally calling to 911 to proclaim his public allegiance to ISIL. That set of information seems awfully persuasive.
Using his public press conference on the Orlando Massacre to again discuss gun control was a major political error—one which could cause serious problems for the Democrats in November. Virtually every public social media source has made mincemeat of his statement, causing his adherents to rush to his defense. What is interesting here is the very low numbers of those defenders this time.
Waiting until Thursday to even go to Orlando, and refusing to discuss the issue with the Governor of Florida directly is even more egregious. In times of crisis, we are Americans first, and political animals a distinct second. Obama either does not understand that, or could not care less. There is little wiggle room between the two, and Obama has opted for playing down the tragedy for whatever reasons he has in his head.
In times of crisis, our citizens look to their leaders, particularly the President for guidance, support, and compassion. This man is showing none of those attributes, thinking perhaps that downplaying events, as he usually does, will make them go away. Unfortunately, they will not until we decide to actively do something about terrorism in any form.
This man does not have the fire of a true American—one willing to fight and die for his country. Instead, he has the cold political heart of a politician who only understands how to get votes, and keep them. This is legacy time for him; he will stay hidden in the White House to keep a low profile that will not hurt that legacy. The American people will probably suffer further events between now and January 20th, 2017, when he at long last takes his final exit from the White House into ignominious retirement. To that I say, GOOD RIDDANCE TO A BAD PRESIDENT.
If Delta Airlines can speed travel, then TSA needs to learn some lessons.
Delta Airlines created new traffic flow for travelers trying to get through the usual TSA-directed long lines with a new invention of their own--and it cost just about $1M to build and operate. Why can't TSA be doing the same thing instead of spending hundreds of millions on things that don't work?
Look at this article and tell me if I am wrong here!!
This week’s newsstand issue (April 21-27) of Epoch Times has a lead article by Joshua Philipp, “ISIS versus Al-Qaeda”. Philipp posits that there is a growing internal battle between the two for control of the Jihadi Movement. There I agree; that battle has been growing since early 2014, when the ISIS leadership announced it would no longer be part of the overall al-Qaeda network, and the al-Qaeda leadership basically said ‘good riddance’.
The question here is the implications of this split on the ever-increasing impact of both groups, despite what the ineffectual Obama Administration may be spouting to the world. This split may be simply one more fracturing of the movement created by Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri years ago, which has had several previous ‘separations’, but none with more public consequences than this. The death of Bin Laden, and the recovery of some message traffic in his Abbottabad fortress showed the increasing disconnection of al-Qaeda Central from the various arms of the Movement, including that of the al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, which many credit as the precursor of ISIS, so splits are occurring, but it is the impact of this split that has many analysts worried
Philipp discusses at length the differences between the two in their approach to global Jihad; ISIS is now at the dangerous stage, as was al-Qaeda ten years ago. The chief prize, the Caliphate, eluded Bin Laden, who, while likening himself to Saladin, the medieval Muslim conqueror of Jerusalem during the Crusades, never achieved the standing or control of the territory now effectively controlled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS and self-proclaimed ‘Kaliffa’.
In many ways, al-Baghdadi has a demonstrable claim; his forces control much of Syria, a large swath of Iraq, some parts of Libya, and infiltrations of varying degrees in several other parts of the world. These people follow him as a prophet—the successor to Muhammed—and their sometimes excessive ‘religious zeal’, which I prefer to call simply murderous tendencies, is well known. Philipp brings much of this out in his excellent article. This is one piece worth reading.
Next Wednesday, the 27th at the Catholic University of America Bookstore, I will be discussing this very subject from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM and please feel free to come by and discuss, object, argue, or even listen. The bookstore is the Barnes and Noble Bookstore at Michigan Avenue, NE in Washington DC opposite the Catholic University.
Following the recent Republican debates, the question seems to be constantly in the air that Islamics (or more properly Muslims) hate us (The Americans) and we hate them with an equal vengeance. But is that true or even fair? I'm not so sure about that.
It is true that a number of people in the Muslim world dislike the US. They have stated myriad reasons for doing so, usually starting with our support for Israel, and our fairly constant condemnation of the Palestinians for wanting to get some other own land back. They disagree with our position, some considering it interference, others a defense of something indefensible (Since they see the State of Israel as gaining land stolen from the Palestinians.
Those likes or dislikes over Israel (Call it hate if you wish)by the Palestinians are understandable, in that (1) The dislike is shared between two peoples actively engaged between themselves over a specific issue, and (2) both sides have some part of history on their side. Not all Muslims hate the Israelis; some nearby countries such as Jordan and Egypt have found ways to peacefully co-exist. Others will never do that, will continue to oppose the existence of the State of Israel, but learned their lessons in the three major wars, so they also co-exist, if not peacefully at least in a sense of equal tension.
There are also some states, such as Iran that bluster and threaten, as Iran did with their recent missile/rocket launches with a hatred of Israel message on the sides of the missiles. But is that bluster, or is that a real threat? Does it rise to the level of being true hatred, or are we still in the time of intense dislike? I would argue that hatred eventually boils over into violence, and that those who commit the violence are those that we should truly call "Radical". The rest are no worse that those in the world who shoot off their mouth with no intention of rising up to cause harm. That does not mean the radicals who perpetrate car-bombing or other devastating attacks are not important--it certainly is the opposite--but it does mean that only PART of the Muslim population commits these acts--not the entire Muslim World? Here, I think evidence points to a small, radical group ,and not the entire Muslim community worldwide.
What we see routinely in the media is a subset of people of the Islamic faith who have taken a very extreme view of the Qur'an, developed a program around it that fosters violence and devastation, and simply announced that it is 'Allah's will.' What these radicals do is horrific; we will not discount that. They deserve to be hunted down and punished for that they do, and their leaders should suffer the same fate.
People tend to rush to judgement when something horrific happens. During World War I, the Germans as a people became 'The Huns", and were universally despised, even though only a small portion of Germany's leadership was truly responsible. The people in general were punished following the war for what their leaders had done, resulting in unrest leading in turn to World War II and the rise of Hitler. During World War II, we nearly universally hated the Japanese for the atrocities some committed throughout Asia. It took years to separate fact from fiction and have people again accepting of the average Japanese citizen who had no control over that war. We do not call all Cambodians animals for what Pol Pot and his adherents did to a large part of the population in the 60's and 70's, nor do we hate all Russians for either the Soviet Era or since. We simply say those things happened; blame the leaders, and move on.
Looking back into history, we should be hating the Egyptians, the British for what they did in Palestine; the Catholic Church for the Crusades and the Inquisition; and the Protestants for everything happening since the Reformation. Obviously we do not generalize in these instances, so why generalize and call as all who practice Islam terrorists? They are not. Besides, if we did, who else would be left ot hate? A few penguins in the Antarctic.
There is nothing wrong with saying that the subset of Muslims who have hatred in their hearts, and act out that hate are radicals. it really matters not if you call them Radical Islamists, or Radical Muslims; what does matter is that the term is applied to those specific people doing specific things--and not generalities designed to simply whitewash a people.
One person I respect immensely is Commissioner Mark Rowley of Scotland Yard. His assessments on potential threats over the past several years have been so accurate and incisive that the description probably should be 'simply amazing'. In his latest report, cited in the Guardian USA Edition today, the Commissioner expresses his views that the attacks of ISIS (Daesh) are increasing in both intensity and complexity. As he indicates, “In recent months we’ve seen a broadening of that (the attacks), much more plans to attack western lifestyle. Going from that narrow focus on police and military as symbols of the state to something much broader. And you see a terrorist group which has big ambitions for enormous and spectacular attacks, not just the types that we’ve seen foiled to date.”
The Commissioner brings up a very interesting point here. Daesh, in my view, has been feeling its way along in both the UK, and the US, committing to ever-increasing attacks, and targeting police, other civil responders, and now the general public to increase the tension and fear among the populace on what might occur next. More importantly, they are learning from their activities, becoming even more capable, having more lethal weapons, and striking out in more asynchronous ways, trying to prevent law enforcement from anticipating their next activities.
Form Americans, the message seems clear--what they can do in Britain they can do in the United States, France, Germany, or any other Western Nation which chooses to fight their advances in the Middle East. Inflicting pain on us is supposed to reduce our commitment to sending them to heaven without virgins. it will not happen.
Read the story in the Guardian - Rowley Interview, and see for yourself what the Commissioner sees in the future. It is well worth the read to be prepared, and not surprised as the levels of attacks increase.
The news is full of items potentially impacting the world of terrorism. here are just a few for your reading pleasure:
Abolish the $100 (US) Bill and reduce terrorism, says a study in this week's Time Magazine. Former president Lawrence Summers of Harvard University discusses a study conducted at (Where else) The Harvard University that abolishing this bill, along with several other large denominations would reduce terrorism, drug trafficking. and other criminal activity. An interesting thought, but probably not very practical. Forgers of American and other currencies have been doing it for years. We see evidence at times that China, North Korea, now ISIS and others are taking over printing plants in various countries and printing our currency. If we stopped with the $100 bill, they would simply go to the next level down. Instead, make it really impossible to reproduce. That still will not be foolproof, but it will reduce forgeries.
Iran will continue producing as much oil as it chooses, reports Reuters. The Iranians, flush with the US Dollars provided by the Obama Administration when it smiled, crossed it fingers, and agreed to the Nuclear Arms deal, is now able to legally produce as much oil as it chooses. Having been ostracized by OPEC during the embargoes, it does not feel it owes those people anything. In some ways, you can understand their perspective; in others, their continued pumping of oil will keep prices very low--good for the consumer, but not for the producers. There is a cost curve here which says that producing oil is eventually not cost-effective. In the meanwhile, Iran continues to bring in more revenue for its 'peaceful causes.' I also have a large bridge I want to sell. Any takers?
Russia will shortly start providing Iran with new S-300, reports the International Business Times; those missiles are intended for defense of the Iranian Homeland, so they say. The missiles, Russia Originally agreed to provide the S-300 air defense missile system to Iran in a deal signed in 2007. However, the worldwide arms embargo delayed delivery for nearly eight years. Only after the signing of the new agreement was the sale put back on schedule, and a total of five systems are expected to be delivered by the Russian Government over the next several months. The Iranian Defense Ministry is arranging a ceremony for the first delivery of the system.
James Clapper, US director of National Intelligence (DNI) was on Capital Hill on Tuesday, shaking his sword that other governments are likely to employ newer technologies as spy tools, including the IoT, and that prospect carries with it to potential for added global instability, which is already radically changing, due in part by increased outbreaks of infectious disease, hunger, climate change, and other non-military-related occurrences.Addressing both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper provided some very interesting testimony on the potential forother governments weaponizing the IoT, although he named no names during his testimony at either committee. Interestingly, he did not directly discuss potential US use of the IoT, although a recent study by Harvard University came out directly making that suggestion.
"Smart devices incorporated into the electric grid, vehicles—including autonomous vehicles—and household appliances are improving efficiency, energy conservation, and convenience," said Clapper in his prepared testimony. "However, security industry analysts have demonstrated that many of these new systems can threaten data privacy, data integrity, or continuity of services. In the future, intelligence services might use the loT for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials," Clapper continued in his statement (click for the complete prepared testimony).
Much of what Clapper said is probably true; it is very possible for the IoT to become an involuntary spy threat. His implication is that is 'they' do it, we might as well be ahead. After all, with climate change the principal cause of everything from terrorism to bad breath (as far as this administration is concerned), we have a pressing need to spy on everybody in every way we can.
It will be interesting to see where this leads. If Clapper is saying we 'might' do it in the future, you can be sure that we probably are already working on it. The computer chip in your car could become a listening device, as could your home blood pressure machine, or even you glucose testing meter, with its built in memory and chip for transmitting data.
I do not wish to disparage legitimate intelligence gathering. We need those capabilities, but this administration at least, has proven that it wants data on everyone, everything they can get, and they expect the people to simply accept that as a way of life. Every good socialist should be accepting of that premise.
There is a lot of talk around the conference tables about a true coalition, led by an Arab Army--something really needed to defeat ISIS. Coalitions of the past, led by the United States were effective against al-Qaeda, but ISIS is something completely different. These are true revolutionaries, not insurgents, and they respect nothing,not even their own supposed religious heritage. Instead, they use that heritage as a mean for recruitment, while they savage even their own adherents to gain ground and power. That is not religion, that is terrorism at its prime.
However, the question still remains--can a Pan-Arab Army be formed from among the myriad states in the Middle East that will move to combat ISIS?
An article in Eurasia Review says it is not possible, and this article is from the Iranian Shi'ite perspective. After all, Iran would need to be involved; its Army and Revolutionary Guards are among the world's best fighters, and they have the means, if not the will, combat this basic Islamic evil. Javad Heirannia of the The Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran discusses the issue from the Shi'ite perspective and the possibilities here. His premise is that the majority of the fighting would be done by Sunni's--Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and even that is subject to speculation. The rest of the nations in the region would provide mostly funding.
In his assessment he points out many of the political and religious arguments against such an army, and its probable eventual failure from the difficulties facing it. While I hasten to suggest that his analysis be taken with the proverbial 'grain of salt' since it is basically one-sided, many of his observations are based reality. Religion counts in that part of the world.
An interesting read, nonetheless, and one which might give some perspective to the difficulties in organizing such a force. You can read it here.
CNN published an interesting article yesterday morning (2-10-2016) on the perils facing many people beset by terrorism, and their alternatives. Several of their examples, such as Mali and other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, have a real dilemma on which way to turn. In these cases, the governments are either corrupt, or despots who allow no real freedom for their people. Insurgencies attempt to fight the government and eventually, seeing the futility in peaceful protest, turn violent. The people are caught in the middle.
Any economist will tell you, through simple cost-benefit analysis, that when a people are subjugated in this way, their decisions on how to act or react are often in favor of the insurgency or terrorist group, since they are safer, more protected, and insulated from their corrupt or oppressive government. That may not be good, but it is often the best they can do.
Barack Obama returned to the same Statehouse chamber in Springfield Illinois where he launched his bid for the Presidency and bemoaned the fact that politics during his term has become so 'negative'--something he did a great deal to create.
In an article in the Washington Post today (2-9-2016), the President is quoted as saying, "It’s been noted often by pundits that the tone of our politics has not gotten better since I was elected; it’s gotten worse.” In that he is correct; politics has grown worse since he entered the White House, and a good deal of that rancor and distrust was generated by his gutter, street-side political antics, refusing to cooperate in anything with the Republicans; instead simply steamrolling ahead on his own. The result has been possibly the worst administration in history, and the most rancorous since Andrew Jackson. His administrations scandals are the worst since Ulysses Grant, and he has amassed the largest deficit in American History.
Some of his comments really stretch credulity, such as:
--Castigating politicians who touted their refusal to compromise as “an accomplishment in and of itself. Such hard-line positions don’t fix roads, educate children or keep the streets safe," he continued. Look at the real record of who has refused to compromise on virtually everything in the past eight years. In many cases, both Republicans and Democrats have opposed his proposals, and in most cases, he has refused to actively defend and support his own initiatives, then blaming the Republicans.
--On Politics, Obama warned that Americans’ unity and common purpose were being “threatened by a poisonous political climate that pushes people away from participating in public life. It turns folks off. It discourages them and makes them cynical.” My question is who created the poisonous climate--I will argue it was the man who decided he did not have to abide by the Constitution or the Nation's laws; instead simply issuing executive orders even in the face of specific congressional disapproval of his proposals.
In these last few months of his administration, Obama is making a major effort to create some sort of legacy for himself out of the major failures and scandals which have plagued his years in office., Most of his major 'accomplishments' are tied up in the courts; many of his cabinet heads have been like revolving doors; Benghazi at State, the debacles ongoing in Iraq, Syria, Lybia, and the spread of ISIS all occured on his watch. There is little to commend him for, but he is trying to find something and remain relevant until the end.
The devastating consequences of the attacks in Paris this past Friday go far beyond the physical pain an suffering, the death of innocent people, and the seeming impossibility of stopping the ISIS move into Europe. What is really at stake here is the continued dominance of the culture, ethics, and sanity.
There is an increasing vacuum in the current world order--it has no real leader. For many decades, the President of the United States was considered one of, if not the primary world leader, but the current President has abrogated that position to others. Perhaps he believes he is still a leader, but be assured all the signs are there that he is quickly turning the United States into a follower nation. His brand of 'leadership' in any other time frame would be considered simply cowardice--and the American people need to understand the implications of his policies.
First, understand that the emergence of ISIS and the Caliphate is not something new. Look back to the 9th-10th-and 11th centuries to see the rise of Islam, and the extension of that religious and political power from its origins in the Arabian Peninsula, through the Middle East, into the Balkans, and then upward and Westward into Europe. Only the Army of Charles Martel in France stopped that surge, moved them back, and reduced the threat. Also remember that the threat has recurred over the centuries, in Spain and elsewhere since that time.
The concept is to regain the territories lost from earlier expansions, and regain the lands of Islam. They believe it is their destiny to rule, and any loss of life--particularly non-believer loss of life is irrelevant to the ultimate goals, as stated in the Qu'ran and tradition. Death and pillage are secondary to the need to regain the lands some Islamists still believe is rightfully theirs. Those aims are no universal aims--most who practice Islam are peaceful people, contributors to local society, and firm in their religious beliefs, but no ideologues or fanaticists who use religion as an excuse.
Islamic radicalism, most recently expressed by the hoors inflicted on Paris by ISIS, is a real threat, and requires decisive leadership to counteract, and destroy it. That form of fanaticism does not go away by calling it something else, and it does not go away by withdrawing from the world stage, rather than addressing the issues. Aside from a few ineffective air strikes, and killing a few side players in the ISIS ranks, Obama has done nothing to reduce or eliminate the threat, just as he did with al-Queda. Obama ordered the killing of Usama bin Laden long after the intelligence community knew he was not longer effectively in charge of the movement--only its spiritual leader. Spiritual leaders in that movement are a dime-a-dozen--he was replaced, and quickly. The same is happening with ISIS.
Obama needs to worry less about his legacy and more about protecting democracy--if he is truly a world leader. He need to act like a leader and not like a coward. He has the most powerful military in the world, and he is dismantling it rather than using it to fight the demonstrated enemy. That is not a world leader--that is a world-class coward.
So many times in the media we hear that capitalism and globalization are major roots of terrorism, or that terrorism is inhibiting globalization. In truth, they are partners in an evolving political and economic world, and the faster that perspective adopted, the easier it will be to fashion solutions.
Terrorism is with us for the long-haul. it will continue to rear its head wherever people feel that the existing government or economic systems are not meeting their needs. Those needs could be economic, social, political, or even religious--whatever arguments they have include some aspect of the 'three-headed serpent' Stassen describes in this incisive article, which just days ago appeared in the Affairs Today online edition.
Stassan points out the four major facilitators of terrorism and its spread: poverty,inequality, injustice, and fundamentalism. it is easy to see that these key facilitators can stir up a population, and make the eradication of terrorist or opposition activity hard to achieve.
it is refreshing to see a new, balanced approach to terrorism versus the other two, and a great read if you want to put these into perspective.
Speaking to a group of Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Fellows at the White House, President Barack Obama said that under his leadership, the United States has become the most respected country in the world. The White house did not provide a source for his statement, but it seems well at odds with other sources who recently published their estimates.
First, according to a 2014 survey conducted by the Reputation Institute and covered by Forbes, the top nod goes to Switzerland, with the US falling to 22nd place. The top 22 countries are shown on the chart below.
Then, the BBC published its listing of those with the most influence, covering roughly the same period. That chart can be seen below, with the full story here.
This chart shows the US 8th in influence. However, influence does not connote respect, only power and capabilities.
That still leaves us with the evidence of the President's remark. Listen to the entire presentation here.
My personal perspective is that this speech is simply another attempt at trying to fashion a legacy of some sort from a presidency otherwise in shambles. Despite diligent efforts, the White House cannot point to anything truly lasting created by Obama and his minions--other than discord, divisiveness, and civil strife.
Let's look a just a few examples:
Immigration: Hundreds of thousands of illegals let into the country, given papers, disappearing into the various states, with few even appearing for immigration hearings--where they are even held. The courts have most of his 'executive actions'; tied up in litigation, and many legal experts suggest he violated the Constitution and several Federal laws to do what he did. IMMIGRATION REFORM IN SHAMBLES.
Healthcare: The Affordable Care Act could have been a well-thought out and beneficial program, advancing healthcare to nearly universal coverage. All Obama had to do was work with the Congress-both sides of the Congress--to develop a plan that would work. Instead, it became a Democrat showpiece, not mired in legal challenges, further delays, a horrible introduction, billions of dollars wasted trying to make it work. The Supreme Court and myriad other courts are considering those challenges, and many are expected to go against the Government.
Insurance companies are beginning to announce major rate increases, and people are also beginning to realize they get nothing from the insurance companies due to high deductibles. They continue to pay for their care, and they pay premiums to insurance companies, essentially for a piece of paper worth noting unless you can generate enough care to offset the deductible. HEALTHCARE IN A CONTINUING STATE OF DISARRAY.
Veterans' Care: The Veterans Administration is in shambles--trying to recover from several scandals, all related to the lack of quality and timely healthcare to the Nations' veterans. Thousands of veterans injured further by the lack of fidelity by the Government. The perpetrators simply shielded from public view and very few fired. VETERANS HEALTHCARE IN SHAMBLES.
Internal Revenue Service: The IRS has not been used as a political football since Richard Nixon was forced from office in 1974. Under the Obama Administration, it violated ethics,m privacy, lied to the Congress, hid evidence, and continues to harass those who don't agree with the administration. The latest affront has been the lack of security on taxpayer information. No major figure fired. Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment and the Department of Justice has refused to prosecute. IRS IN SHAMBLES.
Military Readiness and Effectiveness: Perhaps nowhere is the failures of the Obama Administration more evident than his cowardly use of his powers as "Commander-in-Chief" to effectively remove the US from the world stage as a major power. He has destroyed the careers of a generation of senior and middle-grade officers, dismissing and retiring those who disagree with his cowardly lion stances, and surrounds himself with syncophants who mimic his ridiculous pronouncements. DEFENSE IN TOTAL DISARRAY.
How does an administration which has all these problems, and can't even get the Sultan of Bahrain to come to a summit on ISIS (He considered a horse race in Britain more important) consider itself the most respected nation on earth? The notion is plain silly, and you have to wonder where Obama's speechwriters get their information.
Obama will be remembered for what he really was: A FAILURE OF A COLOSSAL DEGREE. it will take years for the US to recover from his mis-administration.
A recent article in Epoch Times (May 7, 2015) by Professor Alon Ben-Meir of New York University provides new insights in possible reductions in the radicalization efforts which seem to be increasing at exponential rates in the major western nations, including the US.
Professor Ben-Meir suggests that ongoing efforts have borne less fruit, and that a new approach is needed. Currently, the two commonest approaches involve either assimilation—encouraging strongly that recent immigrants adopt the customs and culture of their new country as quickly as possible, or, as an alternative, creating conclaves where immigrants can live and work in their own cultural environment with little interference by the central authorities. We have seen recently in France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom that the second approach—conclaves—clearly is not working.
We have seen similar results in Minneapolis, here in the US, and other cities, where immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants are congregating in small conclaves, and avoiding the lager communities. This has all the appearances of a ‘hands-off’ policy by governmental authorities, and can easily lend itself to creating and encouraging the environment which will foster and support radicalization among disaffected youth.
In a departure from this approach, Professor Ben-Meir suggested that integration rather than assimilation is possibly a better answer. He defines integration as ‘a mutual recognition and respect of the other—a harmonization that includes difference rather than denies it.’ Further, he suggests that not enough effort is made to understand the psychological aspects of radicalization, something important in its own right, since there appears from what we already know that there is no single reason why youth choose to become radicalized, and otherwise peaceful people.
While I obviously canno0t speak for other nations, I can suggest that my own country and its leaders need to spend more time trying prevent youth radicalization with innovative approaches, as opposed to FBI stings that are often too late to prevent others from pursuing a similar course.
Processor Ben-Meir has a lot of good information here that is worth considering. You can read the entire article here.
A National Disaster Waiting to Happen - Part II -Iran
In Part 1, I discussed the distance between the current administration and Israel, and asked the question WHY is it being allowed to happen. In this piece it's time for a discussion of one of the primary reasons--the emergence of Iran as a nuclear power.
For several years, the Obama Administration has been trying to get its arms around the problem of Iran, and its relations with the rest of the world. Most of you know the history--we supported the Shah of Iran, then in power, through the mid 1970's, when he was overthrown, and replaced eventually by an Ayatollah-based Islamic State, led first by Ayatollah Khomeni, and eventually his successor Ayatollah Khamenei. Both diatribed long and hard against the West and the US in particular, while continuing to court some western for arms and oil sales. Eventually, sanctions began to cut into their sales, and the economy began to dip. Short history--read the rest in Wikipedia
Where are we now?
Negotiations concerning Iranian nuclear capabilities have been ongoing since 2014, with Secretary of State John Kerry as the lead US negotiator. So far, what have these negotiations achieved? The short answer is basically NOTHING.
Here is the scoreboard:
Round of Negotiations
Number of Sessions
Achievements
First Round (2014)
6 Sessions
Framework
Extension for further talks
Second Round (2014)
3 Sessions
Agreement on second extension to 2015
Third Round (2015)
4 Sessions thus far
1 – US-Iran Bilateral Session
Announcement “Results will be known later”
No Agreement to Date
Now, if you believe the Obama Administration and Secretary Kerry, these are very sensitive negotiations, designed to curtail, but not eliminate nuclear capability in Iran (at least for 10 years). To get an agreement, and make it work, several things are necessary, the foremost being the elimination of the threat from Israel that they will bomb and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.
How do you get Israel to agree to such tactics, but not involve them in the talks? There are two answers to that question. The first, a diplomatic one, is that you exert influence on the Israeli Government to reduce tensions by agreeing to maintain a low profile while the talks continue. Of course, the ideal solution is to have Israel as a partner in those talks--something the Islamic fundamentalists will not allow.
The second alternative is to 'arrange' to have a new government elected, without the people most opposed to dealing with Iran. Since Benjamin Netanyahu is the most vocal, the logic is to eliminate him as a stumbling block, and work to get a more moderate coalition in power. Unfortunately that backfired, and did so badly for Obama despite the loud and continuing rhetoric by Obama and his minions, and at least one of his p[olitical operatives going to Israel to work with opposition parties.
The American and Israeli press have both made this disagreement between the two political leaders into a rolling, and now bitter controversy. The Obama administration first releases details of the Israeli nuclear program, despite long-standing agreements not to do so. I already mentioned the Breitbart article, and there were a number of others, mostly just before the scheduled speech in Mid-March.
Arutz Sheva, the Israeli National News, correctly pointed out that the document de-classified by the Department of Defense only included information on Israel, not Italy, Germany, and other Western country programs. Those other programs were completely redacted, leading a logical person to conclude that it was a direct jab at the Israeli PM.
More importantly, the 'outing' of Israel was supposed to help the negotiations and get rid of Netanyahu with his own people. Both backfired. Netanyahu is even stronger than before, and now the iranians have to worry about a nuclear-armed Israel (as if they were not already), giving them less reason to agree to shelve their own program.
Several days after the speech, and the re-election of Netanyahu, Obama went on a television interview where he stated that the historic agreements between Israel and the US might need revision, and that the US just might not continue to block UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel. Officially that was because of the statements by Netanyahu that he would not support a two-state solution during his tenure, but the Obama remarks really drove an even deeper wedge between the US and Israel on broader issues.
The bottom line here seems to be that there will be little more than formalities with Netanyahu until a new occupant of the White house takes office. My wild guess is that Kerry will get only another extension and no agreement; the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium and plutonium; the Israelis will rely much less on the hollow US promises, and the world will move closer to a regional war in the Mideast.
In the next part, we will look at other issues separating the US and Israel. In the meanwhile, a key question to answer is can anyone see some kind of logical diplomacy on the part of the Obama Administration here, other than to secure some kind of legacy late in his otherwise failed administration?
Obama's Policy on Israel - A National Disaster Waiting to Happen - Part I
"Welcome to regime change, Obama-style. There are few opportunities to change the mullahcracy in Tehran. But Jerusalem may be another story. By accepting Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint meeting of Congress — now widely seen as a real bungle — the prime minister has given the Obama administration an opening. And you can bet the White House is taking advantage to make it unmistakably clear that Bibi is bad for the U.S.-Israeli relationship."[Foreign Policy Magazine, Feb 12, 2015][View here]
The Aaron Miller piece in Foreign Policy outlines the completely strained relationship between Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Israel. That kind of fracture is problematic, not just as a spat between politicians with markedly differing views, but also a question of the continuing deterioration of US-foreign relations in general. Stated simply, Obama is doing a poor job as the self-described 'Leader of the Free World".
The US has supported Israel since its creation in 1948. it has provided arms, billions in various kinds of other foreign aid, and historically staked its reputation on the continued existence of Israel in an otherwise mostly Arab Middle East. That decision was not taken lightly by successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican, and was based at least in part by the determination that the Jewish people have a homeland where they can settle peacefully, and live quietly with their neighbors.
While I hasten to add that the subsequent history has been a rocky road, both for the Israels and the Arabs, it has been the staunch support of the West, combined with the acknowledgement of moderate Arabs that peaceful co-existence is possible, as it had existed for centuries before, that provided the 'glue' keeping the often shaky relationships among the parties from coming out too often into battle. There is no question that both sides, Israeli and Arab have committed acts considered abhorrent by the other, while still maintaining a fragile cease fire, if not uneasy peace.
The US was historically the buffer zone in the middle. Regardless of which party was in office in Israel, the US stood ready to support the people of Israel. Sadly, at least in the current administration, this no longer seems to be the case.
It is not the first time the US has tried to influence an Israeli election to produce a prime minister and government that might more closely adhere to preferred US policies for the region. it is also not the first time that Israeli politicians have tried to sway American opinion. They often due so, usually through intermediaries, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and have been very successful in changing US views, particularly in the Congress. So, fair is fair--both sides do it.
What has also historically been the case is that US administrations have recognized that the most important factor to consider is the citizens of Israel, the existence of the country, and the preservation of peace, or at least not having war, in the area. Since the advent of the Obama administration this perspective has changed dramatically.
Obama seems to have a vision that the title given him as "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces really means commander-in-chief of everything, in the US and the world. His attitude is that 'anything I want I get--i am the most powerful person in the world', or something close to it. Everyone else has to adhere to his rules, like the kids playing football have to give an extra kick to the kid who owns the ball.
In the past few weeks, especially, the Obama people, and the C-I-C himself have seemingly decided that they will show Israel their power, snubbing the Netanyahu speech before the Congress, while enthusiastically endorsing the speech of the Afghan President. Declassifying the information on the Israeli nuclear program, announced in several outlets, including Breitbart, just before the Netanyahu speech.
The Breitbart article indicated in part, "The Pentagon declassified sections covering Israel’s nuclear program, but “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document,” [NOTE: Breitbart received the in formation, in part from an Israel National News report]. "The 386-page top-secret memo, titled, “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” goes into great detail about how Israel turned into a nuclear power in the 1970s and 80s."
“As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960,” the Breitbart article continued. "The report was written by the Institute for Defense Analysis in 1987, which was federally funded and contracted by the Pentagon. Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,”the report states. The report commends that the Israelis found “ingeniously clever” solutions to solve its problems in advancing the nuclear program, largely due to the “ingenious Israeli inventions” at a “key research and development laboratory in Israel."
Why declassify the report just before the speech? To embarass the Israeli Prime Minister. That may be a political ploy, but what does it potentially due to the region or the Israeli people? Combine that with multiple other snubs and comments by Obama and his administration and you have a serious problem. In the next part of the article, I will look at the links with Iran.
Every president wants a legacy--something the historians can later vote on to determine where any president sits among his peers over history. Every few years, as committee of eminent historians meet, discuss a president's achievement (and boners) and put that president on a list.
Think about Barack Hussein Obama: What are his greatest achievements? What are his greatest failures?
Comment with an achievement or failure, and a few words to explain your selection. let's see what we get!
Please feel free to share with your friends, associates, and even enemies. IT'S TIME TO MAKE A LIST!!! I weill share them all on my blog at http://www.minihansworld.typepad.com.
In another stunning reversal for our beleagered cowardly lion commander-in-chief, the second largest city in one of Obama's model democracies has fallen to the Houthi Islamic Radicals. The city of Taiz, a major city on the road to Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, fell apparently without a shot, and included the Houthi gaining control of the regional airport.
Houthi fighters and pro-Houthi police troopers fire tear gas on anti-Houthi protesters demonstrating in Yemen's southwestern city of Taiz March 22, 2015. (Credit: Reuters/Anees Mahyoub)
The Obama administration, the same people who claim that al-Qaeda is dying now that Usama bin-Laden is dead, had used Yemen for the past couple of years as a model for the region. The US Fleet was ported there, and the country was a stepping-off point for special ops in other parts of the region. Looks like the administration was wrong--again.
Special Operations personnel were removed yesterday, before the airport fell without even token resistance from the Yemeni Army.
The real question here is how the dynamics of the region will change, as the Shi'ite leaning Houthi and others feel emboldened in the face of a constantly retreating United States. We don't have much credibility left in the region, yet this president still talks big, claims a huge coalition of partners, but produces no real action to stem the tide of these ISLAMIC RADICALS.
Almond says, "The attack by home-grown terrorists struck fear and disgust into the rest of the population - and by murdering tourists, they took deadly aim at Tunisia’s key money-earner. However, their brazen assault on the Parliament and museum complex in the heart of the capital also revealed their basic weakness. Tunisia’s reservoir of murderous extremists is too small to risk an uprising - though sadly it’s big enough for atrocities - which means the country’s fledgling democracymight be strengthened if it can face down the enemy within."
His observations are particularly interesting at this juncture of our American folly that we are fighting ISIS and winning, thus saving the world for the future. Of course, as events have seen that is not really true, but then, it might happen in the future anyway.
What is happening though is the rise of small groups of radical extremists who, without the resources or networks to force governmental change directly, can often do so by indirect means, such as those employed in Tunisia. Radicals do not like the confining space of a prosperous, organized, and moderate government. In that type of environment, people are comfortable, they enjoy life, and see themselves in a brighter future--however long that may take.
Terrorists, conversely, have no future in peaceful society. They exist in turmoil, and they find ways to perpetuate and increase that turmoil for their own ends. In Tunisia, the new, moderate government has made great strides in raising the standard of living for their people, and providing peace. People do not rise up to ideology when they are being fed, cared for, and can work.
Governments exist to provide those services and support the environment and culture, one which maintains that comfort zone for its people. Terrorists strike at the Government to disrupt and destroy the faith of the people in the Government. In this case, as Almond reported, the group in Tunisia is so small, it cannot launch a violent overthrow of the Government. it is simply too small at present. Instead, it acts indirectly to create upheaval and fear in the people while depriving the Government of one of its most needed assets--tourist dollars. In that regard, they did an outstanding job.
Cruise ships were leaving the harbor of Tunis immediately after the attack; two of them leaving people and their families who had been injured in the attack itself on the Bardo Museum. Virtually every news outlet in the world duly reported on the happenings, and people cancelled future trips in droves--or at least until the unrest subsides.
The real question is "Who are these radicals?"
According to Almond, "They were pioneers of the wave of jihadis who have recently gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. But they seemed like any group of twenty-somethings, their mobile phones always at hand. As much as Islamic fundamentalism, a search for adventure had lured them across the Mediterranean to a foreign war."
"These born-again Muslims, who are turning against their Western idols," Almond Continues, "are exactly the type to go over the edge into violence against the place they had once dreamed of joining. Jobless young men in dusty towns are preyed on by preachers offering a gateway to paradise and a way to assert themselves against the West and its local allies. The fundamentalists consider poverty to be their best recruiting-sergeant; the recession, which hit post revolution when the Europeans left, is radicalizing young Tunisians."
What we have then, is a group of young idealists, well-traveled, and experienced in Jihad, who have returned from the wars, but still want to be involved. They already have the training, experience, and zeal, but they need the impetus, the coaxing to do the same in their own country. They look for opportunity, and the locals who oppose the government as too-western, provide them the fertile ground., These young people are used for the purposes of others who stay in the background like a snake, waiting to strike later.
Every country has small groups of those who wish to disrupt and replace government or society with something more to their personal liking. The trouble is they are like the snakes who lie in wait--all too often, the first inking is when they strike and that is often, as in Tunisia, too late.
Obama is out in his presidential jet once again, this time Cleveland, trying to find ways to get more votes for his Democrats, after their drubbing in the 2014 elections.
Addressing a crowd, supposedly on middle class economics, he said "Other countries have mandatory voting," It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything."
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities," Obama continued, "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." In that statement, he obliquely referred to the wealthy groups who support political agendas, primarily on the conservative right, such as the Koch Brothers. He carefully forgets that other such groups also support his radical left wing of the Democratic Party as well.
From my perspective, and given the history of Obama thus far, trying to enforce mandatory voting would be a bad idea, and for several reasons.
First, the US is a democracy, not a socialist state (at least not yet), and people have the freedom to vote if they choose, or not to do so and stay home if they wish. That has been a fundamental right in this country.
Second, enforcement of such laws would be onerous, potentially intrusive, and politically charged. If past experience with Obama is any indication, there would need to be a Federal Election Management Administration, and Federal Election Police to ensure that everyone voted. Agencies would be able to review the voting rolls and take action on anyone who name is not checked off. That smacks of communism.
Third, the cost would be tremendous. of course, here the fines could be used to support the enforcement, and this provide for the high salaries of the political appointees overseeing the cattle cars needed to take people to the polls.
Look for many more these lame-brained schemes from the campaigner-in-chief over the next eighteen months, as he becomes more irrelevant each day, and opens his mouth on equally irrelevant topics such as this.
For conspicuous cowardice, deceit, intransigence, and un-American activity during the period 2008-Present, including her term as Secretary of State of the United States. Secretary Clinton stonewalled the US Congress on Benghazi, with her memorable "What does it matter?" speech and followed up with adverse actions against several senior State Department personnel, including the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya to ensure that no others would testify honestly and openly.
In addition, she did a magnificent job in violating Federal Law, State Department Regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders on security, including one published by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. She now claims a right privacy and refuses to have the private home server inspected by the US Government.
Secretary Clinton has taught a new generation how to avoid the truth, obfuscate facts, and resolutely deny any obligation to follow the law. Having achieved this level of disdain for the American People, she can now truly become a candidate for President of the United States.
The Stupid Award for 2015 is awarded to Hillary Rodham Clinton for conduct totally unbecoming to the United States Department of State, the United States of America, and the American people.
Increasingly, it seems we are headed for an American apocalypse in our Government, with all three branches going in disparate directions.
The Obama Administration is arguably one of the most political administrations, at least since Franklin Roosevelt (who learned from his mistakes), and decided that racial, political, economic, and social division is the way to govern. We seem to have a president who has no concern about either his legacy, or the future of the Republic. Just in recent weeks, he has made it eminently clear he will govern without the Congress, and, by the way, could not care what the courts decree either.
Then there is the Congress, one of the most divisive and dis-functional in History. We have not seem such acerbic divisions since the Continental Congress. At least in 1775, everybody had their heads in a similar direction, even if they disagreed on the methods to achieve independence. Now, the Congress is in total disarray. it seems that either party wants to do a poor job of sharing governance, as the constitution provides, and simply wants to put spears in the members of the other party. That type of activity helps no one. Unfortunately, the people decide who goes to the Congress, and they are apparently willing to put up with the shenanigans that routinely drives congressional action (or inaction).
Judicial decisions are approaching similar dimensions. While it is expected that judges reflect their personal beliefs, consistent with the law, we see increasing numbers of cases where political opinion, not personal judicial views, are reflected in decisions affecting the law, up to the Supreme Court.
The lack of concern for the welfare and health of the Republic is very concerning. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and Presidents enforce laws passed by the Congress, while the Judiciary explains how those laws are to be enforced. We don't have that any longer, for the most part. What we have is political dynamism, led by a coward president, ineffective congressional leaders, and judges who simply won't act according to their conscience. That is truly unfortunate.
When will the American public wake up and decide they want better governance to make their lives improve--rather than the pockets and egos of politicians? Hopefully soon, or this Republic will be in real trouble.
Hillary Clinton's latest news conference, at the United Nations this afternoon was a masterpiece! Bravo Hillary!
She proved once again that the Clintons make their own rules, live as they choose, and the Government and public be damned. This latest episode, involving a server set up to serve as her e-mail server during her term as Secretary of State, but apparently used for both personal and official e-mails, shows even more clearly how arrogant the Nation's first family-for-life seem themselves.
So, what did she actually do to merit the press conference?
Well, she decided, apparently again without official or White House approval, to simply set up a computer server at her home in New York, and with several e-mail addresses to clintonemail.com, to serve her purposes so that she did not have to the Blackberry the Government would have provided for her e-mail use. There are questions on whether she could do that, either by tradition or law, but she did. So be it.
What the laws and regulations then required, however, is that she provide those e-mails from her private account, related to government activity, within a specific time period for preservation as government records. She claims she did so by answering each e-mail to a 'dot gov' address. However, that is not what the laws and regulations (established by her husband when he was President, by the way) required--they required that SHE provide a copy to HER official e-mail site for preservation,. Of course, since she did not have an official e-mail, that made her actions at least somewhat problematical. What we don't know is if the original message was ATTACHED TO THE RESPONSE, and thus was preserved. Important point here is that it is the employee's responsibility to provide the e-mails to their account, and not simply to some nebulous government site or person, with the government then responsible for collecting, sorting, and making sense of them later.
What should have happened here?
In any other administration, including Bill Clinton's, the Diplomatic Security Service and the FBI would have been at the house in New York as soon as the controversy surfaced. They would have seized the server, analyzed the documents, including those she has tried to erase, and determine what the government really should have received.
Of course, in this 'transparent' administration, she will not be further bothered about the issue, the gutless, political Justice Department will not do its job, nor will the current syncophant in the State Department. They will accept whatever she provided and call it even. That's transparency under the current President. Perhaps in the next administration she will have to account for her egregious potential breach of the Nation's security, that is, of course, if she is not the next President herself.
The Obama administration has been outdoing itself over the last two days--and especially this morning, in congressional hearings.
First, John Kerry spoke with the House and looked impressive as he stated that America was safer than it had been for years. That seems like an incongruous statement, especially since he specifically excluded any possible actions from ISIS. But then, this is the same person who was a principal sponsor of the incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan as the Senate Foreign Relations Chair, who now says that those wars were a 'mistake'. Everybody is entitled to change their opinion, but is it credible to change it now just because he is the Secretary of State for the greatest coward in Amrican History--Barack Hussein Obama?. Who knows!
At the very same time, James Clapper was testifying before the Senate, and James Comey, the FBI Director also testifying before Senate committees. What they said was quite different. Comey indicated that FBI investigations were now ongoing in all 50 states--including Alaska. Clapper admitted that the ISIS threat was now greater, along with others, than it had ever been.
The administration will surely split hairs on the words--Kerry was right, since he excluded ISIS, and Clapper was right, since he included ISIS, and Comey was right that investigations, but not convictions, were ongoing. Together, they paint a poor picture of our security status.
Who are we to believe? I won't go into Susan Rice's statements over the past 24 hours, since she has no credibility at all.
Where does that leave us?
It leaves us, I believe, with a sense that the administration has no clear or consistent picture of any threat, no idea how to deal with any threat, and only a political posture to develop a legacy for a completely failed Obama presidency.
Do you agree?
Comment if you wish. From my perspective, we need to get to 2016 as quickly as possible before the Obama people destroy our country with their idiotic policies and perspectives.
The Obama Administration is running its mouth about the need to determine root causes why ISIS is doing what it is doing in the Middle East. The State Department has already decided the approach is to find out and then get jobs for the ISIS fighters so they will no longer kill, burn, and execute their victims. it's an easy solution, they seem to believe.
Unfortunately, there is not one, but two issues here. Let's look at them briefly.
The first is root cause. Determining root cause is supposed to get to the base reasons why someone does something, or wants to do something in the future. No one goes out and tackles anything major without a reason--even if that reason is not a good one, it is still a reason. it is important to get to the root cause of the current ISIS situation--but to figure out how not to have something similar happen in the future.
Conversely, there is the need to root out ISIS--go where they are and eliminate them before they do more damage. To do that, you have to recognize WHO they are, and WHAT they are. In my view, they are a group of animals who, under the cover of Islam, are justifying killing and burning as their attempt to do what they think the Prophet says in the Kuran. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In this instance, it takes rooting out first, before or while determining root cause, and preventing any further genocide and killing sprees by ISIS/ISIL Unfofrtunte4ly, doing that task takes courage, and not pointless meetings in the White House discussing arcane, academic topics having no bearing on what needs to be done here.
There is an old saying, "Gutless people do gutless things."
If a young soldier deserts in the face of duty, we would generally call it cowardice and prosecute the person when apprehended. What do we do when a President of the United States does the same thing? The answer--NOTHING!
The United States was once a great and respected world power. It did not matter who sat in the Oval office, the words of the President were feared by those on the other side of the table. Do we have that today? Almost certainly not. Instead, we have the man with the 'selfie stick', making himself look ridiculous while the world is in crisis. We have a President who refuses, or cannot understand that animals such as ISIS are real threats to our national security, and that it is spreading exponentially because there is no longer a 'great power' to stop it.
We have a President that rushes to defend Islam, while refusing to even acknowledge that other religions are suffering under the radicals who use Islam as a cover; a man who is in denial that religion is playing a crucial role in the spread of these extremists.
Instead, Obama thinks that global warming is the biggest threat, and, according to his state department, if we give ISIS and others a better economy and jobs, their threats will go simply away. Does anyone else out there in the world really believe this to be true?
While Egyptians are beheaded, he golfs and raises political funds in California. While others die, he golfs in other cities and goes to fundraisers. When the international outburst of condolences for the Charlie Hebdo and delicatessen massacres were occurring in France, he claimed not to be invited to the tribute. Instead, he would hold a summit later.
This president has two significant problems: First, he is basically a coward--he cannot face up to reality, other than what he sees--himself--in the selfie stick. Second, he lacks true leadership, a critical attribute of any President of the United States. He is a political hack with no prior experience, and has not seemed to gain any during the past six years. Protected by Harry Reid, and a few other political hacks in the Senate preventing his impeachment, we are stuck with him for two more years. That means two more years of erratic, incoherent, and misguided administration actions designed only to stir up and alienate portions of the population, and get Democrats elected in 2016.
The legacy of Barack Obama is yet to be written by the historians and political scientists, but when it is, what can he point to as accomplishments? Very little, even less than Ulysses Grant and Warren G. Harding, the other two scandal-ridden presidents currently below him in the latest presidential polls. At the rate he continues with his cowardice and divisiveness, he is destined for the dust heap of history.
Susan Rice, National Securtity Advisor to the President is reported in The Hill, A Washington DC political newspaper this morning as 'standing by her statement" on SGT Bowe Bergdahl, as a person who servied 'with honor and distinction'.
Reporting on an interview with Jim Acosta of CNN, and speaking from Normandy, where she accompanied the President to ceremionies honoring the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, Rice is reported to have said this, "I realize there has been a lot of discussion and controversy about this (her statement). What is was referring to is the fact that this was a young man who volunteered to serve his country in uniform at a time of war. That in itself is a very honorable thing."
When Acosta pursued the line on honor and distinction, she repled, "Jim, really. This is a young man whose circumstances we are still learning about." She indicated that Bergdahl was being tried in the 'Court of Public Opinion", and that the public should wait to hear the whole story before making judgement.
In one sense, she is right. We should hear the entire story before making final judgements in this, or any case. However, in this case, we have the statements and e-mails Bergdahl sent to his parents and others; his statements to mebers of his unit; and the public comments of his own platoon members, who were there on the ground, and put in harms way as he walked away from his guard post. As a retired member of the military that's enough for me to make an initial judgement. I have believable words from both sides of the argument.
So why do I award Susan Rice my latest "Stupid Award?
Well, it took some time to decide on it. I was originally going to award it for her absolutely incredible performance after the Benghazi killings, but I did not. I chalked her statements up to a silly, political syncophant who simply went out and said what the idiots in the White House told her to say. I could not completely understand how someone with her supposed intelligence and acumen could do such a thing, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt.
So, now here she is again. Shooting off her mouth on the Sunday shows, making the same stupid political error as she did before, and then defending it, as she did in the past, probably because the same idiots in the White House told her to do it again. She is rapidly becoming another Jay Carney--either stupid, uncaring of the truth, or simply a political expedient driven to front the defense of something rapidly becoming indefensible. It amazes me that an educated, obviously bright, person could look someone in the eye like she does and expect to be believed.
Well, I settled on her as my next awardee.
CONGRATULATIONS SUSAN RICE - NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT, AS THE JUNE, 2014 STUPID AWARD WINNER!
Presidents should lead legally, and not be despots
Arlington, VA June 4, 2014
Some time ago in these pages, I started to discuss the case, pro and con, for the impeachment of Barack Obama. I stopped because, frankly, this man has left so little mark on anything that he almost seems to be phantasm instead of a President of the United States.
Perhaps this lack of association with anything accomplished, positive and negative, by his administration is a well thought out strategy to craft an unassailable legacy as a leader. Perhaps he truly does not understand what could have been his unique place in history-- which he has now pretty much trashed. perhaps his experience as a community organizer is simply not up to the level of leadership necessary to lead what used to be the greatest nation in the world.
Whatever the reason, Barack Obama, and his administration are rapidly reaching the level of incompetance and malfeasance history has recorded for the administrations of Ulysses S. Grant, and Warren G. Harding. Both had multiple scandals, multiple cabinet resignations, and history has not give them a place among great, near great, or even adequate presidents.
Barack Obama has wasted the public's time with his stupidity, his lack of conern for the Consitution, and the laws of the land, his inability to understand how to lead rather campaign. His record is replete with mis-steps, unconcern for the law, ignorance of the law, and disdain for the other EQUAL branches of government.
What has he done?
1- He left four Americans to die in Bengazi, and then had his administration cover it up. All the while, he was off preparing for a political speech in Las Vegas the next day.
2- He destroyed the economy with his ill-advised, and secret development of Obamacare, with its crippling taxes, changes, and lies about how the American middle class will be better off. Most will never get beyond their deductibles with his insurance, and end up spending even more than in the past. In turn, they will get less adequate care, pay for care they don't need, and pay fines if they don't voluntarily subscribe to his bailout of the insurance industry.
3- His administration used the Internal Revenue Service to stifle the First American rights of conservatives and others who don't agree with his liberal, reactionary views. His IRS director was forced to resign, and the director of the unit involved in denying the conservatives their tax exemptions was cited for Contempt of Congres, but still allowed to retire with full benefits.
4- He and his administration allowed America's veterans to be denired their access to prompt healthcare, while publicly claiming he was working for their benefit. His Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Under-Secretary for Health Care were forced out while the real culprits continue to run the VA.
5- His Attorney-General became the first sitting Chief Law enforcement officer of the US to be cited for Contempt of Congress for his refusal to submit to oversight of the Fast and Furious Program of DHS, approving the lying and deception by that Attorney-General.
6- He traded what appears to be a traitor -- a deserter from the US Army -- for five of the hardest, and most violent criminals at Guantanamo, not informing the Congress, as required under the law, and then sending his administration minions out to defned his actions.
There are a number of other failures of this president that contribute to the overall perception that he is incompetant, unable to be honest and forthright with the American people who elected him, and who trusted him to 'Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States'. In all of this he has failed, and should be impeached and removed from office.
There is an old song, that starts, "The good guys hate the bad guys, and the bad goys hate the good guys...". Sounds a bit like Washington and the political establishment in DC doesn't it?
Well, there are a lot of good guys and bad guys in DC--it's just hard to figure out who is who. One thing they all agree upon is that the Affordable Care Act - Also called Obamacare, is clearly changing the landscape. Aside from the pure politics among the good guys and the bad guys, is it really doing something good for the economy?
Let's take two real examples, both from my own neighborhood. Both are faced with applying for Obamacare--one because his employer decided to stop offering insurance (He could do it because all his employees are now 'part-time'), and the other had left her job, and was faced with overwhelming premiums from her COBRA-related after employment insurance (Which would expire anyway in 2014).
The first guy makes just enough money that his family of five is over the threshold for getting wither medicaid or a signficant Federal benefit from Obamacare. He selected a 'Silver' Plan, with a cost over $300 a month after his subsidy (It was $325 to be exact), and got a lower deductible. The deductible was $4000 for the family. His premiums for 2014 will be $3,900.00. His 2013 expenses for medications were about $300.00, and his medical expenses for the family last year were about $3200.00, for a total out-of-pocket of about $3600.00 for the family. That is below his deductible for his new plan. He will pay his premiums ($3900) plus his co-payments under his new Obamacare policy (approx $240), and his deductibles ($3200) for total out-of-pocket under Obamacare of $7340.00, assuming his family has about the same medical expenses as last year. The insurance company gets paid ($3900), but has to put nothing out, unless he has some catastrophic problems in the family. The doctor gets paid ($3440) for services rendered. Of course, that figure may change, since our guy's present doctor will not take his Obamacare insurance, and he has to get a new one.
Our second person lost her job, managed to find a part-time one, and pay the COBRA premiums (Over $900 a month) so her son and daughter would have health care. Of course, that means paying both her share and the employer share from her old plan. Technically, she is better off under Obamacare, since she can now get Medicaid, and pay essentially nothing--the public pays her medical expenses, and those of her children. She also loses her doctor, and has to find a new one because her old doctor does not take medicaid patients. Her old COBRA-related payments of $10,800 simply go away.
From an economic point-of-view, both families are living on the economy. The guy gets a subsidy (at least for a couple of years until the government stops subsidies) to reduce his costs that comes out of public funds. He still cannot really afford what he has chosen, and is seriously consiering simply paying the fine. At least that way, he saves on premiums for several years, until the IRS fine scheme catches up. The gal, on the other hand, gets everything out of Federal and State budget.s Here again, the Feds expect to reduce their share over time, leaving the states with expanded programs they have to pay for through their state budgets.
The net effect here, if you read carefully, is that Obamacare simply delays the inenvitable. Insurance companies will be coming in with new rates after 2014, based on experience rates in 2013, and the mix of signups. They have to make money of course, and guess who pays enough for them to provide dividends to their shareholders--YOU and ME.
The politicans in DC are removed from the realities people with modest incomes face in their daily lives. yet, they, and rabid liberals brought in by Obama to run his government, also far removed from people of modest income, have decided they know what is best. They insist this economic disaster-in-the-making is good for the American people. Do the numbers for yourself, and see if you agree.
For better or worse, the debacle surrounding the National Security Agency (NSA) is out in the open, due to Edward Snowden and others, and much of the conversation is not very pretty. You can take whichever side you wish in the ongoing debate, but one this is certain here--people are beginning to want to know in greater detail what their government is doing in this Cyber Age.
We have not had a similar debate since Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers back in the 60s. Even in those days, the populace was split, despite the ongoing opposition to the Vietnam War. Then, people were concerned about HOW the government was manipulating the public, through the press mostly, and some who seldom cared about the Government were outraged by what they saw on the news, and read in the papers. Some called Ellsberg a traitor, and others a whistleblower and hero. The Justice Department, which tried beforehand to stop the release and publication of the papers, was viewed in much the same way the Holder Justice Department is held today.
Those who considered Ellsberg a traitor said so loudly. Unfortunately, the opposition to the Vietnam War was so virulent that their voices were lost in the larger sounds of anti-war rhetoric. Those old enough can remember days when the reported casulaties were actually larger than what we are currently experiencing in totla inAfghanistan, and larger as well than those in Iraq. In the end, the papers were published, Ellsberg was released, and he continues to be public figure--though seldom seen--unless something such as the Snowden Affair rise to the public eye.
Flashing forward, the Snowden Affair is a bit different, but, at the same time, analogous to Ellsberg. Both worked for contractors--Snowden with Booz, Allen Hamilton, and Ellsberg with the Rand Corp. Both were young idealists who thought they had a mission, and they pursued it. Both claimed to high ideals and loyalty to their country, and saw their duty to bring information to the public. Were they right? That's for you and history to decide.
The issues are slightly different. Ellsber's information related to how the Government, particularly the White House, was managing information on the Vietnam War. Snowden decided to release information on how the Government is using the USA Patriot Act as a means of doing massive data collection, much without either public scrutiny or approval from the commercial sources involved, and claiming that this helps National Security.
Again, decisions on guilt or innocence are not the topic here--it is the tremendous national debate which resulted from Snowden's disclosures, and whether or not that debate should even be occuring.
On the pro-debate side, it is clear that a large number of people are upset that their personal data may be at risk of government intrusion. On the pro-security side, a similarly large number of people are afraid that stopping the actions of the NSA may contribute to incresed terrorist activity, and less-effective national security. It is not time yet to decide which side is correct, but it is the time to continue the debate on the continuation of freedom in the United States.
Part of the problem here, perhaps a large part of the problem, is the lack of understanding of the issues, or the concerns on either side, on how to achieve security for the American people, which requires some level of monitoring by the Government of those who potentially could cause harm here. That is, and should be, the thrust of the debate. people have a right to know what the Government is doing, at least in broad brush, to secure their safety, and prevent other 9-11 disasters.
The Government, in turn, needs to heed the concerns of the people--it is the people's Nation, not Washington's--and the people's voice on their level of comfort and security must be included in any debate on overall national Security.
The most important thing is that a debate is surely occuring--and it should continue so that the Congress, the President, and the National Security people heard THE PEOPLE'S voice loudly ,and not simply assume that someone in Washington has all the answers.
Some years ago, I happened to have the opportunity to listen to Walid Phares speak at the US National Defense University in Washington DC on the topic of National Policy. For those of you who are acquainted with Dr. Phares, it is clear that he is no radical; rather a dedicated, studied, and relatively conservative voice on the issues of the day--we probably in better days would have called him 'balanced' in his views.
On this particular day, he was speaking on the creation of National Strategy, and how that strategy is constructed. At the center of concentric circles is something called National Purpose, which are the basic ethical standards and obligations were have as a republic, and are expected to use as guiding principles for our governmental actions. Radiating out to the next concentric circle we find National Interest, those more specific principles we hold that relate to how we choose to make decisions on actions in specific cases. It is often the case that we might be, as a Nation, concerned about something, because our National Purpose as a democracy tells us that an event is wholly un-democratic in nature. Our National Interest, however, may indicate that this kind of event is not high on the radar, deserving an immediate response.
Indeed, when some event or policy does rise to a level that the issue could impact on our National Interest, then we evaluate how to respond, based on another of the principles Phares discussed, that being National Policy. The question at this juncture is that, if the event or practice is against our national interest, does it also rise to require action as a matter of National Policy? The answer to that question can be very complicated, because it represents both a governmental and a political question. The answer to that question determines the execution of the last principle--National Action--by which we move forward with a decision, based on purpose, interest, and policy, to react with some form of social, military, or mixed approach response. This kind of planning and analysis has long been the basis for military actions, especially, over a number of generations, and presidencies on both sides of the political spectrum.
Taking these principles to present day issues, such as that in Syria, where chemical weapons have been used against the population, we believe by the Assad regime, it seems that these long-held principles have no place in determining foriegn policy in the current administration. As has been reported widely by the media, Barack Obama first established a so-called 'red line', which, if crossed by the Assad Regime, where chemical weapons had been used, it would result in actions by the US and its allies to stop their further use.
The 'red line' was crossed months ago. Evidence is clear they had been used at least twice, and so far the US response has been simply to deny facts, and then move the line. Now, with nearly 2,000 killed and sickened in the latest attack, it has become too public to ignore, and too late to effectively create a meaningful response. The British did what we used to do routinely. They analyzed Purpose, Interest, Policy, and Action, brought the issue to the British Parliament, and decided this was not a pressing issue for them to commit their forces.
Obama had that opportunity months ago. Unfortunately, he has spent so much time using the Congress--which alone has the right to declare war under our constitution--and bombing Syria would be an act of war however he describes it--that effective consultation now would probably be fruitless. Instead, he held a press conference, saying he would refer it finally to the Congress, and immediately stated that he would act anyway, even in the Congress voted not to intervene.
From a National Interest and National Action perspective, one has to ask the very pertinent question--Why is it important for us, the United States---to be intervenor in these affairs, when the other countires of Europe and the Middle East want no part of intervention themselves?
Much of the rhetoric we are seeing now is due to the indecisiveness of the Obama. He claims to be a peacemaker, and the one who got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is partially true. The Bush administration had already set dates for withdrawal from Iraq, and had started the surge in Afghanistan as a means of pushing for some kind of victory before draw down there. The concept of ending the wars was not new to the Obama Administration.
This situation is not like withdrawal. it is much harder to decide to intervene than to withdraw. Moreover, this president is not like JFK, LBJ, or Bush 41, all of whom faced similar decisions and made them without long-term waffling. We may not agree with results in all cases, but the Nation was seen as strong, decisive, and protecting of our National Interests.
We don't see that here. What we see is a president, coming toward the end of his final term in office, who has built a reputation as a political bully in Washington, acting a lot like a socialist dictator, while trying to force a legacy that will somehow show his constant indecisiveness as strength in the face of obstinate opposition. What he fails to realize is that he does not determine his legacy--the people, the historians, and the rest of the world will determine the legacy of Barack Obama, and, frankly, that legacy does not look bright, at least from this vantage point.
There is a more important issue, however, and one that bears all of our attention. Indecisiveness, while is does not directly affect National Purpose, or even National Interest, both of which can remain relatively intact without firm decisions, it does affect both National Policy and National Action. When we are seen, as a nation, as indecisive, they other nations cease to regard our national policies as worthy of their attention. Witness the british Parliament versus the Prime Minister, or the UN, or the Arab League. In addition, indecisiveness leads to mistakes in military action, as we put our warriors on alert, and then stand-down like a yo-yo, they soon lose their critical military edge. We also lose considerab le face, as we are seen to be backing down to ther major powers, like China and Russia, and seemingly afraid of facing even an incompetent force, like the Syrian Army. Indecisiveness breeds contempt.
By the time action in Syria occurs, if it ever does, the weapons will be moved, the military will be repositioned, and the artillery gone into hiding. Even the most incompetent of administrations can do that. Obama will be left, as he seems to usually be, giving a strongly worded reproof to Assad, who will return an obscene gesture and continue to kill his own people. That's politics at its best, and Obama seems to be the best at politics and not governance.
Once again, during the past week, on both his 'performance' with Jay Leno, and his rushed news conference, before he sped off to another expensive vacation at the public expense, it was time to bash George W. Bush for the failings of the Obama Administration.
The man has been president nearly six years, and running for the office constantly for nearly eight years. He doesn't know the election is over. During all that time, and over a plethora of problems, scandals, and other nonsense he calls his administration, the only constant--other than meticulous attention to keeping none of his campaign promises from either campaign-- has been his effort to continue whistlestop campaigning in lieu of leading the Nation when we need it the most. Even more common is his continuing bashing of George Bush for virtually everything transpiring in the country.
Just look at his record. The economy is a continuing disaster; employment is still at historic highs, with over 10% of the population either unemployed, or marginally employed; the largest number of people in history are on public welfare; and the rest of the world looks at us as abject failures. Of course, all of this "W"'s fault, not Barack Hussein's.
During his reign, we lost an ambassador and part of that man's staff, while Obama was rushing to his fundraising events in Las Vegas. Later his Secretary of State, Hillary CLinton testified it 'didn't matter' and we were supposed to believe it simply because Hillary said so. We lost Border agents to guns his administration allowed to be shipped in bulk to Mexico with no effective supervision, and then his Justice Department tried as best they could to hide it, deny it, and obstruct the investigations. For the first time in our history, a sitting Attoreny-General was found in Contempt of Congress. of course everything to do with Fast and Furious was Bush's fault.
Not satisfied, the next step was to have the IRS start to stifle, obstruct, and deny tax exempt status for the conservative groups who disagreed with the Administration; denying any involvement of other than 'a few rogue agents' in Cincinnati. When that provied to be a lie, they simply changed their tune, and started to say that the White House was not involved. Of course the White House was involved--at least to the extent that they put some of their hacks in the IRS, one of who decided to take the Fifth Amendment when she was found out, and did their best to inhibit the investigation, while deriding the Congress for doing their duty as overseers of the Federal finances.
Then, of course, there is the slowly moving, but inexorable disaster of Obamacare looming over the next few years. Obama and his administration managed to alienate most of the religious leaders, cast aspersions on religion itself, and started the process that will inevitably bring virtually everyone (Except of course the Congress, and the politicals) into Obamacare, or else. The cost figures for that program are steadily incresasing, far beyond his own estimates, and the insurance companies are doing exactly what was expected--reduce the quality of plans, the benefits paid, and the ease of using your own doctor--to provide a program no one likes, will provide to be impossible to administer without a huge bureaucracy, and will eventually drive even more poeple into public welfare. They wrote the bill, which the Congress approved without reading it, and only they knew what steps to take to assure their future profits, while the rest of the Nation siffered with lousy or no health care.
Finally, there is a debacle of the international standing of the US. Under Obama, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies have vastly expanded the reach of those agencies to seek and receive billions of bits of data--just because they claim they might need it to chase terrorists. They claim to have foiled 54 plots, using the data, but, of course, they can't tell us about them for National Security reasons. Europe is insulted that their meetings have been eavesdropped on by our intelligence people; we are surreptitiously collecting data without their consent, and, even if only part of the information divulged by Snowden is correct, under Obama his administtration is hiding under secret court decisions, executive orders, and other regulations which have drastically cut into our freedoms guaranteed by the US Consitution. Even here Bush is responsible. The Patriot Act, passed after the terrorists Attacks in New York and Washington, has been drastically increased under Obama, but it's Bush's faults for getting the original law con the books.
His answer to all of this is to sit smugly on the Leno Show, the View, and other liberal media outlets and joke about what should be very serious responsibilities. The sad thing is it took a lot of citizens to elect this guy, so I guess the American Public deserves what it gets.
Just saw this in facebook, and wanted to share it with you.
The comment started with a picture from the Being Conservative site.
A responder, patrick John, added this:
Bob: “Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?” Jim: "You mean about the setting up of Seal Team 6?" Bob: "No, the other one. Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun-running?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “The State Department lying about Benghazi?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?” Bob: “No, the other one” Jim: “The State Department (new) interfering with an I.G. investigation on sexual misconduct?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “HHS employees (also new) being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?” Bob: “No, the other one.” Jim:
“I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it -- you mean the 65 million
low-information voters who stuck us again with the most corrupt
administration in American history?” Bob: “THAT’S THE ONE!"
Part 4 - 'Secret'
investigations of reporters, without providing protection for First Amendment rights
This is another one of those ‘Did Holder lie
under oath?” questions, which seem to continue to haunt the Obama Administration.
It is not the first time a reporter has been investigated in connection with a
leak of supposedly secret Government information, nor will it probably be the
least. There are some differences here, however, that make this situation a bit
different from some of the others, which have occurred periodically under
various presidents.
Let me say at the outset that it is not
necessarily illegal for the Justice Department, or any other law enforcement
agency, to investigate criminal activity, even if it involves in some way, a member
of the media. Broadly, reporters are protected under the Freedom of Speech
provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They have the same
obligations as any other citizen for assuring that their writing is indeed ‘protected’
speech; something the courts have defined over the years, and generally guided
by the Supreme Court, where the famous example of ‘yelling ‘fire’ in a theatre’,
became part of the norm for determining the limits of that free speech.
So, we have two separate, but inter-related
issues here, as is often the case. One issue involves performing criminal acts;
the other involves the right of a reporter to bring facts, however unfavorable
to the Administration, to the public view. In this particular incident, there
is also a third issue; the responsibility of the Nation’s chief law enforcement
officer, the Attorney-General, to speak truthfully in explaining the issues
before either house of the Congress. This third issue is where the current
problem occurs.
Let’s dispose of the first issue, the performance
of criminal acts, quickly. My research tells me that reporters, who are
informed of a story, and who have reason to believe, after due diligence, that
the story is true, have a right to inform the public. If that story has within
it protected or classified information, then the obligation of the reporter,
normally, is to attempt to present the story without any unnecessary disclosure
of the classified information. However, if that story involves illegal
activity, even including classified information bearing on that illegal
activity, the reporter has no obligation to protect the information from
disclosure. The reporter’s disclosure does not, in any way, absolve the person
who took the classified information, and disclosed it to the reporter, from
their obligations under any agreement with the Government. In short, the
reporter may not violate the law, but the initial discloser probably does
violate the law.
Over the years, we have seen in various
high-profile cases that neither reporter’s rights, nor the Government’s rights
to keep secrets, is absolute. In recent years, transcending several
administrations, reporters have been called to court to explain where they
received information about crimes committed, or Government secrets. The court
decisions, some holding reporters in contempt, and jailing them, until they
revealed their sources; others vacating the contempt, usually because the originator
of the information agreed to let their name be known to the court, have not
seriously undermined reporter’s rights.
Similarly, the publication of the “Pentagon
Papers’ in both the New York Times, and the Washington Post created a whole new
set of precedents with regard to releasing previously classified documents. In
that case, the Government attempted to get the courts to issue restraining
orders to the newspapers, in advance, denying them the right to publish the
papers, made available by Daniel Ellsburg, an analyst with the Rand
Corporation. The court denied the prior restraint of publication, and suggested
the Government instead prove its case in court. The Government tried Ellsburg,
but could not get a jury to convict on the most serious charges. For the number
of years, prior to 2001, the Government backed away from public confrontation
on these issues, preferring quiet negotiation, or denials as their method of
operation.
All
that changed with September 11, 2001 bombings in New York, and Washington DC.
More activist administration, under George W. Bush and Barack Obama began to
actively seek to restrain disclosures, actively pursue leakers from Government
agencies, and encourage reporters not to accept or public classified documents.
That process expanded in earnest under the Obama Administration, and the US
Justice Department under Eric Holder, bringing us to pre present case, where
not only is the administration pursuing leakers, they are also actively
pursuing the reporters who publish the stories.
In the current case, Jin-Woo Kim, an analyst
at the State Department, was accused of releasing secret information to a
reporter, James Rosen of Fox News, and was being investigated for prosecution
under the Espionage Act of 1917. E-mails between Kim and Rosen linked Rosen to
the case. However, in their request for a warrant to look through Rosen’s
e-mails, the FBI agent in question, In the affidavit, FBI agent on the case, Reginald
Reyes, said Rosen “asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose
sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.” He
added, “The reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s
vanity and ego.” Further, Rosen was called a potential co-conspirator in the
case; words which are apparently required for the court to issue the warrant.
That request for a warrant was approved up to the level of the
Attorney-general, Eric Holder.
Unfortunately, Holder had been testifying
before the House Judiciary Oversight Committee, and was asked specifically if
he had approved such requests, and denied even knowing about such a case. The
Washington Post, New Yorker magazine, and a host of other media sources jumped
on the case as one of interference in the rights of a reporter to state the
news, and also catching Holder in an apparent discrepancy in his testimony.
Members of the house Committee demanded
clarification from Holder; one of his deputies provided a letter, some thought
condescending in tone, and denied the Attorney-general had lied. This was
followed up by a letter from Holder who ‘clarified’ his position by saying that
his words were literally true, since the Department had no intention to
actively prosecute Rosen, but wanted his e-mail traffic to prosecute Kim.
Two important questions remained to be
answered: Why would the Department of Justice go to extraordinary lengths to
hide the facts, and did Holder lie?
The
Department’s position was that they did not notify Rosen, or Fox News, as was
the normal custom because they were afraid that Kim would be alerted to the
investigation; something Kim was apparently already aware was in progress. When
asked about their position on secrecy, and the impact on Rosen for being
accused of being a potential co-conspirator in the court documents, the
response was “Saying that there is probable cause to believe that someone has
committed a crime and charging the person with that crime are two different
things.” In other words, Justice could claim anything they wanted to the Court,
even lie about the circumstances, and not be in violation of the law, or Rosen’s
rights.
Critical to the Committee was the previous
testimony of Holder before the committee, and what to do about the apparent
discrepancy. Holder appeared, and used many of the same phrases, calling the ‘co-conspirator’
wording something similar to a phrase-of-art needed to get the warrant. That
application was rejected by two Federal judges, before it was ‘shopped’ to
Judge Jackson, who agreed to its issuance. Rosen’s e-mails, phone logs, and
logs of other phones at Fox News Network were turned over in response to the
warrant, without notification to Rosen or the news service.
This incident, as with the others, thus far,
does not appear to rise to the White House, and certainly not directly to the
level of the president. The potential for Holder being accused of lying to the
House is a serious issue. If that charge is proved, then the House needs to
consider whether the impeachment article should apply to Mr. Holder in this
instance.
Arlington VA June 23, 2013 Heads for Russia, and then ....
The news this morning is that Edward Snowden, former contractor/analyst for the National Security Agency in hawaii has left his digs in Hong Kong for another location, possibly Cuba or Venezuela. News media reports have him ;landed in Moscow, and awaiting another flight out of the country..
Snowden had been in Hong Kong for more than a week, mostly in isolation, although he has given several interviews to various news outlets. His change of location is probably due to the charges filed earlier in the week in the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), which charged him with both theft of government property, and other charges under the Federal Espionage Act of 1917. The US had asked the Hong Kong Government to extradite Snowden under those charges. Honk Kong's Government ,in turn, asked for clarification of the charges, and, before any reply was received, allowed Snowden to board an Aeroflot flight to Moscow.
While Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the US, there are exceptions in the agreement, mostly relating to what might be considered 'political' crimes, which would allow either the Hong Kong Government, or China itself, to deny the extradition request. Assuredly, the US Justice Department must have been aware of those provisions.
From a personal perspective, while I strongly want Snowden prosecuted, it would seem that the Justice Department could have been satisfied with a set of charges concerning the theft of the information and data; leaving any other charges to follow extradition. Perhaps they wanted to make an example of Snowden, or wanted to avoid another Assange debacle, but they managed to lose their leverage with the Hong Kong Government over their overly broad initial reach. That overly strong-handed approach has been a hallmark of the Justice Department under Eric Holder.
Several question still remain, of course. What did the Chinese get while he was in Hong Kong (Whether he gave it to them or not), and what will the Russians get (Whether he gives it to them or not) are two important ones, while what will end up on WIkileaks is still a major issue. Only time will tell. Meanwhiule, the US Government again has egg on its face.
The hearing was a fantastic insight into the working of the intelligence community, and the examples provided on the use of the Section 215, and Section 704 data collected under the Patriot Act, should have greatly dispelled the notions of a 'big brother' overhearing our every word -- to all, that is, except the ardent conspiracy theorists.
General Alexander is a very believable witness; credible, and, I believe, honest to a fault. Where the conversations tended toward classified data, he offered to respond in other modes. Perhaps the most telling comment was that, in his, view, September 11th 2001 might have been averted with these systems in place. I agree, for what that is worth.
I wish i could be more positive about the Justice Department and the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Cole did a good job of explaining the law -- his boss Hoilder should have been at the hearing himself. With regard to the FBI Deputy Joyce, it is really hard to accept anything from that agency these days.
My one outstanding question, and one I wish had been answered directly, instead of in circumspect, by the FBI, was, with regard to the Boston bombings, why the FBI did not actively pursue use of these tools to know about the bombers. The Russian Government gave them the information through diplomatic channels. The FBI did a cursory review, but not a formal investigation, where PRISM and other tools could have uncovered the connections between the two bombers, their friends, and others in Chechnya, as the Russians told them they would. Instead, we had a major terrorist act committed, which, in my view, could have been avoided. Someone needs to ask hard questions of the FBI, and get more thant the insulting testimony provided a week ago by Director Mueller.
Let's hope that this latest 'scandal' gets behind us. A lot of it could have been avoided by simply stating the ctruth up front, and not denying the existence of perfectly valid investigatory and intelligence-gathering tools, which, from where I sit, only do damage to those who try to damage us.
Perhaps the most egregious was his inability to provide even a name of the lead investigator on the IRS Scandal investigation. for that matter, he did not do much better on questions about the Benghazi investigation either, saying, at one point, that 'it was too dangerous for his agents to enter Libya to investigate for nearly two weeks after the attack which killed the US Ambassador.
He didn't do much better on the other questions either, except perhaps for his ringing defense of the surveillance activities of the NSA. By the way, his agents can't find Snowden either.
I certainly understand that Director Mueller is retiring in early September. He deserves a rest. perhaps he thought this was just another casual appearance before the committee, or came unprepared. Whatever the reason, he made no effort to assure the committee their questions would be answered, or that he even cared about the answers. That is beneath both himself and the office he holds.
The American public deserves answers to the questions asked, and it is pitiful that the FBI Director showed such an uncaring attitude about the several growing scandals he is supposed to be investigating.
This week's news has been replete with media source after media source rushing to make news themselves, after the Guardian (UK) Newspapers released leaked information, and a classified copy of a decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on wiretapping.
The document, actually a renewal of previous orders of the court, allows the Government, through the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect various kinds of data on telephone calls, in this case from Verizon, the largest of the phpone providers in the US.
The Administration rushed to contain the disclosure by saying that individual rights were not affected by this order ,or others which had been issued previously, since no personal information was being collected, and that most of the information involved calls from the US to overseas areas. The FISA Court specifically prohibited personal information, or transcripts of the calls from the collection process.
Following this disclosure, the Washington Post, the following day, released even more classified information, this time about a program known as PRISM, developed and managed by NSA, and used to collect and analyze information from Internet providers, and social media sites. Here again, the Administration was quick to point out that information was only being collected overseas.
James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, who only a short few days earlier had assured the Congressional Committees that no such collection of this type was occuring, now released a statement that the release of the information was an egregious breach of national security. he made no mention of his previous testimony--not even to 'walk back' and explain the apparent inconsistencies.
Problems?
There are several problems here.
First, collecting information on calls to places where terrorists locate themselves is a perfectly good intelligence tool, as is the use of information collection on Internet sites to see what information is being passed around in the ethernet. I support the Government's efforts in that regard.
However, the concern lies in the seemingly pervasive effort, to prevent the American people from knowing how intrusive the actions of THEIR Government to cover up, and lie as necessary, while taking personal information without any indication of a crime, or possible crime, being committed. Congressman Rogers, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and one of the members of Congress who was briefed on the program, stated that at least one terrorist plot had been uncovered as a result of the monitoring. At 58 Billion calls a day, that is like declaring success for having found a needle near a haystack, while looking for something else.
Second, this appears to be yet another instance where senior members of the Administration come to the Congress, and provide sworn testimony, only to find out later that their statements were partially or wholly untrue.
Third, the sense the Administration is giving the public on the use of the data is itself falacious. Collecting streams of data does not provide you with actionable information. In order to make sense of the data, you have to have a perspective, and some benchmarks to relate the data. Now, the Administration, including the President himself, has stated no personal information is being collected. If that is the case, then how does the NSA relate a seemingly innocuous call, from a number whose owner is unknown, to a number in, let's say Karachi Pakistan, to a number whose owner is unknown? Of course, that is non-sensical. NSA knows everybody's phone number, and knows exactly whose numbers overseas they want to monitor. Why not just say so? Why lie, and obscure the real facts, especially now that they have come out anyway.
Perhaps in the next few days more information will come to light how the Government has really benefitted from this program. So far, it seems more to be an intrusion in civil liberties, justified by thinking it MIGHT find something, someday.
I support strongly the Government's efforts to keep us safe. I hope they dig until they find the person who released the classified information, and then prosecute him/her under that same Espionage Act they have been trying use on news reporters. And, by the way, I do wish the Administration would stop lying to the public, and to the Congress so frequently--it is making it even harder to believe anything they say.
Recent Comments