#1
Literacy is a goal in Afghanistan? Who would have known? It is almost like non-literacy is a goal of the Taliban. It seems the Taliban are vested in keeping the country primitive and undeveloped.
#2
FTA:He also says the British have returned to steal uranium from Helmand
You were planning on doing something with it? No roads, no electricity and no one can read. Dude, one of your best options is for the British to build the infrastructure they would need to steal your uranium.
#2
Nor will they attack Black Fundamentalist Churches, but the Mormons are a target of opportunity. All 'christianists' are not the same even though they take the same or similar stand on the issue.
#4
PC is a "if one falls, we all fall together" kind of thing, since any mechanism that allows someone to see through the guff and free themselves from one form of it is enabled to free themselves from another.
If the PC about the "noble non-westerner" fails, then they may be next!
Great read about an English-speaking defector. Perhaps he's only telling us what we want to hear, but ...As they crossed the airport in Singapore that day in 2003, heading for the plane that would take them to Seoul -- and a new life of freedom -- North Korean defector Kim Kwang Jin and his wife and son all feared for their lives. "My wife was very frightened," recalled Kim, a high-ranking banker for the North Korean regime who was stationed in Singapore at the time. "She told me afterwards that...every step through the airport was like walk[ing] to [her] slaughtering....It was not easy to make such a decision."
Now a visiting fellow with the Washington, D.C.-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Kim is described by veteran analysts as the first English-proficient defector ever to escape the Hermit Kingdom. Trim and sharply dressed, his bushy head of hair dyed jet black, the 42-year-old Kim, once an English professor at a computer college in Pyongyang, speaks polite and fluent English, albeit in a halting style and with a heavy accent.
An interview with FOX News in late June marked Kim's first with an American TV news channel. Kim recounted his extraordinary experiences working for the Northeast Asia Bank and Korea National Insurance Corporation, where he handled accounts worth hundreds of million of dollars.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/09/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Re NK media: radios are pre-set to receive only national government communication. Thus, the people are unaware that NK's elite are the biggest importers of French Cognac. Buying Kim's non-belligerence in non-productive. We should effect complete disassociation.
A top aide to President Barack Obama provided a keynote address at last weekend's 46th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) national convention, a gathering that attracted thousands of people and also featured anti-Semitic, homophobic rhetoric and defense of the terrorist group Hezbollah.
In her remarks, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs Valerie Jarrett noted she was the first White House official to address ISNA. She spoke in general terms about interfaith dialogue and cooperation. She praised her hosts for "the diversity of American organizations, and ideas that are represented and will be debated" at the convention.
And she openly invited ISNA President Ingrid Mattson to work on the White House Council on Women and Girls that Jarrett leads.
ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-support conspiracy and maintains significant leadership ties to its foundation 28 years ago by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. A more pointed statement by Jarret would have stood as a powerful retort to extremist sentiments offered in other segments of the conference.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/09/2009 12:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
The Obama administration might like to "spread the wealth around," but its proposed "health care reform" wouldn't spread consumer choice around. Rather, it would constrict consumer choice substantially except for the very rich.
That's the great irony of President Obama's ambitious health care agenda: His administration, which seems to feel little empathy for the rich, is paving the way to a two-tiered system in which only the very rich would have a choice.
Under ObamaCare, the rich would continue to get the care they want whether here or abroad by paying for it out of their own pockets. The rest of us would stand in line and wait for rationed care.
Most Americans want consumer freedom. They want to be able to shop for health care value for the best care, at the best prices. They'd like to have a lot more freedom to shop for such value than they currently have. That's why Democrats are couching their proposed expansion of government-run health care in the language of competition and choice.
Listen to the president as he pitches the centerpiece of that agenda a "public option," a form of Medicare for all. He says it's merely a way to give Americans another choice: People can buy private health insurance, just like now, or they can instead choose the government option.
But millions of middle-class Americans who are happy with their employer-provided insurance would soon find the choice isn't theirs to make.
The government would make it cheaper for employers to contribute to the government-run option than to keep providing private insurance.
Millions of employers would do the math and pick the government option. The "public option" would provide a choice for millions of employers, against the wishes of millions of employees.
The Lewin Group, a prominent consulting firm, estimates that a widespread "public option" with Medicare-like reimbursement rates would result in 118 million Americans losing their private insurance and being forced into government-run care. Meanwhile, private insurance wouldn't be able to compete on the uneven playing field that Congress would establish.
In its competition with FedEx and UPS, the Post Office at least has to provide a service. But the "public option" would merely use government's coercive powers to dictate prices and availability of services provided by others by doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. Private insurance can't similarly fix prices and would be run out of business.
Lower reimbursement rates, coupled with a dwindling pool of private insurers to whom to pass on costs, would mean lower incomes for medical professionals. The eventual result would be fewer people entering the medical profession.
A two-tiered system would then emerge: The very rich would take their spots like first-class passengers on the Titanic, paying for fine care and not asking the price. The rest of us would take our spots in steerage class, awaiting the inevitable collision between government-run health care and the iceberg of budgetary disaster.
White House budget director Peter Orszag recently opined that "the deficit impact of every other fiscal policy variable" is "swamped" by the deficit-threat posed by Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama's solution? A massive new Medicare-like program!
Medicare may not pay much to doctors, but taxpayers pay plenty to Medicare. As my recent Pacific Research Institute study shows, since 1970, Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.
Across nearly four decades, government-run health care has been far more expensive than privately run care. It comes down to a simple comparison and an obvious verdict: Privately run care offers choice and is cheaper. Government-run care denies choice and is more expensive.
But the particular losers under Obama-Care would be the middle class. The uninsured poor would largely benefit, although they might benefit even more while hurting others far less from fixing the unfairness in the tax code and giving them the health care tax-break that millions of insured Americans already enjoy.
The truly rich would be largely unaffected, as they never really needed private insurance anyway. They would continue to pay for the care they want, because they can.
Middle-class Americans wouldn't enjoy that freedom. They would lose their employer-provided insurance and be left with only the government-run "option." And, under a government monopoly, they would get rationed care. And every April 15, they would get a higher tax bill for their troubles, which just might make them feel sick enough to get back in line.
#1
For all BO's talk about providing health care to the masses like the Congress men and women get, it was just pre-election vote-getting blather. Congress exempts themselves from just about everything--many, not all are a bunch of self-serving elitists. If Congress had to live with the laws they pass, they might be more careful about the laws they pass.
#2
He was sponsored by the Illinois Democrats who are also indifferent to Democracy. Pity no one would get off a plane and ask us quaint, colorfully costumed, clog dancing for our betters, natives of Illinois BEFORE THE ELECTION.
#3
Very little one can correctly label "astonishing" about a man schooled nearly since birth in the tenants of Liberation Theology.
Lets skip the next 5 chapters shall we? I think you are familiar with those. The more difficult algebraic challenges are further to the back of the book.
#4
He came to prominence in a one-party system in Chicago. He won his Senate election because the opposition party couldn't be serious enough to field a proper candidate (and because his fellow-travelers in the leading newspaper in the state ran out the candidate who was to challenge him). He won the nomination by winning caucuses rigged by his fellow-travelers. He won the election because his fellow-travelers ran interference for him.
It's not astonishing at all.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/09/2009 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Genuine democracy is hard work.
The perception of a free and fair election process is an important component in a democracy. However, its the heavy lifting that follows that defines a true democracy. If, and only if, an elected government is held to account can a democracy flourish. If Obama was to bring attention to the deficiencies of other countries it would certainly invite criticism of his own lack of accomplishment. Not unlike when average looking girls bring the fat chick along when they go out dancing.
#6
Not surprising the indifference toward demcrocacy. A Marxist ideology doesn't allow much room for democracy. For all the talk of change, the change is rooted in failed 1930s concepts.
The Obama Doctrine is finally coming into focus....Obama himself insists that hes guided by nothing other than a cool-headed pragmatism. Indeed, Obama has a grating habit of describing any position not his own as ideological, as if his is the only sober, practical understanding of the problems we face. Just days before he was inaugurated, he gave a speech in Baltimore in which he proclaimed, What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.
So ideologues i.e. millions of Americans who disagree with his policies on principle belong in a list along with bigots and dim bulbs. At home, this attitude has allowed him to dismiss opponents of socialized medicine and the government takeover of various industries as ideologues, and critics of trillions in debt-fueled spending as small-minded cranks.
Joshua Muravchik, a scholar at Johns Hopkins University and a leading advocate of democracy promotion around the globe, demonstrates in the current issue of Commentary that Obama has a similar attitude toward those who say America should advance the cause of liberty and democracy worldwide. Again and again, the administration has made it clear that spreading freedom is so much ideological foolishness....
The past four weeks show how ideological Obamas un-ideological view really is. In response to the revolutionary protests in Iran, Obama initially favored stability and preserving the fantasy of negotiations with the Iranian clerical junta. Not meddling was his top priority. Over time, the rhetoric improved, but the policy remained just as cynical.
Then, events in Honduras revealed that Obama really has no problem with meddling when a left-wing agenda is advanced. Manuel Zelaya, the president of Honduras and a Hugo Chávez wannabe, illegally defied the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution in an attempt to repeal term limits (which help sustain democracy in Central America by preventing presidents-for-life). The Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office and expel him from the country. A member of Zelayas own party replaced him, and elections were announced. But suddenly, Obama taking much the same position as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez thought America should join the coalition of the meddlers demanding Zelayas return to power. In Iran, Obama was terrified to do anything that might lead to a coup to bring about democracy. In Honduras, Obama was unwilling to let stand a coup that preserved democracy.
It sure seems like Obama has an ideological problem with democracy.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/09/2009 09:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And many Christian dhimmis view islam as nothing but a variant faith. They project their own tolerance onto inherently aggressive muslims.
#2
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry -- an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels."?
What's wrong with the old Declaration of Independence? It has served our country well from its inception. It served well until many politicians, lawyers, and others quit adhering to it--and they replaced it with "political correctness" and other such nonsense.
In a briefing organized in Congress in July of 2007, I submitted a plan to the U.S. House Caucus on Counter Terrorism called "Freedom lines" suggesting a second phase in the American military campaign in Iraq. This plan was suggested as of 2004. After having analyzed the long term goals of al Qaeda and the Iranian regime in Iraq and discussed them with CENTCOM officials and National Defense University professors, the proposed plan projected a rapid training and expansion of the Iraqi armed forces followed by a gradual redeployment of U.S. and Coalition forces out of the cities and urban zones. Today we see the first phase of withdrawal beginning to take place. It is in this redeployment stage, where Iraqi forces will be taking over from Americans and allies in all cities and most towns. Two crucial questions arise immediately: Will Iraqi forces be able to control their own urban zones? And as a corollary, what should be the next phase for U.S. and Coalition forces on Iraqi soil?
According to the plan I have suggested the answer to the second question can determine the success or failure of the first. Indeed, for Iraqi forces to win the battle against their security challenges, it will depend on what kind of strategic mission U.S. armed forces will be tasked with in the next stage of their new deployment. Here is why:
The two main forces the U.S. and the West are facing in the region, and which are threatening the rise of democracy amongst local civil societies have been and continue to be the Salafi Jihadists led by al Qaeda on the one hand and the Ayatollahs' Pasdaran on the other hand. These two threats -- regardless of how various U.S. administrations perceive them or project them -- are the main challengers to Iraq's national security. And thus their intentions towards Iraq's future will determine the fate of the post redeployment stage. What are al Qaeda's and Iran's plans with the completion of American pull out from the cities? The combat Jihadists (often called "the extremists" by the U.S. Administration) are clear in their intentions: attack Iraqi forces, civil society and foreign presence mostly in Sunni Arab areas and when possible across the country. There will be no change in strategy for al Qaeda but an increase of activities in an effort to crumble the government's presence in what the Salafi Jihadists would want to transform into a future "Emirate." The Iranian factor is more complex: Tehran's influence in Baghdad is projected to increase. Behind the scenes, the pro-Khomeinist politicians in Iraq will pressure the Shia-dominated government to lessen their alliance with the United States and tighten their cooperation with the "Islamic Republic of Iran." The real battle will be within the Shia community of Iraq. The Pasdaran's tentacles will attempt to eliminate the anti-Iranian cadres and consolidate the pro-Iranian groups, including the armed ones. The far goal is undoubted: Spread Iranian indirect control from border to border to connect with Syria's.
Can Iraq's government and armed forces resist the post U.S. redeployment assault by al Qaeda and the further infiltration by the Iranian regime? The answer is yes, if. If the country's national leadership stays united, closely allied to the United States and aware of the two threats, it will be able to ride the dangerous waves and reach stability by 2011 and beyond. But if the Iraqi government -- and its successor after the fall's elections -- fail in meeting the three above mentioned conditions, the threats will prevail. Do Iraq's army and security forces have enough numbers, equipment and training to respond to al Qaeda? Technically yes. If backed by their government, they can withstand terror strikes as long as needed and deny a repeat of Fallujah. Violence will take place, and might even increase, but the measurement is by the ability of the armed forces to deny the terrorists a territorial control, not to stop the bombings. However, Iraq's ability to maintain unity against al Qaeda is based on its ability to deny further Iranian infiltration. And to do so, Iraqis need to be shielded from penetration coming from the east and the west: Iran and Syria. This is where U.S. role becomes critical.
If the U.S. forces leaving cities would regroup in large bases and await calls from Baghdad's government to help when needed, they risk missing the bigger of the threats: a strategic penetration by Iran from border to border. Americans may be called to assist against al Qaeda while the Pasdaran will be subtly occupying the country. In short we will be doing the dirty job for the next dominant power: Iran. Hence, all depends on the deals already cut: If the Obama administration has accepted the idea of a future influence by Iran in Iraq, in return for a deal on regional issues, then expect U.S. "neutrality" towards Iranian influence in urban Iraq. But if Washington perceives Iran's role in Iraq as a threat, then it should use its redeployment as deterrence against the Khomeinists. Everything else will unfold quickly.
In military history, deployments have constituted half of most victories. In my 2007 plan, I suggested a withdrawal from the center of Iraq and a deployment along the borders with particular focus on the frontiers with Iran and Syria. The thick presence along the two rivers should be remodeled into thick massing along the borders to the east and to the west, leaving most of the country to its armed forces. By redeploying as two buffers facing Tehran and Damascus, significant dividends will emerge: One, Iraqis will be able to pacify the center at will without main concerns about trans-borders penetrations; two, the Iranian regime will be deterred from a thrust into its neighbor; three, the Syrian regime will lose the land bridge it hoped to access with Iran; four both the Assad and Khamanei regimes will have to focus on their growing domestic issues, instead of "meddling" in a post withdrawal Iraq.
Although such a strategic move should have been the next logic step in U.S. plans in Iraq, Washington decision makers have been advised in an opposite direction: "Engage" Iran and Syria and cut a deal with them as to the future of Iraq. The next stage of U.S. redeployment, if directed at deterring Iran can lead to Iraqi victory over terror. But if deterring Tehran's regime is not on the agenda, Iraq will be challenged by al Qaeda in its center and penetrated by Iran from both borders.
#1
Tehran's influence in Baghdad is projected to increase.
Perhaps. Unless the Mad Mullahs are overthrown by the Iranian people. Unless the ayatollahs in Qom decide that the mad leaders are violating the basic tenets of their faith. Unless the Iraqi Shi'a, led by the religious leaders of Najaf, reject rabid Kohmeini-ism, which it sure seems like they're doing.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/09/2009 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There was a football game a few years back, I think it was KC vs. Cleveland. Time running out, Chiefs driving, needed a field goal to win or else they lose. Defense made a stopping play and a player took his helmut off to celebrate - but there was still time on the clock. Taking helmut off was a 15 yard penalty, puts Chiefs in range kicked the field goal and Cleveland lost. Lets not take our helmut off too early in Iraq.
(Might need a spot from sports fanatics with the opposing team to KC, might have been Cincinatti, it made the blooper rounds for quite a while)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Obama administration might like to "spread the wealth around," but its proposed "health care reform" wouldn't spread consumer choice around. Rather, it would constrict consumer choice substantially except for the very rich.
by Walid Phares
