From: CNSnews.com
As New York enacted a law late Friday that legalizes same-sex marriage in the state, the Roman Catholic bishops of New York released a statement saying they now expect efforts to enact laws that go after churches that insist on teaching the "timeless truths" about marriage and family.
"We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops said.
"But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves," the bishops said. "This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."
The statement was signed by the bishops of all eight Roman Catholic diocese in the state of New York, led by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of the Manhattan-based Archdiocese of New York. The other bishops signing the statement included Bishop Howard Hubbard of the Albany Diocese, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Brooklyn Diocese, Bishop Edward Kmiec of the Buffalo Diocese, Bishop Terry LaValley of the Ogdensburg Diocese, Bishop Matthew H. Clark of the Rochester Diocese, Bishop William Murphy of the Rockville Centre Diocese, and Bishop Robert Cunningham of the Syracuse Diocese.
The New York State Senate passed the same-sex marriage bill late Friday and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, signed the bill into law at 11:55 Friday night. The state assembly has passed the bill the week before. The law will go into effect in 30 days.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Muslim Brotherhood Figure and Former Spokesman in the West: Establish a Global Islamic State
From: MEMRI
In a June 8, 2011 interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq, Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West, called upon the Arab youth to launch a new revolution that would eliminate the borders drawn by imperialist nations and bring about the establishment of a global Islamic state – "called 'The United States of Islam.'" According to Al-Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood is active in approximately 80 countries and strives to realize the dream of becoming a global organization.
Following are excerpts from the interview:[1]
"Is There a Party That Suffered More and Had More Of Its Members Arrested By the Mubarak Regime" Than the Muslim Brotherhood?
"Q: Do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood's new Freedom and Justice Party will be able to operate independently of the movement?"
"A: Of course. If the party is not totally independent of the movement, it will never succeed. [Without such independence between them] the Muslim Brotherhood will fail politically, and be immersed in many problems. The people will distance themselves from [the Brotherhood] and its party..."
"Q: Following Mubarak's ouster, some movement officials declared their candidacy for the upcoming parliamentary elections, for approximately one-third of the seats. Others spoke of one-half of the seats. What do you think of this dispute?"
"A: Statements made by movement officials before the Shura Council convened are not considered official decisions... The movement announced this [high] percentage so that it could win 30-35 percent of the seats. There is a formal difference between an opinion and a decision.
"In truth, both positions are striving to achieve some 35%. Bidding for 50% [of the seats] does not mean you will win them all."
"Q: The movement called upon many political forces to join a unified [parties] list, but concurrently announced that it will run for 50% [of the seats] on its own. [This contradiction] constitutes a negative message by the Muslim Brotherhood."
"A: If the Muslim Brotherhood violated an agreement it made [to unite with other parties], it was a mistake, but if there was dialogue that did not result in a clear decision, it is their right to make their own decisions.
"Allow me to ask: Is there a party that suffered more and had more of its members arrested by the Mubarak regime? It is no shame that it is the most organized force on the streets. Everyone is talking about it, in [Egypt] and abroad, even though the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed.
"Where are the other parties? Why are they not doing what the Muslim Brotherhood did? Haven't the communists and the Al-Wafd people been around for decades? Why are they not doing what the [Brotherhood has done], or even surpassing it, and why are they not organizing? It is inconceivable for the political forces to punish the Muslim Brotherhood simply because they are organized."
"Q: Are you still a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?"
"A: I grew distant from the movement's leadership in 1997, and turned to intellectual activity and research. To the best of my knowledge, the movement has not dismissed me thus far.
"I believe that anyone over the age of 65 should resign from their organizational position in the movement, and take to the streets to educate the people [as I did].
"I proposed a program, as part of which people will go out to the cafés. Each member over the age of 65 will choose a café in his area and hold a dialogue with people there. In this way we will turn the cafés into clubs and cultural [meeting] places, thus transforming the Muslim Brotherhood into a force that will power national dialog. The Muslim Brotherhood must go to the periphery... meet the people, and discuss their problems."
"Q: What was your organizational role before you resigned?"
"A: I was the Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman in the West, and a member of the office of the World General Guide [of the Brotherhood's executive office] and of [its] World Shura Council. In that context, [the Brotherhood has] no body called 'The International Organization.'
"Such an organization is a dream for the Muslim Brotherhood, a dream that was murdered in the name of [Mubarak's] corruption and tyranny, when he banned [Brotherhood members] from traveling and holding meetings.
"Here I must ask bluntly: Why did Israel say that Mubarak is a strategic treasure? Because his crimes act as a barrier against the resistance and the Muslim Brotherhood. In this atmosphere, it was hard to manage a global organization. Today, there is great hope that we can realize [this goal], since we witnessed the opening of the Muslim Brotherhood's new headquarters, attended by Brotherhood [activists] from all countries.
"The Muslim Brotherhood is organized in 80 countries, and they and the Islamists have a right to establish a global movement, much like global socialism or Zionism..."
"Why Shouldn't We Have A Country Called 'The United States Of Islam'... I Propose That the Arab Peoples... Take To the Streets With the Slogan 'The Arab People Wants To Remove the Borders [Between Its Countries]'
"Q: Regarding the global organization – will a Muslim Brotherhood member associate himself with the [global] movement or with his homeland? And what will happen should there be a contradiction between them?"
"A: There will be no contradictions. Our thinking and our affiliation are to the exalted Allah. Our affiliation is to Islam. The global state of Islam is our ideal...
"How will countries like Bahrain or Qatar defend themselves? Why shouldn't we have a country called 'The United States of Islam,' ruled by a white man or a black man...
"I propose that the Arab peoples who demonstrated for the sake of the revolution, so they could move from the stage of oppression and corruption to the stage of stability and security, organize themselves from now on and set a deadline – five or 10 years – [and] take to the streets with the slogan 'The Arab People Wants to Remove the Borders [Between Its Countries]'... These borders were drawn up by imperialist nations, making our rulers guardians of imperialist borders...
"I wish to say something important: Because the Muslim Brotherhood does not have an international organization with authority... the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria made a pact with [then-Syrian vice president] 'Abd Al-Halim Khaddam, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq objected to the movement's general direction. The idea of an international organization now needs to be transformed from a dream into a reality. While it is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood's plan to come to power – they will be soldiers under any suitable regime that will be established."
"If Ibn Taymiyya Were Among Us – What Would He Think Of Ahmadinejad's Stance Against Israel While Arab Rulers Protect Israeli Embassies?
"Q: How would you explain the actions of some of the Salafis [that contradict this]?"
"A: The actions taken by some of the Salafis are unbefitting of Muslims. The Salafis in Egypt are not one group, but [divided] into different schools...
"I say to our Salafi brothers: Why do you focus only on [external] appearance, on the beard, the miswak [tooth-cleaning stick noted in Islamic jurisprudence], and the jilbab [religious garment]? There are many things far more important to Muslim society – chiefly a military industry, which is a means and a tool of jihad, as Ibn Taymiyya said...
"If Ibn Taymiyya were among us, what would he think of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's stance against Israel, while Arab rulers protect Israeli embassies and applaud the symbols of the Zionist entity?"
The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland
From: American Thinker
The Missouri River basin encompasses a vast region in the central and west-central portion of our country. This river, our nation's longest, collects the melt from Rocky Mountain snowpack and the runoff from our continents' upper plains before joining the Mississippi river above St. Louis some 2,300 miles later. It is a mighty river, and dangerous.
Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.
The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach. It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development. In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom. By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.
But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.
Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.
Congress created a committee to advise the Corps on how best to balance these competing priorities. The Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee has seventy members. Only four represent interests other than environmentalism. The recommendations of the committee, as one might expect, have been somewhat less than evenhanded.
The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse." The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels. This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.
This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream.
Missouri Senator Roy Blunt agrees, calling the management plan "flawed" and "poorly thought out." Sen. Blunt characterized the current flooding as "entirely preventable" and told reporters that he intends to force changes to the plan.
Perhaps tellingly, not everyone feels the same apprehension toward the imminent disaster.
Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD, told the Seattle Times that this event will leave the river in a "much more natural state than it has seen in decades," describing the epic flooding as a "prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species." He went on to say, "The former function of the river is being restored in this one-year event. In the short term, it could be detrimental, but in the long term it could be very beneficial."
At the time of this writing, the Corps is scrambling for political cover, repeatedly denying that it had any advance warning of the potential for this catastrophe. The official word is that everything was just fine until unexpectedly heavy spring rains pushed the system past the tipping point.
On February 3, 2011, a series of e-mails from Ft. Pierre SD Director of Public Works Brad Lawrence sounded the alarm loud and clear. In correspondence to the headquarters of the American Water Works Association in Washington, D.C., Lawrence warned that "the Corps of Engineers has failed thus far to evacuate enough water from the main stem reservoirs to meet normal runoff conditions. This year's runoff will be anything but normal."
The Missouri River basin encompasses a vast region in the central and west-central portion of our country. This river, our nation's longest, collects the melt from Rocky Mountain snowpack and the runoff from our continents' upper plains before joining the Mississippi river above St. Louis some 2,300 miles later. It is a mighty river, and dangerous.
Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.
The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach. It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development. In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom. By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.
But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.
Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.
Congress created a committee to advise the Corps on how best to balance these competing priorities. The Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee has seventy members. Only four represent interests other than environmentalism. The recommendations of the committee, as one might expect, have been somewhat less than evenhanded.
The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse." The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels. This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.
This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream.
Missouri Senator Roy Blunt agrees, calling the management plan "flawed" and "poorly thought out." Sen. Blunt characterized the current flooding as "entirely preventable" and told reporters that he intends to force changes to the plan.
Perhaps tellingly, not everyone feels the same apprehension toward the imminent disaster.
Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD, told the Seattle Times that this event will leave the river in a "much more natural state than it has seen in decades," describing the epic flooding as a "prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species." He went on to say, "The former function of the river is being restored in this one-year event. In the short term, it could be detrimental, but in the long term it could be very beneficial."
At the time of this writing, the Corps is scrambling for political cover, repeatedly denying that it had any advance warning of the potential for this catastrophe. The official word is that everything was just fine until unexpectedly heavy spring rains pushed the system past the tipping point.
On February 3, 2011, a series of e-mails from Ft. Pierre SD Director of Public Works Brad Lawrence sounded the alarm loud and clear. In correspondence to the headquarters of the American Water Works Association in Washington, D.C., Lawrence warned that "the Corps of Engineers has failed thus far to evacuate enough water from the main stem reservoirs to meet normal runoff conditions. This year's runoff will be anything but normal."
“Human Rights Community” Agrees: Gilad Shalit Should Remain in Captivity
“Human Rights Community” Agrees: Gilad Shalit Should Remain in Captivity: "pTomorrow marks the five-year anniversary of the Hamas raid into Israel in which Gilad Shalit was wounded and then dragged through a tunnel into the Gaza Strip, where he remains in captivity to this day. To mark the occasion, 12 prominent “human rights” organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem, have issued a [...]/p"
Other Europeans fear fracking. Poland is steaming ahead
From: The Economist
POLAND may have western Europe’s largest reserves of shale gas. A dozen global gas-exploration companies have promised to drill as many as 120 test wells over the next few years to find out. The prize could be trillions of cubic metres of gas. It is “a huge and expensive gamble”, says Tomasz Maj, the head of Polish operations for Talisman Energy, one of the exploration firms. The rewards could be vast. Shale gas could free the country from its dependence on coal, a dirtier fuel, which currently accounts for 95% of Polish power generation. It could also mean that Poland no longer has to rely on Russia, the neighbourhood bully, for most of its natural gas.
But the extraction of shale gas is controversial. It requires fracking: blasting fissures in subterranean rock and pumping in water and sand, and occasionally nasty chemicals, to force out the gas. France won’t do it. There is local resistance in the Netherlands. Yet other countries’ qualms may make fracking more attractive for Poland. If others won’t frack, they will probably buy Polish gas.
European energy policy is in turmoil. Germany decided last month to abandon nuclear energy. A referendum in Italy on June 12th also said “no thanks” to nuclear power. Reliable sources of energy are inadequate to meet future demand. Poland sees an opportunity.
“We’ll never be an oil state, but we could become a Norway,” says Andrzej Kozlowski of PKN Orlen, an oil company in which the government has a 28% stake. The Polish government is keen to attract firms with experience of fracking in North America, such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It has awarded nearly 90 concessions so far. These are cheap, and production royalties will be low. But firms will be penalised if they fail to drill the promised test wells.
Oil-and-gas firms have been fracking on a large scale in Canada and America for over a decade. In May a delegation of Polish geologists and officials visited Canada to wise up on social and environmental as well as technical issues. The government is also taking advice from GFZ, a geological institute in Potsdam, Germany, and from demosEUROPA, a think-tank in Warsaw.
Fracking is a completely new industry for Poland, so the government is anxious to get the rules right. Taxes must be low enough to encourage investment, but high enough to raise revenues. Getting neutral advice on the environmental risks is not easy. Fracking can damage the water table, disrupt communities and even cause earthquakes. (In Britain on May 31st Cuadrilla Resources said it was halting a fracking operation near Blackpool, pending investigation of two small earth tremors which it may have triggered.)
The French government imposed a moratorium on fracking on May 11th. In Britain, by contrast, a parliamentary committee was friendly to fracking. EU law allows member states to exploit their natural resources as they see fit, but subject to minimum environmental standards. The European Commission is due to roll out its long-term energy strategy in November, which could affect fracking. But Poland, whose six-month presidency of the European Council begins in July, is in a good position to influence what it says. On June 21st Poland was the only EU member to vote against a proposed tightening of carbon-emissions targets for 2020.
Putting the Wilders Win in Context
From: National Review Online
After being acquitted by a Dutch court of five criminal charges of hate speech against Muslims, parliamentarian Geert Wilders told reporters: “This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech.” While Wilders was understandably happy and relieved he is not going to be spending the next 16 months behind bars, the significance of his victory seems overstated.
As I wrote in the Corner on October 17, “The Wilders case demonstrates the continued willingness of authorities in Europe’s most liberal countries to regulate the content of speech on Islam in order to placate Muslim blasphemy demands.” Wilders’ acquittal does not change that.
The presiding judge in the case determined that Wilders’s remarks were sometimes “hurtful,” “shocking,” and “offensive.” But the Court of Amsterdam reached its decision, as Reuters reported, by noting that “they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multiculturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.” Thus, this case was decided on the basis that Wilders’s remarks were made in the proper context — in an ongoing public debate on specifically legitimate issues. Using this subjective criterion, the court evaluated the content of Wilders’ words to determine that they were lawful. In another context, or evaluated by another court, they might not be.
Wilders is not the first Dutch parliamentarian to have faced anti-Muslim hate-speech charges, and, based on today’s decision, he may not even be the last. Before Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was accused of hate speech against Muslims. In 2003, Hirsi Ali, a women’s rights activist born a Muslim in Somalia, was subject to a criminal investigation for hate speech for her statements linking Islam’s Prophet Mohammed to abuses against women in Muslim communities. While that case was dropped, she was subsequently forced to stand trial in a civil action in the Netherlands for hate speech after announcing plans for a film on the treatment of homosexuals in Islam, a prospect the complainant — Holland’s main Muslim lobbying group — found to both cause “a great deal of pain” and be “blasphemous.” The court did not rule against the defendant but merely reprimanded the MP for having “sought the borders of the acceptable.”
It would seem that the public comments of an influential parliamentarian, like Wilders and Hirsi Ali, would necessarily always be in the context of a public debate, even if his or her comments initiated that debate. Wilders essentially made that argument part of his defense, without avail.
Proceedings against Wilders were in their third year, after several false starts with the prosecutors first refusing to prosecute this case, then a ruling that the initial three judges hearing the trial demonstrated possible bias against Wilders, with a new trial ordered last October, and most recently an investigation into witness tampering by the judge who initially ordered the prosecution that ultimately found no judicial wrongdoing. The dogged adjudication of the Wilders case over the past 29 months shows that Dutch courts remain all too willing to regulate speech on behalf of Islam, even when public officials are talking about matters of public interest, publicly.
Moreover, the offences of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” set forth in articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, remain on the books, and the Council of Europe and European Union require such laws in their member countries. These laws attempt to distinguish between speech against members of a religious minority, which is banned, and speech against the religion, itself, which is allowed. Wilders claimed his speech was the latter, while the court’s deliberations show that the two are easily blurred. Not even Wilders argued against the basic jurisprudence behind these laws.
Whether the Wilders case sets any useful legal precedent for an ordinary Dutch citizen is particularly doubtful. That Wilders has substantial political clout and conducted an effective international campaign to warn that “lights were going out” in Europe with such prosecutions no doubt helped his case, as the national Dutch media pointed out. Average Dutch citizens are very much left in the dark about what they can or can’t say about Islam with legal impunity. Then, there’s the matter of violence to consider; Wilders will continue to require bodyguards against those who have threatened him with death for blasphemy against Islam.
Even without a conviction in the Wilders case, the chilling effect on free speech on and within Islam continues to widen in Europe.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
A Note To Congressional Republicans: Read Our Lips, No New Taxes
So, the political chattering class is aghast that Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl have walked out of the Biden negotiations on the debt ceiling. Unless this is posturing to us the conservative "wingnuts" they have done the right thing. It is at this time I want to remind everyone of a little history.
We all remember George H.W. Bush's "no new tax" pledge. We all remember him breaking the promise. Most objective observers on all sides concede his re election had he not broken that pledge. Why did he break it? Because of our debt and annual deficits. He was conned by the Democrats into believing they would cut spending if he agreed to the tax increases. He agreed and broke his pledge. The tax increases were on the front end of the five year budget he signed off on and the bulk of the proposed spending cuts were on the back end of the five year budget outlay.
The Democrats subsequent to this agreement used Bush's broken pledge to defeat him and elect Bill Clinton. They succeeded and then promptly reneged on the spending cuts. Game.Set.Match.SUCKER!!!!!!!!
The prospect of some kind of tax increase in any agreement has been looming for a while. Personally, I'm of the belief that every budget approved is littered however marginally with tax increases or fees so in the end most members have voted for increases even if nominal in size. The statement today by Max Baucus that there must be a one to one ratio on cuts and tax increases is blatantly political at the expense of potential fiscal insolvency. It's dramatically less than the unappealing "Deficit Commission" that proposed a 3-1 cut to increase ratio.
I am absolutely confident that Congressional Republicans will not vote for this absurd proposition. Boehner is correct that they don't have the votes. Even if I thought Boehner was sympathetic to the proposal it would be his end politically. Moreover, Democrats would do to any tax increasing Republicans what they did to Bush 41 and use it to defeat them in 2012 as a wedge to get back the majority. Does anyone think they would follow through on the promised spending cuts if they reemerged in the majority after running against pledge breaking Republicans? No cuts and more spending. One more giant step into oblivion.
The stakes are too high to get weak kneed in the wake of partisan Presidential politics. Obama is betting he get enough squishy Repubs who don't want to be blamed for a "default" will cave as the pressure mounts. Wait and see, but I've got a feeling they all know they're being played for sucker. Obama is playing with fire and we must keep our guys' feet to the fire. We can win this on the merits and achieve a public relations victory if we have the courage now as George Bush did not over twenty years ago. No new taxes.Not now.Not in a recession.Not when investors are afraid to invest.Not when the American people are willing to scale back Big Brother. To Congressional Republicans: Read our Lips, No New Taxes.
We all remember George H.W. Bush's "no new tax" pledge. We all remember him breaking the promise. Most objective observers on all sides concede his re election had he not broken that pledge. Why did he break it? Because of our debt and annual deficits. He was conned by the Democrats into believing they would cut spending if he agreed to the tax increases. He agreed and broke his pledge. The tax increases were on the front end of the five year budget he signed off on and the bulk of the proposed spending cuts were on the back end of the five year budget outlay.
The Democrats subsequent to this agreement used Bush's broken pledge to defeat him and elect Bill Clinton. They succeeded and then promptly reneged on the spending cuts. Game.Set.Match.SUCKER!!!!!!!!
The prospect of some kind of tax increase in any agreement has been looming for a while. Personally, I'm of the belief that every budget approved is littered however marginally with tax increases or fees so in the end most members have voted for increases even if nominal in size. The statement today by Max Baucus that there must be a one to one ratio on cuts and tax increases is blatantly political at the expense of potential fiscal insolvency. It's dramatically less than the unappealing "Deficit Commission" that proposed a 3-1 cut to increase ratio.
I am absolutely confident that Congressional Republicans will not vote for this absurd proposition. Boehner is correct that they don't have the votes. Even if I thought Boehner was sympathetic to the proposal it would be his end politically. Moreover, Democrats would do to any tax increasing Republicans what they did to Bush 41 and use it to defeat them in 2012 as a wedge to get back the majority. Does anyone think they would follow through on the promised spending cuts if they reemerged in the majority after running against pledge breaking Republicans? No cuts and more spending. One more giant step into oblivion.
The stakes are too high to get weak kneed in the wake of partisan Presidential politics. Obama is betting he get enough squishy Repubs who don't want to be blamed for a "default" will cave as the pressure mounts. Wait and see, but I've got a feeling they all know they're being played for sucker. Obama is playing with fire and we must keep our guys' feet to the fire. We can win this on the merits and achieve a public relations victory if we have the courage now as George Bush did not over twenty years ago. No new taxes.Not now.Not in a recession.Not when investors are afraid to invest.Not when the American people are willing to scale back Big Brother. To Congressional Republicans: Read our Lips, No New Taxes.
CAIR Taps Hizballah Apologist For Tampa Office
From: Big Peace.com
For a group which claims to stand against terrorism, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) made an odd choice for the new chief of its Tampa chapter.
Hassan Shibly has a track record of defending terrorist groups and acting as an apologist for radical Islam. Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, Shibly granted legitimacy to Hizballah by characterizing it as a “resistance movement” that provides valued social services to the Lebanese people. “They’re absolutely not a terrorist organization,” Shibly said, and “any war against them is illegitimate.”
As a testament to his support for Hizballah’s cause, Shibly even expressed a desire to travel to Lebanon to aid the group’s war effort.
When asked to explicitly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, Shibly wouldn’t. “Of course we condemn every single act of violence directed against—by Hamas and by Hizballah—directed against civilians,” Shibly said in a Feb. 28 lecture at a church in Youngstown, N.Y. “But the trick we fall into is when we want to condemn them as a whole we completely cut off any chances for having a peace process.”
To the public, however, CAIR offers a gentler face for Shibly.
His CAIR biography casts him as a man who works actively with inter-faith and social service organizations to “promote cooperation and understanding between diverse faiths and cultures.”
In a statement to the Tampa public, Shibly wrote “It is essential we work together as a community, with all those who stand for peace, freedom, love, and mutual respect, to counter those who wish to promote fear, hatred, and violence.”
But on his own Facebook page, Shibly defended a radical imam killed by the FBI after he opened fire on agents moving in to arrest him. In an October 2009 post, Shibly questioned the use of force against Imam Luqman Abdullah even though the criminal complaint against him made it clear Abdullah advocated violent jihad and urged followers never to surrender peacefully to authorities.
CAIR also championed Abdullah’s case, with the executive director of its Michigan chapter, Dawud Walid, unleashing a series of conspiratorial tirades against the government for its actions against the armed imam.
Shibly’s online profile also features American-born Islamic cleric Khalid Yasin as an “Interest.” Yasin is known for his controversial views, including a 2005 interview in which he says that Muslims cannot be friends with non-Muslims; that suicide bombings are understandable; and that the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 to wage a war against Islam. “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend,” he said. “If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs [disbelievers] over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is (sic) faggots, homosexuals and lesbians.”
Yasin goes further, encouraging children to take up the “honor” of throwing stones and confronting Israeli soldiers when there are no more men left to do it.
In an interview with Pajamas Media in July 2010, Shibly said he was unaware of Yasin’s contentious remarks and appreciated being informed of them. Yet almost a year later, Yasin still appears on Shibly’s profile.
These negative representations of Shibly become less surprising when one considers his religious inspiration. Shibly’s understanding of tolerance and justice admittedly come from his father, who studied under Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, the former Grand Mufti of Syria, and his protégé, Sheikh Rajab Deeb.
While Kuftaro promoted interfaith cooperation on his English-language site, in Arabic, he accused the “Jewish lobby” of controlling world opinion and of being “the killers of prophets.” He also asserts that “all Muslims are obligated to do jihad upon the Zionists.”
Similarly, Deeb wrote that Jews “want to remove and destroy every trace except for their footsteps… and eradicate every race except their race, and they claim to be God’s Chosen People.”
Hassan Shibly has a track record of defending terrorist groups and acting as an apologist for radical Islam. Following the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, Shibly granted legitimacy to Hizballah by characterizing it as a “resistance movement” that provides valued social services to the Lebanese people. “They’re absolutely not a terrorist organization,” Shibly said, and “any war against them is illegitimate.”
As a testament to his support for Hizballah’s cause, Shibly even expressed a desire to travel to Lebanon to aid the group’s war effort.
When asked to explicitly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, Shibly wouldn’t. “Of course we condemn every single act of violence directed against—by Hamas and by Hizballah—directed against civilians,” Shibly said in a Feb. 28 lecture at a church in Youngstown, N.Y. “But the trick we fall into is when we want to condemn them as a whole we completely cut off any chances for having a peace process.”
To the public, however, CAIR offers a gentler face for Shibly.
His CAIR biography casts him as a man who works actively with inter-faith and social service organizations to “promote cooperation and understanding between diverse faiths and cultures.”
In a statement to the Tampa public, Shibly wrote “It is essential we work together as a community, with all those who stand for peace, freedom, love, and mutual respect, to counter those who wish to promote fear, hatred, and violence.”
But on his own Facebook page, Shibly defended a radical imam killed by the FBI after he opened fire on agents moving in to arrest him. In an October 2009 post, Shibly questioned the use of force against Imam Luqman Abdullah even though the criminal complaint against him made it clear Abdullah advocated violent jihad and urged followers never to surrender peacefully to authorities.
CAIR also championed Abdullah’s case, with the executive director of its Michigan chapter, Dawud Walid, unleashing a series of conspiratorial tirades against the government for its actions against the armed imam.
Shibly’s online profile also features American-born Islamic cleric Khalid Yasin as an “Interest.” Yasin is known for his controversial views, including a 2005 interview in which he says that Muslims cannot be friends with non-Muslims; that suicide bombings are understandable; and that the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 to wage a war against Islam. “There’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend,” he said. “If you prefer the clothing of the kafirs [disbelievers] over the clothing of the Muslims, most of those names that’s on most of those clothings is (sic) faggots, homosexuals and lesbians.”
Yasin goes further, encouraging children to take up the “honor” of throwing stones and confronting Israeli soldiers when there are no more men left to do it.
In an interview with Pajamas Media in July 2010, Shibly said he was unaware of Yasin’s contentious remarks and appreciated being informed of them. Yet almost a year later, Yasin still appears on Shibly’s profile.
These negative representations of Shibly become less surprising when one considers his religious inspiration. Shibly’s understanding of tolerance and justice admittedly come from his father, who studied under Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, the former Grand Mufti of Syria, and his protégé, Sheikh Rajab Deeb.
While Kuftaro promoted interfaith cooperation on his English-language site, in Arabic, he accused the “Jewish lobby” of controlling world opinion and of being “the killers of prophets.” He also asserts that “all Muslims are obligated to do jihad upon the Zionists.”
Similarly, Deeb wrote that Jews “want to remove and destroy every trace except for their footsteps… and eradicate every race except their race, and they claim to be God’s Chosen People.”
Israel served as ‘main course’ at EU Dinner
From: Jerusalem Post
Quartet envoys are expected to meet in Brussels at the end of the week amid increasing concern in Jerusalem that the EU hopes to avert a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN in September by, as one senior Israeli official said on Wednesday, “giving something” significant to the Palestinians.
According to the official, the concern was that the EU is pushing for the adoption of US President Barack Obama’s formula of restarting negotiations using the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps as a baseline, but without pressing the Palestinians to elaborate on security arrangements of any future accord with Israel.
The official also said the Palestinians wouldn’t be pressed to acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people as a baseline for negotiations.
Many in Europe feel that something significant must be given to the Palestinians to get them to back down from their bid to get the UN General Assembly to recognize Palestinian statehood, the official said.
This is apparently what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been referring to in recent days when, in private conversations with foreign leaders, he has said the Palestinians were being treated by some in Europe as a “spoiled child.”
Netanyahu repeated this phrase – first used on Sunday during a meeting with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov – in a meeting on Wednesday with visiting Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez.
Netanyahu’s point, according to one government official at the meeting, is that the world is habituating the Palestinians to believe that they can gain concessions without giving anything in return.
The Europeans appear willing to give the Palestinians what they have wanted as the baseline for talks, without even having assurances that this will be enough to keep them from taking the recognition issue to the UN, let alone without demanding any flexibility from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on the issue of refugees or Israel as a Jewish state, the official said.
Israel’s frustration with the EU, or at least with part of the EU, was highlighted this week when Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, who was hosting the monthly meeting of EU foreign ministers, held an informal dinner on Sunday night on the Middle East with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to which he invited representatives from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Russia, the US, Indonesia, the Arab League and the PA – but not Israel.
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, in a blog posting about the dinner, made it clear that Israel was a large part of the discussion.
Bildt wrote that it was evident that “large parts of the Arab world” have now “given up virtually all hope of progress” with the present Israeli government.
He also wrote that a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level “to express the policy that not only Europe, but also President Obama, stands for would undoubtedly be an important step forward.”
What aggravated Jerusalem was that at a dinner dealing with the Middle East, at which Israel, as one official said, “was the main course,” no Israeli representative was in attendance.
Meanwhile, White House Chief Middle East Adviser Dennis Ross said at the President’s Conference in Jerusalem on Wednesday that the greatest risk at a time of sweeping change in the Middle East was to think that this was the time to sit still and “do nothing.”
Ross said that while he understood the impulse to “stand pat” and avoid taking risks, certain realities – such as demographic trends that will present Israel with the dilemma of being either a Jewish or a democratic state – could not be “wished away.”
Ross’s comments seemed a gentle criticism of voices in the Israeli government saying that at a time when everything is changing in the Middle East, this is not the time for Israel to take far-reaching risks, not knowing what will be tomorrow in countries such as Syria, Egypt and even Jordan.
Obama, in his speech on the Middle East at the State Department last month, made a very similar statement.
Ross, who has been in the country for a week trying to find a formula to enable a restarting of Israeli-Palestinian talks, said that while there “are more pitfalls on the path to peace” than he could detail, this did not mean that tackling the challenges was impossible.
Quartet envoys are expected to meet in Brussels at the end of the week amid increasing concern in Jerusalem that the EU hopes to avert a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN in September by, as one senior Israeli official said on Wednesday, “giving something” significant to the Palestinians.
According to the official, the concern was that the EU is pushing for the adoption of US President Barack Obama’s formula of restarting negotiations using the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps as a baseline, but without pressing the Palestinians to elaborate on security arrangements of any future accord with Israel.
The official also said the Palestinians wouldn’t be pressed to acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people as a baseline for negotiations.
Many in Europe feel that something significant must be given to the Palestinians to get them to back down from their bid to get the UN General Assembly to recognize Palestinian statehood, the official said.
This is apparently what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been referring to in recent days when, in private conversations with foreign leaders, he has said the Palestinians were being treated by some in Europe as a “spoiled child.”
Netanyahu repeated this phrase – first used on Sunday during a meeting with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov – in a meeting on Wednesday with visiting Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez.
Netanyahu’s point, according to one government official at the meeting, is that the world is habituating the Palestinians to believe that they can gain concessions without giving anything in return.
The Europeans appear willing to give the Palestinians what they have wanted as the baseline for talks, without even having assurances that this will be enough to keep them from taking the recognition issue to the UN, let alone without demanding any flexibility from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on the issue of refugees or Israel as a Jewish state, the official said.
Israel’s frustration with the EU, or at least with part of the EU, was highlighted this week when Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, who was hosting the monthly meeting of EU foreign ministers, held an informal dinner on Sunday night on the Middle East with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to which he invited representatives from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Russia, the US, Indonesia, the Arab League and the PA – but not Israel.
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, in a blog posting about the dinner, made it clear that Israel was a large part of the discussion.
Bildt wrote that it was evident that “large parts of the Arab world” have now “given up virtually all hope of progress” with the present Israeli government.
He also wrote that a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level “to express the policy that not only Europe, but also President Obama, stands for would undoubtedly be an important step forward.”
What aggravated Jerusalem was that at a dinner dealing with the Middle East, at which Israel, as one official said, “was the main course,” no Israeli representative was in attendance.
Meanwhile, White House Chief Middle East Adviser Dennis Ross said at the President’s Conference in Jerusalem on Wednesday that the greatest risk at a time of sweeping change in the Middle East was to think that this was the time to sit still and “do nothing.”
Ross said that while he understood the impulse to “stand pat” and avoid taking risks, certain realities – such as demographic trends that will present Israel with the dilemma of being either a Jewish or a democratic state – could not be “wished away.”
Ross’s comments seemed a gentle criticism of voices in the Israeli government saying that at a time when everything is changing in the Middle East, this is not the time for Israel to take far-reaching risks, not knowing what will be tomorrow in countries such as Syria, Egypt and even Jordan.
Obama, in his speech on the Middle East at the State Department last month, made a very similar statement.
Ross, who has been in the country for a week trying to find a formula to enable a restarting of Israeli-Palestinian talks, said that while there “are more pitfalls on the path to peace” than he could detail, this did not mean that tackling the challenges was impossible.
Bulger’s Arrest Recalls Romney’s Finest Hour
Bulger’s Arrest Recalls Romney’s Finest Hour: "pThe FBI’s arrest of Boston crime boss James “Whitey” Bulger ended a 16-year-old hunt for a notorious career criminal who was immortalized by the Martin Scorsese film The Departed, loosely based on his story. But it should also remind us of one of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s finest hours. Bulger was part of an [...]/p"
Taxes: Study-$1400 Tax Hike Needed to Fund US Pensions
From: CNBC
U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.
U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.
The study, co-authored by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester, both of whom are finance professors, argues that states will have to cut services or raise taxes to make up funding gaps if promises made to municipal employees are to be honored.
Pension funding in U.S. cities and states has deteriorated in the wake of the 2007-2009 economic recession as investment earnings dropped, and some states, such as New Jersey and Illinois, skipped or reduced required payments.
The issue has sparked heated debates, from the streets of Wisconsin's capital, Madison, where thousands demonstrated over public employees' rights to bargain, to New Jersey, where lawmakers are expected to give final approval this week to a plan that will scale back benefits for public sector workers.
Wall Street rating agencies and investors in the $2.9 trillion U.S. municipal bond market are increasingly focusing on unfunded pension liabilities as they weigh the credit-worthiness of state and local government debt.
Rauh and Novy-Marx have previously stirred up the debate over state pension obligations, including the dire prediction that existing pension liabilities total around $3 trillion, if expected returns on investments are not counted.
Other studies have estimated the shortfall as far less. The Pew Center on the States, for example, found the pension shortfall for states could be $1.8 trillion, or as much as $2.4 trillion based on a 30-year Treasury bond.
The study issued on Wednesday said contributions will far outstrip gains in revenue.
"To achieve fully funded pension systems within 30 years, contributions would have to rise today to the levels we calculate and then continue to grow along with the economy," Rauh said.
New Jersey will need to increase its revenue by the largest margin, requiring $2,475 more from each household per year, according to the study.
The contribution requirements may be higher for states that already have a significant amount of debt on their books and "cannot tap municipal bond markets as easily for large contributions," the report said.
Illinois, for example, which has the lowest funded ratio of any state pension system, sold billions of dollars of pension bonds over the last two years to make its pension payments.
Obama's Food Police in Staggering Crackdown on Market to Kids
From: HUMAN EVENTS
Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.
Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.
The same goes for restaurants.
It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.
Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.
Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.
The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.
“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”
It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.
Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.
Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.
The same goes for restaurants.
It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.
Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.
Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.
The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.
“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”
It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.
Turkey's Inevitable Problems With Neighbors
From: Stratfor
Syrian President Bashar al Assad delivered a long and uneventful speech Monday, during which he basically divided Syria's protest society into three categories: the good, the criminal and the Salafi. Assad claimed that instability caused by the latter two was to blame for the delay in implementing reforms. Rather than promising concrete reforms that have been strongly urged by the Turks, the Syrian president emphasized that security had to come first, while trying to present himself as a neutral mediator between the population and security forces. Not surprisingly, the speech fell on deaf ears throughout Syria, but also in Ankara, where the government let its growing impatience show and told the Syrian president once again that he isn't doing enough to satisfy the demands of his people.
With more than 10,000 Syrian refugees spilling across the Turkish border to escape the army's siege, the situation in Syria is undoubtedly growing desperate. However, we have not yet seen the red flags that would indicate the al Assad regime is in imminent danger of collapse. The reasons are fairly straightforward. The al Assad clan belongs to Syria's Alawite minority, who only 40 years ago were living under the thumb of the country's majority Sunni population. Four decades in power is not a long time, and vengeance is a powerful force in this part of the world. The Alawites understand that they face an existential crisis, and if they allow their grip over the Baath-dominated political system - and most importantly the military - to loosen even slightly, they will likely become the prime targets of a Sunni vendetta campaign aiming to return the Alawites to their subservient status. This may explain why al Assad felt the need to stress in his speech that his minority government would not take "revenge" against those who stand down from their protests.
Turkey is understandably nervous about what is happening next door in Syria. Ankara would prefer a Syria ruled by a stable Sunni regime, especially one that would look to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for political guidance. However, the Turks can see that Alawite leadership will not leave power without a long and bloody fight. Recreating a sphere of Turkish-modeled Sunni influence in the Levant may be a long-term goal for Ankara, but the Turkish government is certainly not prepared to pay the near-term cost of civil strife in Syria spilling across Turkish borders.
Turkey has so far addressed this dilemma mainly through rhetoric, issuing angry speeches against Syrian leadership, while floating the idea of a military buffer zone for Syrian refugees. For awhile, assuming the role of regional disciplinarian played well to an AKP public-relations strategy that portrayed Turkey as the model for the Arab Spring and the go-to mediator for the Mideast's problems. But the more Syria destabilizes - and with each time it ignores Ankara's demands - the more Turkey risks appearing impotent.
The crisis in Syria will likely lead to a recalibration of Turkish foreign policy. The architect of Turkey's foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, coined the phrase "zero problems with neighbors" to describe the guiding principle of Turkey's interactions with surrounding regimes. Turkey obviously has a problem with Syria's leadership, and not a small one. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Turkey may not yet have what it takes to deal with Syria, beyond issuing rhetorical censures. Establishing a military buffer zone as a safe haven for Syrian refugees not only would call for an international mandate, but would entail Turkish troops occupying foreign land - which would likely set off alarm bells among Arabs who already suspect Turkey of harboring a so-called neo-Ottoman agenda. Turkey's ardent support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi and public backing for Syrian opposition forces have already unnerved Arab monarchist regimes that are trying to undermine the effects of the Arab Spring and are growing distrustful of Turkish intentions.
Moreover, any move construed as Turkey trying to facilitate the downfall of the al Assad regime would undoubtedly create problems with Iran, a neighbor Turkey has taken great care to avoid aggravating. Iran relies heavily on the Alawite regime in Syria to maintain a foothold in the Levant through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the return of Syria to Sunni control would unravel a key pillar of Iranian deterrent strategy, we can expect that Iran is doing everything possible to undermine the very Syrian opposition forces looking to Ankara for support. Turkey has avoided confrontation with Iran thus far while working quietly to build a Sunni counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shia in Iraq in the face of an impending U.S. withdrawal. A power vacuum in Syria filled by Turkish-backed Sunnis would reinforce a nascent confrontation between Iran and Turkey with deep geopolitical underpinnings.
Nations do not have friends; they have interests. And Turkey, an historically influential country sitting on one of the most geopolitically complex pieces of real estate in the world, is now finding that a foreign policy built on avoiding problems with neighbors grinds against reality. In STRATFOR's view, this was inevitable, which is why we took interest in Monday's issue of Today's Zaman, an English-language outlet loyal to the movement of Fethullah Gulen and strongly supportive of the ruling AKP. Two editorials in Monday's publication held that the Syrian crisis has exposed the coming demise of Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy.
With more than 10,000 Syrian refugees spilling across the Turkish border to escape the army's siege, the situation in Syria is undoubtedly growing desperate. However, we have not yet seen the red flags that would indicate the al Assad regime is in imminent danger of collapse. The reasons are fairly straightforward. The al Assad clan belongs to Syria's Alawite minority, who only 40 years ago were living under the thumb of the country's majority Sunni population. Four decades in power is not a long time, and vengeance is a powerful force in this part of the world. The Alawites understand that they face an existential crisis, and if they allow their grip over the Baath-dominated political system - and most importantly the military - to loosen even slightly, they will likely become the prime targets of a Sunni vendetta campaign aiming to return the Alawites to their subservient status. This may explain why al Assad felt the need to stress in his speech that his minority government would not take "revenge" against those who stand down from their protests.
Turkey is understandably nervous about what is happening next door in Syria. Ankara would prefer a Syria ruled by a stable Sunni regime, especially one that would look to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) for political guidance. However, the Turks can see that Alawite leadership will not leave power without a long and bloody fight. Recreating a sphere of Turkish-modeled Sunni influence in the Levant may be a long-term goal for Ankara, but the Turkish government is certainly not prepared to pay the near-term cost of civil strife in Syria spilling across Turkish borders.
Turkey has so far addressed this dilemma mainly through rhetoric, issuing angry speeches against Syrian leadership, while floating the idea of a military buffer zone for Syrian refugees. For awhile, assuming the role of regional disciplinarian played well to an AKP public-relations strategy that portrayed Turkey as the model for the Arab Spring and the go-to mediator for the Mideast's problems. But the more Syria destabilizes - and with each time it ignores Ankara's demands - the more Turkey risks appearing impotent.
The crisis in Syria will likely lead to a recalibration of Turkish foreign policy. The architect of Turkey's foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, coined the phrase "zero problems with neighbors" to describe the guiding principle of Turkey's interactions with surrounding regimes. Turkey obviously has a problem with Syria's leadership, and not a small one. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Turkey may not yet have what it takes to deal with Syria, beyond issuing rhetorical censures. Establishing a military buffer zone as a safe haven for Syrian refugees not only would call for an international mandate, but would entail Turkish troops occupying foreign land - which would likely set off alarm bells among Arabs who already suspect Turkey of harboring a so-called neo-Ottoman agenda. Turkey's ardent support for Libyan rebels against Moammar Gadhafi and public backing for Syrian opposition forces have already unnerved Arab monarchist regimes that are trying to undermine the effects of the Arab Spring and are growing distrustful of Turkish intentions.
Moreover, any move construed as Turkey trying to facilitate the downfall of the al Assad regime would undoubtedly create problems with Iran, a neighbor Turkey has taken great care to avoid aggravating. Iran relies heavily on the Alawite regime in Syria to maintain a foothold in the Levant through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the return of Syria to Sunni control would unravel a key pillar of Iranian deterrent strategy, we can expect that Iran is doing everything possible to undermine the very Syrian opposition forces looking to Ankara for support. Turkey has avoided confrontation with Iran thus far while working quietly to build a Sunni counterbalance to Iranian-backed Shia in Iraq in the face of an impending U.S. withdrawal. A power vacuum in Syria filled by Turkish-backed Sunnis would reinforce a nascent confrontation between Iran and Turkey with deep geopolitical underpinnings.
Nations do not have friends; they have interests. And Turkey, an historically influential country sitting on one of the most geopolitically complex pieces of real estate in the world, is now finding that a foreign policy built on avoiding problems with neighbors grinds against reality. In STRATFOR's view, this was inevitable, which is why we took interest in Monday's issue of Today's Zaman, an English-language outlet loyal to the movement of Fethullah Gulen and strongly supportive of the ruling AKP. Two editorials in Monday's publication held that the Syrian crisis has exposed the coming demise of Turkey's "zero problems with neighbors" policy.
Libya May Be NATO’s Last Mission
From: Fiscal Times
Even before outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates caused a ruckus earlier this month when he declared that NATO faced “a dim if not dismal future,” the long-term viability of the alliance was in jeopardy.
While America’s financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and defense has remained steady, European spending in both areas has decreased, forcing the United States to shoulder the largest portion of NATO’s $2.8 billion annual budget in the alliance’s 62-year history. And the war in Afghanistan and fledging NATO mission in Libya shows how member states individually undermine the alliance’s global strategy and cause political problems at home.
Gates’ speech led to a lot of diplomatic handwringing in European capitals, where politicians have become comfortable with the U.S. as NATO’s primary sponsor and military point man. In recent years, according to Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, Europeans have become complacent about the mission of the alliance.
“Russia’s not a threat, and Europeans don’t like expeditionary missions,” said Volker. “They don’t believe they work very well.”
There is no argument that America is NATO’s sugar daddy. In 2009 and 2010, the United States kicked in $408 million and $430 million, respectively, to NATO’s military budget; $462.5 million is earmarked for 2011 spending.
The U.S. contributed $66.1 million and $84.1 million to NATO’s civil budget in 2009 and 2010
respectively. Some $90 million has been appropriated for this year’s budget.
And U.S. contributions to the organization’s security investment program, which pays for NATO installations and facilities, were $330 million and $197 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with $259 million earmarked for 2011.
Total U.S. financial contributions make up 25 percent of NATO’s budget. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest NATO contributors behind the U.S. Yet the differences between the contribution amounts are substantial.
Germany contributes 18 percent, while France and the United Kingdom contribute 9 percent. From 2000 to 2003 between 3.1 and 3.2 percent of America’s GDP to NATO, while Western Europe contributed between 2 and 1.9 percent of its GDP.
At the same time, Germany and the U.K. are in the midst of deep defense cuts that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned could cause long-term damage to strategic alliances, including NATO.
“The United States has decided it needs to behave in a way in which it undertakes any problem it sees fit,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “The Germans haven’t made that decision, and neither have most of the other NATO countries.”
Past U.S. Defense secretaries have defended the size of the U.S. contribution as necessary to secure national security interests. Gates’ speech was a clear break from this policy.
Afghanistan and Libya
While America’s financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and defense has remained steady, European spending in both areas has decreased, forcing the United States to shoulder the largest portion of NATO’s $2.8 billion annual budget in the alliance’s 62-year history. And the war in Afghanistan and fledging NATO mission in Libya shows how member states individually undermine the alliance’s global strategy and cause political problems at home.
Gates’ speech led to a lot of diplomatic handwringing in European capitals, where politicians have become comfortable with the U.S. as NATO’s primary sponsor and military point man. In recent years, according to Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, Europeans have become complacent about the mission of the alliance.
“Russia’s not a threat, and Europeans don’t like expeditionary missions,” said Volker. “They don’t believe they work very well.”
There is no argument that America is NATO’s sugar daddy. In 2009 and 2010, the United States kicked in $408 million and $430 million, respectively, to NATO’s military budget; $462.5 million is earmarked for 2011 spending.
The U.S. contributed $66.1 million and $84.1 million to NATO’s civil budget in 2009 and 2010
respectively. Some $90 million has been appropriated for this year’s budget.
And U.S. contributions to the organization’s security investment program, which pays for NATO installations and facilities, were $330 million and $197 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with $259 million earmarked for 2011.
Total U.S. financial contributions make up 25 percent of NATO’s budget. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest NATO contributors behind the U.S. Yet the differences between the contribution amounts are substantial.
Germany contributes 18 percent, while France and the United Kingdom contribute 9 percent. From 2000 to 2003 between 3.1 and 3.2 percent of America’s GDP to NATO, while Western Europe contributed between 2 and 1.9 percent of its GDP.
At the same time, Germany and the U.K. are in the midst of deep defense cuts that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned could cause long-term damage to strategic alliances, including NATO.
“The United States has decided it needs to behave in a way in which it undertakes any problem it sees fit,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “The Germans haven’t made that decision, and neither have most of the other NATO countries.”
Past U.S. Defense secretaries have defended the size of the U.S. contribution as necessary to secure national security interests. Gates’ speech was a clear break from this policy.
Afghanistan and Libya
Why the Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Looks
From: Mort Zuckerman/US News and World Report
The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression. In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.
The real job losses are greater than the estimate of 7.5 million. They are closer to 10.5 million, as 3 million people have stopped looking for work. Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate; some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America's greatest strength. Just think: Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million.
The most recent statistics are unsettling and dismaying, despite the increase of 54,000 jobs in the May numbers. Nonagricultural full-time employment actually fell by 142,000, on top of the 291,000 decline the preceding month. Half of the new jobs created are in temporary help agencies, as firms resist hiring full-time workers.
Today, over 14 million people are unemployed. We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression. Nearly seven people in the labor pool compete for every job opening. Hiring announcements have plunged to 10,248 in May, down from 59,648 in April. Hiring is now 17 percent lower than the lowest level in the 2001-02 downturn. One fifth of all men of prime working age are not getting up and going to work. Equally disturbing is that the number of people unemployed for six months or longer grew 361,000 to 6.2 million, increasing their share of the unemployed to 45.1 percent. We face the specter that long-term unemployment is becoming structural and not just cyclical, raising the risk that the jobless will lose their skills and become permanently unemployable.
Don't pay too much attention to the headline unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. It is scary enough, but it is a gloss on the reality. These numbers do not include the millions who have stopped looking for a job or who are working part time but would work full time if a position were available. And they count only those people who have actively applied for a job within the last four weeks.
Include those others and the real number is a nasty 16 percent. The 16 percent includes 8.5 million part-timers who want to work full time (which is double the historical norm) and those who have applied for a job within the last six months, including many of the long-term unemployed. And this 16 percent does not take into account the discouraged workers who have left the labor force. The fact is that the longer duration of six months is the more relevant testing period since the mean duration of unemployment is now 39.7 weeks, an increase from 37.1 weeks in February.
The inescapable bottom line is an unprecedented slack in the U.S. labor market. Labor's share of national income has fallen to the lowest level in modern history, down to 57.5 percent in the first quarter as compared to 59.8 percent when the so-called recovery began. This reflects not only the 7 million fewer workers but the fact that wages for part-time workers now average $19,000—less than half the median income.
Just to illustrate how insecure the labor movement is, there is nobody on strike in the United States today, according to David Rosenberg of wealth management firm Gluskin Sheff. Back in the 1970s, it was common in any given month to see as many as 30,000 workers on the picket line, and there were typically 300 work stoppages at any given time. Last year there were a grand total of 11. There are other indirect consequences.
The number of people who have applied for permanent disability benefits has soared. Ten years ago, 5 million people were collecting federal disability payments; now 8 million are on the rolls, at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $120 billion a year. The states today owe the federal insurance fund an astonishing $90 billion to cover unemployment benefits.
In past recessions, the economy recovered lost jobs within 13 months, on average, after the trough. Twenty-three months into a recovery, employment typically increases by around 174,000 jobs monthly, compared to 54,000 this time around. In a typical recovery, we would have had several hundred thousand more hires per month than we are seeing now—this despite unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus (including the rescue of the automobile industry, whose collapse would likely have lost a million jobs).
Businesses do not seem to have the confidence or the incentive to add staff but prefer to continue the deep cost-cutting they undertook from the onset of the recession.
But hang on. Even to come up with the 54,000 new jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics assumed that 206,000 jobs were created by newly formed companies that its analysts believe—but can't prove—were, in effect, born in May under the so-called birth/death model, which relies primarily on historical extrapolations.
The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression. In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.
The most recent statistics are unsettling and dismaying, despite the increase of 54,000 jobs in the May numbers. Nonagricultural full-time employment actually fell by 142,000, on top of the 291,000 decline the preceding month. Half of the new jobs created are in temporary help agencies, as firms resist hiring full-time workers.
Today, over 14 million people are unemployed. We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression. Nearly seven people in the labor pool compete for every job opening. Hiring announcements have plunged to 10,248 in May, down from 59,648 in April. Hiring is now 17 percent lower than the lowest level in the 2001-02 downturn. One fifth of all men of prime working age are not getting up and going to work. Equally disturbing is that the number of people unemployed for six months or longer grew 361,000 to 6.2 million, increasing their share of the unemployed to 45.1 percent. We face the specter that long-term unemployment is becoming structural and not just cyclical, raising the risk that the jobless will lose their skills and become permanently unemployable.
Don't pay too much attention to the headline unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. It is scary enough, but it is a gloss on the reality. These numbers do not include the millions who have stopped looking for a job or who are working part time but would work full time if a position were available. And they count only those people who have actively applied for a job within the last four weeks.
Include those others and the real number is a nasty 16 percent. The 16 percent includes 8.5 million part-timers who want to work full time (which is double the historical norm) and those who have applied for a job within the last six months, including many of the long-term unemployed. And this 16 percent does not take into account the discouraged workers who have left the labor force. The fact is that the longer duration of six months is the more relevant testing period since the mean duration of unemployment is now 39.7 weeks, an increase from 37.1 weeks in February.
The inescapable bottom line is an unprecedented slack in the U.S. labor market. Labor's share of national income has fallen to the lowest level in modern history, down to 57.5 percent in the first quarter as compared to 59.8 percent when the so-called recovery began. This reflects not only the 7 million fewer workers but the fact that wages for part-time workers now average $19,000—less than half the median income.
Just to illustrate how insecure the labor movement is, there is nobody on strike in the United States today, according to David Rosenberg of wealth management firm Gluskin Sheff. Back in the 1970s, it was common in any given month to see as many as 30,000 workers on the picket line, and there were typically 300 work stoppages at any given time. Last year there were a grand total of 11. There are other indirect consequences.
The number of people who have applied for permanent disability benefits has soared. Ten years ago, 5 million people were collecting federal disability payments; now 8 million are on the rolls, at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $120 billion a year. The states today owe the federal insurance fund an astonishing $90 billion to cover unemployment benefits.
Businesses do not seem to have the confidence or the incentive to add staff but prefer to continue the deep cost-cutting they undertook from the onset of the recession.
But hang on. Even to come up with the 54,000 new jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics assumed that 206,000 jobs were created by newly formed companies that its analysts believe—but can't prove—were, in effect, born in May under the so-called birth/death model, which relies primarily on historical extrapolations.
Obama, Congress warned: National debt growing faster
From: The Oval
The Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday that the nation probably will owe outside creditors more than the size of the entire economy in 10 years.
The forecast -- a public debt equal to 101% of the economy in 2021, and rising to 187% by 2035 unless dramatic changes are made -- should be a warning to President Obama, Congress and Vice President Biden's band of bipartisan negotiators meeting daily to devise just a short-term fix.
By comparison, last year's long-term budget outlook from CBO forecast a public debt equal to 87% of the economy by 2020. The difference -- 14% -- would be about $2 trillion based on today's economy, even more as it grows.
"The explosive path of federal debt ... underscores the need for large and rapid policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course," the report says.
It goes on: "Large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would lower income growth in the United States."
The problem outlined in the report: spending that far outpaces revenue as the years pass. Here's a simplified version:
"CBO's new long-term budget outlook again highlights the urgency of reaching agreement on a bipartisan and comprehensive long-term deficit and debt reduction plan," he said. "We must address the projected explosion in federal debt. If we fail to act, it will have devastating consequences for our economy and for the future well-being of the American people."
Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of a controversial plan to cut $4.4 trillion from annual deficits over 10 years, noted CBO warned of a credit crisis unless changes are made:
The Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday that the nation probably will owe outside creditors more than the size of the entire economy in 10 years.
The forecast -- a public debt equal to 101% of the economy in 2021, and rising to 187% by 2035 unless dramatic changes are made -- should be a warning to President Obama, Congress and Vice President Biden's band of bipartisan negotiators meeting daily to devise just a short-term fix.
By comparison, last year's long-term budget outlook from CBO forecast a public debt equal to 87% of the economy by 2020. The difference -- 14% -- would be about $2 trillion based on today's economy, even more as it grows.
"The explosive path of federal debt ... underscores the need for large and rapid policy changes to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course," the report says.
It goes on: "Large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would lower income growth in the United States."
The problem outlined in the report: spending that far outpaces revenue as the years pass. Here's a simplified version:
- Spending is projected to grow from 24% of the economy today to 26% in 2021 and 34% in 2035.
- Revenue is projected to grow from 15% today to 19% in 2021, where it would remain in 2035.
- Annual deficits would be 7.5% of the economy in 2021, less than today's 9.3%. But each year's deficit adds to the national debt. By 2035, the deficit would be 15.5% of the economy, and the accumulated debt would be 187%.
"CBO's new long-term budget outlook again highlights the urgency of reaching agreement on a bipartisan and comprehensive long-term deficit and debt reduction plan," he said. "We must address the projected explosion in federal debt. If we fail to act, it will have devastating consequences for our economy and for the future well-being of the American people."
Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of a controversial plan to cut $4.4 trillion from annual deficits over 10 years, noted CBO warned of a credit crisis unless changes are made:
Today the CBO reiterated what the American people know, but too many in Washington simply refuse to acknowledge: We are headed for the most predictable economic crisis in American history, and Washington is not providing the leadership we need to avoid it. As Congress debates the president's request for an increase in the statutory debt ceiling, the CBO warns of a more ominous credit cliff -- a sudden drop-off in our ability to borrow imposed by credit markets in a state of panic.
NASA Climate Change Alarmist James Hansen Caught Profiting Off of Climate Change Advocacy
From: Left Coast REbel
Climate change advocacy is proving very lucrative. Al Gore has made nearly a billion dollars. Now it appears James Hansen of NASA, has been caught profiting off of climate change as well:
Climate change advocacy is proving very lucrative. Al Gore has made nearly a billion dollars. Now it appears James Hansen of NASA, has been caught profiting off of climate change as well:
The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.
Taxpayers' subsidization of war on Fox News
From: Washington Times
David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.
MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”
What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.
MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.
MMA’s role as a Democratic training camp parallels exactly the operations of the American Campaign Academy (ACA), which was denied tax-exempt status by the IRS in 1989. ACA operated a school of intensive training for people planning to be campaign professionals. The facts showed, however, that most of the program’s graduates were Republicans, as were the officials who ran it and the funders who donated to it, and it was based on materials developed by the Republican National Committee.
It would obviously be highly discriminatory to allow tax-free donations to go to Democratic Party advocates when they are (properly) denied to Republican advocates. But the problem goes beyond a question of evenhanded IRS interpretation of the tax code.
As we are learning in connection with efforts to cut spending and reform the tax code, tax deductions are similar to appropriations outlays in the sense that they are a form of government spending. Tax-exempt status confers government support — support that cannot be used to attack speech without violating the constitutional bar on government’s abridgment of free speech.
David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.
MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”
What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.
MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.
MMA’s role as a Democratic training camp parallels exactly the operations of the American Campaign Academy (ACA), which was denied tax-exempt status by the IRS in 1989. ACA operated a school of intensive training for people planning to be campaign professionals. The facts showed, however, that most of the program’s graduates were Republicans, as were the officials who ran it and the funders who donated to it, and it was based on materials developed by the Republican National Committee.
It would obviously be highly discriminatory to allow tax-free donations to go to Democratic Party advocates when they are (properly) denied to Republican advocates. But the problem goes beyond a question of evenhanded IRS interpretation of the tax code.
As we are learning in connection with efforts to cut spending and reform the tax code, tax deductions are similar to appropriations outlays in the sense that they are a form of government spending. Tax-exempt status confers government support — support that cannot be used to attack speech without violating the constitutional bar on government’s abridgment of free speech.
CAIR Loses IRS Status
From: ITP
Donations to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) no longer are tax deductible after the organization was among 275,000 tax-exempt organizations purged earlier this month by the Internal Revenue Service.
The groups failed to file required annual reports, known as form 990s, detailing their revenues and expenses, for three consecutive years. CAIR had been a non-profit on its own, but in 2007, the IRS approved a separate tax-exempt CAIR Foundation. The foundation never filed any subsequent reports. Both the foundation and CAIR national are on the purge list.
CAIR has 30 state chapters throughout the country, many of which have their own non-profit designations which remain active.
While the IRS believes most of the organizations stripped of status have shut down, those still operating can apply for reinstatement. Meanwhile, CAIR's web site continues to solicit donations by touting them as tax deductible two weeks after the IRS issued the list and notifications were sent to all 275,000 purged groups.
Donors still could deduct the money on their tax returns if CAIR is reinstated between now and April 15. All the purged organizations have 15 months to seek reinstatement. But it is unclear whether CAIR will file the required papers or whether their explanation about past reporting failures will be enough to satisfy the IRS.
"This listing should have little, if any, impact on donors who previously made deductible contributions to auto-revoked organizations because donations made prior to the publication of an organization's name on the list remain tax-deductible," an IRS statement said. "Going forward, however, organizations that are on the auto-revocation list that do not receive reinstatement are no longer eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, and any income they receive may be taxable."
To regain its exempt status, CAIR must file the missing three annual reports, along with a new application for exempt status. Finally, it must explain why it failed to file the 990s for three consecutive years and explain any new procedures which will ensure future compliance.
The annual reports include financial information on donations and other sources of income, operating expenses and names and payments given to directors and key staff members.
The CAIR Foundation won exempt status in 2007 and then never filed any annual reports. That year, the Washington Times reported that CAIR's membership plummeted by 90 percent, from a high of 29,000 people in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006. CAIR vehemently denied the report when it was issued. But a year later, when the organization sought to have its name removed from a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a Hamas-financing prosecution, CAIR attorneys tied the diminishing support to the 2007 co-conspirator list.
Donations to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) no longer are tax deductible after the organization was among 275,000 tax-exempt organizations purged earlier this month by the Internal Revenue Service.
The groups failed to file required annual reports, known as form 990s, detailing their revenues and expenses, for three consecutive years. CAIR had been a non-profit on its own, but in 2007, the IRS approved a separate tax-exempt CAIR Foundation. The foundation never filed any subsequent reports. Both the foundation and CAIR national are on the purge list.
CAIR has 30 state chapters throughout the country, many of which have their own non-profit designations which remain active.
While the IRS believes most of the organizations stripped of status have shut down, those still operating can apply for reinstatement. Meanwhile, CAIR's web site continues to solicit donations by touting them as tax deductible two weeks after the IRS issued the list and notifications were sent to all 275,000 purged groups.
Donors still could deduct the money on their tax returns if CAIR is reinstated between now and April 15. All the purged organizations have 15 months to seek reinstatement. But it is unclear whether CAIR will file the required papers or whether their explanation about past reporting failures will be enough to satisfy the IRS.
"This listing should have little, if any, impact on donors who previously made deductible contributions to auto-revoked organizations because donations made prior to the publication of an organization's name on the list remain tax-deductible," an IRS statement said. "Going forward, however, organizations that are on the auto-revocation list that do not receive reinstatement are no longer eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, and any income they receive may be taxable."
To regain its exempt status, CAIR must file the missing three annual reports, along with a new application for exempt status. Finally, it must explain why it failed to file the 990s for three consecutive years and explain any new procedures which will ensure future compliance.
The annual reports include financial information on donations and other sources of income, operating expenses and names and payments given to directors and key staff members.
The CAIR Foundation won exempt status in 2007 and then never filed any annual reports. That year, the Washington Times reported that CAIR's membership plummeted by 90 percent, from a high of 29,000 people in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006. CAIR vehemently denied the report when it was issued. But a year later, when the organization sought to have its name removed from a list of unindicted co-conspirators in a Hamas-financing prosecution, CAIR attorneys tied the diminishing support to the 2007 co-conspirator list.
Analysis: Hezbollah may fight Israel to Save Assad
From: Jerusalem Post
Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group is preparing for a possible war with Israel to relieve perceived Western pressure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its guardian ally, sources close to the movement say.
The radical Shi'ite group, which has a powerful militia armed by Damascus and Iran, is watching the unrest in neighboring Syria with alarm and is determined to prevent the West from exploiting popular protests to bring down Assad.
Hezbollah supported pro-democracy movements that toppled Western-backed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, but officials say it will not stand idly by as international pressure mounts on Assad to yield to protesters.
It is committed to do whatever it takes politically to help deflect what it sees as a foreign campaign against Damascus, but it is also readying for a possible war with Israel if Assad is weakened.
"Hezbollah will never intervene in Syria. This is an internal issue for President Bashar to tackle. But when it sees the West gearing up to bring him down, it will not just watch," a Lebanese official close to the group's thinking told Reuters.
"This is a battle for existence for the group and it is time to return the favor (of Syria's support). It will do that by fending off some of the international pressure," he added.
The militant group, established nearly 30 years ago to confront Israel's occupation of south Lebanon, fought an inconclusive 34-day war with Israel in 2006.
Hezbollah and Syria have both denied that the group has sent fighters to support a military crackdown on the wave of protests against Assad's rule.
Hezbollah believes the West is working to reshape the Middle East by replacing Assad with a ruler friendly to Israel and hostile to itself.
"The region now is at war, a war between what is good and what is backed by Washington... Syria is the good," said a Lebanon-based Arab official close to Syria.
He said the United States, which lost an ally when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February, "wants to shift the crisis" by supporting protests against its adversary.
"For us this will be confronted in the best possible way," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Lebanese official says Syria not alone
Analysts rule out the possibility of a full-scale regional war involving Syria, Iran and Lebanon on one side against Israel backed by the United States. A war pitting Hezbollah against Israel was more likely, they said.
"There might be limited wars here or there but nobody has the interest (in a regional war)," said Lebanese analyst Oussama Safa. "The region is of course heading towards radical change... How it will be arranged and where it will leads is not clear."
Hezbollah inflicted serious damage and casualties by firing missiles deep into Israel during the 2006 conflict, and was able to sustain weeks of rocket attacks despite a major Israeli military incursion into Lebanon.
Western intelligence sources say the movement's arsenal has been more than replenished since the fighting ended, with European-led UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon powerless to prevent supplies entering mostly from Syria.
Syria, which borders Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan, has regional influence because of its alliance with Iran and its continued role in Lebanon, despite ending a 29-year military presence there in 2005. It also has an influence in Iraq.
"If the situation in Syria collapses it will have repercussions that will go beyond Syria," the Arab official said. "None of Syria's allies would accept the fall of Syria even if it led to turning the table upside down -- war (with Israel) could be one of the options."
The Lebanese official said: "All options are open including opening the fronts in Golan (Heights) and in south Lebanon."
Palestinian protests last month on the Lebanese and Syrian frontlines with Israel were "a message that Syria will not be left alone facing an Israeli-American campaign", he said.
Israel and Syria are technically at war, but their frontier had been calm since the war in 1973, when Israel repelled a Syrian assault to recapture the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Lebanon forms new government dominated by pro-Syrian parties
For Syria's allies in Lebanon, the first step to support Damascus has already been taken. After months of delay, Prime Minister Najib Mikati formed a new Lebanese government last week dominated by pro-Syrian parties, including Hezbollah.
That followed five months of political vacuum after Hezbollah and its allies toppled Western-backed Saad al-Hariri's coalition in a dispute over a UN-backed tribunal investigating the killing in 2005 of statesman Rafik al-Hariri, Saad's father.
The tribunal is expected to accuse members of the Shi'ite group in the killing, and some Lebanese had believed that the delay in forming a government was deliberate, to avoid the crisis a new government might face when indictments are issued.
"Our people thought at first the vacuum would be in our interest but after the events in Syria we have noticed that the vacuum is harmful," said the Lebanese official.
Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group is preparing for a possible war with Israel to relieve perceived Western pressure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its guardian ally, sources close to the movement say.
The radical Shi'ite group, which has a powerful militia armed by Damascus and Iran, is watching the unrest in neighboring Syria with alarm and is determined to prevent the West from exploiting popular protests to bring down Assad.
Hezbollah supported pro-democracy movements that toppled Western-backed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, but officials say it will not stand idly by as international pressure mounts on Assad to yield to protesters.
It is committed to do whatever it takes politically to help deflect what it sees as a foreign campaign against Damascus, but it is also readying for a possible war with Israel if Assad is weakened.
"Hezbollah will never intervene in Syria. This is an internal issue for President Bashar to tackle. But when it sees the West gearing up to bring him down, it will not just watch," a Lebanese official close to the group's thinking told Reuters.
"This is a battle for existence for the group and it is time to return the favor (of Syria's support). It will do that by fending off some of the international pressure," he added.
The militant group, established nearly 30 years ago to confront Israel's occupation of south Lebanon, fought an inconclusive 34-day war with Israel in 2006.
Hezbollah and Syria have both denied that the group has sent fighters to support a military crackdown on the wave of protests against Assad's rule.
Hezbollah believes the West is working to reshape the Middle East by replacing Assad with a ruler friendly to Israel and hostile to itself.
"The region now is at war, a war between what is good and what is backed by Washington... Syria is the good," said a Lebanon-based Arab official close to Syria.
He said the United States, which lost an ally when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February, "wants to shift the crisis" by supporting protests against its adversary.
"For us this will be confronted in the best possible way," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Lebanese official says Syria not alone
Analysts rule out the possibility of a full-scale regional war involving Syria, Iran and Lebanon on one side against Israel backed by the United States. A war pitting Hezbollah against Israel was more likely, they said.
"There might be limited wars here or there but nobody has the interest (in a regional war)," said Lebanese analyst Oussama Safa. "The region is of course heading towards radical change... How it will be arranged and where it will leads is not clear."
Hezbollah inflicted serious damage and casualties by firing missiles deep into Israel during the 2006 conflict, and was able to sustain weeks of rocket attacks despite a major Israeli military incursion into Lebanon.
Western intelligence sources say the movement's arsenal has been more than replenished since the fighting ended, with European-led UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon powerless to prevent supplies entering mostly from Syria.
Syria, which borders Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan, has regional influence because of its alliance with Iran and its continued role in Lebanon, despite ending a 29-year military presence there in 2005. It also has an influence in Iraq.
"If the situation in Syria collapses it will have repercussions that will go beyond Syria," the Arab official said. "None of Syria's allies would accept the fall of Syria even if it led to turning the table upside down -- war (with Israel) could be one of the options."
The Lebanese official said: "All options are open including opening the fronts in Golan (Heights) and in south Lebanon."
Palestinian protests last month on the Lebanese and Syrian frontlines with Israel were "a message that Syria will not be left alone facing an Israeli-American campaign", he said.
Israel and Syria are technically at war, but their frontier had been calm since the war in 1973, when Israel repelled a Syrian assault to recapture the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Lebanon forms new government dominated by pro-Syrian parties
For Syria's allies in Lebanon, the first step to support Damascus has already been taken. After months of delay, Prime Minister Najib Mikati formed a new Lebanese government last week dominated by pro-Syrian parties, including Hezbollah.
That followed five months of political vacuum after Hezbollah and its allies toppled Western-backed Saad al-Hariri's coalition in a dispute over a UN-backed tribunal investigating the killing in 2005 of statesman Rafik al-Hariri, Saad's father.
The tribunal is expected to accuse members of the Shi'ite group in the killing, and some Lebanese had believed that the delay in forming a government was deliberate, to avoid the crisis a new government might face when indictments are issued.
"Our people thought at first the vacuum would be in our interest but after the events in Syria we have noticed that the vacuum is harmful," said the Lebanese official.
Feds crack down on campus flirting and sex jokes
From: Washington Examiner
When I was growing up it was widely believed that colleges and universities were the part of our society with the widest scope for free expression and free speech. In the conformist America of the 1950s, the thinking ran, few people dared to say anything that went beyond a broad consensus. But on campus anyone could say anything he liked.
Today we live in an America with enormous cultural variety in which very few things are considered universally verboten. But on campus it's different. There saying something considerably milder than some of the double entrendres you heard in cable news coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal can get you into big trouble.
These reflections are inspired by a seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities. The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities.
OCR's letter carries great weight since there are few things a university president fears more than an OCR investigation, which can lead to loss of federal funds -- which amount to billions of dollars in some cases.
The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.
That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes involve charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.
But more often they involve alleged offenses defined in vague terms and depending often on subjective factors. Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate put-downs of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).
All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?
Given the prevailing attitudes among faculty and university administrators, it's not hard to guess who will be the target of most such proceedings. You only have to remember how rapidly and readily top administrators and dozens of faculty members were ready to castigate as guilty of rape the Duke lacrosse players who, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper concluded, were absolutely innocent.
What the seemingly misnamed Office of Civil Rights is doing here is demanding the setting up of kangaroo courts and the dispensing of what I would call marsupial justice against students who are disfavored by campus denizens because of their gender or race or political attitude. "Alice in Wonderland's" Red Queen would approve.
When I was growing up it was widely believed that colleges and universities were the part of our society with the widest scope for free expression and free speech. In the conformist America of the 1950s, the thinking ran, few people dared to say anything that went beyond a broad consensus. But on campus anyone could say anything he liked.
Today we live in an America with enormous cultural variety in which very few things are considered universally verboten. But on campus it's different. There saying something considerably milder than some of the double entrendres you heard in cable news coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal can get you into big trouble.
These reflections are inspired by a seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities. The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities.
OCR's letter carries great weight since there are few things a university president fears more than an OCR investigation, which can lead to loss of federal funds -- which amount to billions of dollars in some cases.
The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.
That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes involve charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.
But more often they involve alleged offenses defined in vague terms and depending often on subjective factors. Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate put-downs of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).
All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?
Given the prevailing attitudes among faculty and university administrators, it's not hard to guess who will be the target of most such proceedings. You only have to remember how rapidly and readily top administrators and dozens of faculty members were ready to castigate as guilty of rape the Duke lacrosse players who, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper concluded, were absolutely innocent.
What the seemingly misnamed Office of Civil Rights is doing here is demanding the setting up of kangaroo courts and the dispensing of what I would call marsupial justice against students who are disfavored by campus denizens because of their gender or race or political attitude. "Alice in Wonderland's" Red Queen would approve.
Upton ‘Close’ to Agreement on Legislation Repealing 2007 Ban on Ordinary Light Bulbs
From: CNSnews.com
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says that he is “close” to an agreement with sponsors of legislation that would repeal the 2007 ban on the ordinary incandescent light bulb.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says that he is “close” to an agreement with sponsors of legislation that would repeal the 2007 ban on the ordinary incandescent light bulb.
Upton told bloggers at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, that he is working with Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Michael Burgess (R-Texas) and expects that "soon, very soon" they will advance a bill that would undo regulations that effectively ban the ordinary incandescent light bulb by 2012 – regulations that Upton sponsored in 2007.
“We’re very close to seeing an agreement emerge and happen, so stay tuned, I guess you have to say,” Upton said. ”(There are) a couple of different things we're looking at, so stay tuned in the next -- probably couple of days, actually. Soon, just say soon.
He added: "We’ve had some good conversations and we’ll see where we are later this week.”
The ban, which was part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, phases out ordinary light bulbs that use more than 40 watts, making them illegal, starting in 2012.
As CNSNews.com has reported, the ban means that consumers are stuck with more costly, less environmentally friendly alternatives, such as compact fluorescent bulbs, which pose greater health risks than incandescent bulbs.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Beijing belligerence
From: NYPOST.com
Thirty-six years after chasing the United States out of Vietnam, the com munist rulers in Hanoi now want us back. The ironies of this bizarre turn of events are many, but the reason is simple: China.
Beijing has been flexing its newfound military muscle and geopolitical ambitions in the face of its neighbors.
Together with its global cyberhacking offenses, China is looking less like an emerging superpower and more like an out-of-control bully.
The latest run-in with Vietnam -- once China's ally, now its steadfast foe -- is over oil exploration in the South China Sea, where China claims sole sovereignty and where Vietnam has staged live fire naval exercises to protect its rights. China has responded with three days and nights of its own exercises, although it says it won't "resort to force" to resolve the dispute. Still, Vietnam has issued a strong statement welcoming foreign help -- a veiled but unmistakable invitation to the US and its Navy.
There's an opportunity here for US policy, not just to close the circle on our most divisive war but to find a new, more realistic approach in dealing with the rulers in Beijing. Because there's trouble brewing for the Middle Kingdom -- and not just in its dealings with its neighbors.
Over the last several weeks, a serious wave of unrest has roiled China's cities with outbreaks of violence -- even bomb blasts -- against the Beijing regime.
There's no sign of an organized uprising a la the Arab Spring. But the number of what the authorities call "mass incidents" has risen steadily. As many as 127,000 occurred in 2008. They are going to get worse before they get better -- and not just because Beijing authorities still can't get a handle on suppressing dissent on the Internet.
China's phenomenal economic growth is sputtering. Rising oil prices and growing inflation are erasing many economic gains. If the US economy, a major source for exports, doesn't recover soon, it could threaten China's long, unbroken record of growth -- setting the stage for more trouble there.
Thirty-six years after chasing the United States out of Vietnam, the com munist rulers in Hanoi now want us back. The ironies of this bizarre turn of events are many, but the reason is simple: China.
Beijing has been flexing its newfound military muscle and geopolitical ambitions in the face of its neighbors.
Together with its global cyberhacking offenses, China is looking less like an emerging superpower and more like an out-of-control bully.
The latest run-in with Vietnam -- once China's ally, now its steadfast foe -- is over oil exploration in the South China Sea, where China claims sole sovereignty and where Vietnam has staged live fire naval exercises to protect its rights. China has responded with three days and nights of its own exercises, although it says it won't "resort to force" to resolve the dispute. Still, Vietnam has issued a strong statement welcoming foreign help -- a veiled but unmistakable invitation to the US and its Navy.
There's an opportunity here for US policy, not just to close the circle on our most divisive war but to find a new, more realistic approach in dealing with the rulers in Beijing. Because there's trouble brewing for the Middle Kingdom -- and not just in its dealings with its neighbors.
Over the last several weeks, a serious wave of unrest has roiled China's cities with outbreaks of violence -- even bomb blasts -- against the Beijing regime.
There's no sign of an organized uprising a la the Arab Spring. But the number of what the authorities call "mass incidents" has risen steadily. As many as 127,000 occurred in 2008. They are going to get worse before they get better -- and not just because Beijing authorities still can't get a handle on suppressing dissent on the Internet.
China's phenomenal economic growth is sputtering. Rising oil prices and growing inflation are erasing many economic gains. If the US economy, a major source for exports, doesn't recover soon, it could threaten China's long, unbroken record of growth -- setting the stage for more trouble there.
India inches toward Shanghai
From: Asia Times Online
Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna declared his country's desire for "a larger and deeper role" in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). That pronouncement at the forum's recently concluded tenth summit makes supreme sense for India, since as a geopolitical and geo-economic reality that bridges the former Soviet space, East Asia and South Asia, the SCO is hastening the global shift towards multipolarity.
India shares with the SCO the limited goal of a more "democratic international system", wherein power is widely diffused among multiple centers even as many of the organization's member states - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - and applicants have undemocratic regimes.
Yet, as the summit in the Kazakhstan capital of Astana finalized
negotiations for India (and Pakistan) to join the SCO, New Delhi will be aware that its eventual promotion from "observer" status to full membership of the group will necessitate subtle policy shifts that would require moving away from its close embrace with the United States on certain issues.
If the historic purpose of NATO was to "keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out", then SCO is at least minimally united around the motto of "keeping the Americans out". India's strategic establishment is contradictorily keen on keeping the Americans in Afghanistan for as long as possible, believing that a US withdrawal would throw open the doors to renewed Pakistani (and indirectly Chinese) hegemony in a geostrategic lynchpin.
However much the SCO's leading lights - China and Russia - verbally deny that the SCO is a countervailing military alliance against the US-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it has undeniable value in the "new Cold War" that Moscow has broached on and off.
The latest iteration of an impending escalation was uttered by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last month in the context of the United States pressing ahead to build a recalibrated missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Russia used the summit in Astana to reinforce this warning to the West via a denunciation of "unilateral and unlimited build-up of missile defense" in the joint declaration from all member states.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that this veiled attack on the US was a "consolidated position" of all six members of SCO and that Moscow did not have to push to get this critique included in the final summit communique. Most interestingly, he added that the US's missile shields "also covers the Southeast Asian region" - an allusion to China's fears that Washington is encircling it with a chain of anti-missile systems operable from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
As has been the practice since the SCO was created a decade ago, China lets Russia do the hard talking and snorting against the US, but agrees behind the scenes that it too would like to whittle down American power and military encroachments in the territories and waters that it prefers to dominate in Asia.
Characterizations of the SCO as a "NATO of the East", or as a present-day Warsaw Pact, may therefore be inept insofar as there is no single principle setting its agenda, but the comparison is not preposterous as the SCO does act as a counterbalancing power center against the US. The more SCO matures in joint military exercises and its use of diplomatic pressure against American expansion, the less becoming the fiction that it is a purely regional entity for fighting terrorism and sharing intelligence.
India must be conscious that its impending full membership of SCO would entail being called on to make statements similar combative to the one just out of Astana. The SCO has suffered from absence of unanimity on key global questions in the past, and it would be an exaggeration to expect that its two major patrons will impose conformity on all other members.
Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna declared his country's desire for "a larger and deeper role" in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). That pronouncement at the forum's recently concluded tenth summit makes supreme sense for India, since as a geopolitical and geo-economic reality that bridges the former Soviet space, East Asia and South Asia, the SCO is hastening the global shift towards multipolarity.
India shares with the SCO the limited goal of a more "democratic international system", wherein power is widely diffused among multiple centers even as many of the organization's member states - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - and applicants have undemocratic regimes.
Yet, as the summit in the Kazakhstan capital of Astana finalized
negotiations for India (and Pakistan) to join the SCO, New Delhi will be aware that its eventual promotion from "observer" status to full membership of the group will necessitate subtle policy shifts that would require moving away from its close embrace with the United States on certain issues.
If the historic purpose of NATO was to "keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out", then SCO is at least minimally united around the motto of "keeping the Americans out". India's strategic establishment is contradictorily keen on keeping the Americans in Afghanistan for as long as possible, believing that a US withdrawal would throw open the doors to renewed Pakistani (and indirectly Chinese) hegemony in a geostrategic lynchpin.
However much the SCO's leading lights - China and Russia - verbally deny that the SCO is a countervailing military alliance against the US-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it has undeniable value in the "new Cold War" that Moscow has broached on and off.
The latest iteration of an impending escalation was uttered by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last month in the context of the United States pressing ahead to build a recalibrated missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Russia used the summit in Astana to reinforce this warning to the West via a denunciation of "unilateral and unlimited build-up of missile defense" in the joint declaration from all member states.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that this veiled attack on the US was a "consolidated position" of all six members of SCO and that Moscow did not have to push to get this critique included in the final summit communique. Most interestingly, he added that the US's missile shields "also covers the Southeast Asian region" - an allusion to China's fears that Washington is encircling it with a chain of anti-missile systems operable from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
As has been the practice since the SCO was created a decade ago, China lets Russia do the hard talking and snorting against the US, but agrees behind the scenes that it too would like to whittle down American power and military encroachments in the territories and waters that it prefers to dominate in Asia.
Characterizations of the SCO as a "NATO of the East", or as a present-day Warsaw Pact, may therefore be inept insofar as there is no single principle setting its agenda, but the comparison is not preposterous as the SCO does act as a counterbalancing power center against the US. The more SCO matures in joint military exercises and its use of diplomatic pressure against American expansion, the less becoming the fiction that it is a purely regional entity for fighting terrorism and sharing intelligence.
India must be conscious that its impending full membership of SCO would entail being called on to make statements similar combative to the one just out of Astana. The SCO has suffered from absence of unanimity on key global questions in the past, and it would be an exaggeration to expect that its two major patrons will impose conformity on all other members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
