Geese and Ganders, Time Lines and Patience!

Is it fair to blame the Democrat Congress for our ills which began shortly after they took over Congress in 2006? If not, then can we blame GW for the problems that hit his administration shortly after he took over from Clinton, ie a recession, 9/11, worst hurricane in our nation's history etc.? Is there a geese and gander message somewhere in all of this? Probably not, but if the press and media and their far Left, nay-Saying brethren can make outrageous and felonious connections and assertions why can't others including myself? (See 1 below.)

Schorer conveniently forgets Great Britain, France and Germany negotiated with a lot of carrots in hand for 6 wasted years while Ahamdinejad and company pursued their nuclear goal. Perhaps it was the realization that Iran would not be able to win in Iraq that eventually had some impact. Meanwhile we have been back door meeting with Iran for years and now have entered the front door but Ahmadinejad still appears unwilling to budge.

Since Liberals have fallen in love with time lines how long, Schorer, should we continue to negotiate with Iran? Should we not set a certain date for pulling out of talks? Obama has set a time line for withdrawal in Iraq. How long must we sit on our behinds talking with Iran? Should we wait until they have one nuclear weapon and one delivery missile, two, three? Surely there must be a period when even dreamers and/or appeasers run out of patience.


It is possible the Iranian nuclear cudgel will have already been thrown down around Obama's feet by the time of his assumed coronation.(See 2, 2a and 2b below.)


Burton and Stewart recently wrote a piece about the closing of Dillon Dam and Reservoir to the public. Dillon provides Denver with its drinking water including several surrounding towns. In their initial report the authors did not discuss the Democrat Convention, to be held in Denver, as the basis for the closing.

In response to an overwhelming number of outside comments they have written another report going into more detailed analysis of what it takes to contaminate a large water supply etc. You might find this of interest. (See 3 below.)

Thomas Sowell hits home again. (See 4 below)

Ferrara "gushes" put up or shut up! (See 5 below.)

Gabi in U.S. to gab about Iran. (See 6 below.)

Lewis writes Obama is soon to experience a 'premature inauguration' in Berlin but might not quite understand the site selection of his oration is more a reminder of European imperialism. Like the trite saying : "Eat German food and an hour later you are hungry for power." (See 7 below.)

Dick

1)George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. During the first six the economy was fine.

Even as recently as little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...



BUT some American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a DEMOCRAT Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~11,300--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!


YEP , IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE!...AND WE SURE GOT IT!!!....NOW OBMA, the DEM'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT--AND THE OLLS SAY HE'S GONNA BE 'THE MAN'--CLAIMS HE'S GONNA REALLY GIVE US CHANGE!!....JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YA THINK YOU CAN STAND???.....




THE MOST IMPORTANT INGREDIENT TO SUCCESS IS FAILURE ! EVERY TIME YOU FAIL,YOU ELIMINATE ONE WAY THAT WILL NOT WORK,THEREBY BEING CLOSER TO ONE WAY THAT WILL WORK !!!

2) What to do about Iran
By SHELDON SCHORER


"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

One of the more intractable problems facing the West in general and Israel in particular, is the developing nuclear threat posed by Iran. Iran has defied the United States led initiatives to scale down the Iranian nuclear program in order to insure that any nuclear capabilities would be for peaceful purposes only. Iran has openly asserted its right to possess nuclear weapons and has intimated at its intended use against its enemies which include the United States and Israel. The threats of a radical regime, fueled by aggressive jihadist mentality, must be dealt with seriously.

What can be done to contain this threat? What model of dealing with aggressive international threats can be used in this instance?

Human history is littered with similar instances of countries which, for greed or for ideological reasons, felt inspired to go beyond their borders and conquer, control or at least inflict severe physical damage on other countries. Successful resolution of such threats occurs when the aggressive country alters its policy, through persuasion or coercion, or some combination of the two. Coercion can run the gamut from soft diplomatic talk or tougher measures of economic sanctions to the ultimate course of military engagement.

Obviously, there is no single correct response that would solve every conflict in every case. Even the ultimate response - of war - carries with it unhappy consequences, in terms of the economic cost and the cost in human life. War does not always work as well as we would wish. Especially in this age of asymmetrical warfare, we have seen- in the Soviet and the US invasions of Afghanistan, and in the US invasions of Vietnam and Iraq - how even relatively weaker countries can resist conquest and pacification for prolonged periods against powerful invaders.

It requires great perspicacity and understanding to achieve the proper balance of force required to achieve the desired result. Sometimes, as in the case of the German aggressions in World Wars I and II, only military force could quell the threat. Sometimes, as happened in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, a long strategic isolation of the enemy, leading to an internal breakdown of order, managed to end the threat without the need for resorting to a hot war.

What is the model that could work with Iran?

The World War II model - that of total victory over the enemy - is an extreme measure, and one that would not be employed as a preemptive measure against an ambiguous threat. It is unlikely - and indeed highly undesirable - for the US or any other country to initiate such a drastic measure, unless it is clear that such an action is absolutely necessary as a response to overt, and not merely threatened, aggression.

The Osiraq model - a surgical strike into Iran to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, similar to the strike Israel made to cripple the Iraqi nuclear threat in 1981 - is an appealing proposal. It suggests that the problem could be eliminated in a single stroke, and at minimal cost. This proposal, while effective in Iraq, may not end the Iranian threat, and may even exacerbate the situation.

The success of a military strike is dependant both on the quality of military intelligence - in locating the appropriate sites to strike - and in operational capabilities. The United States has been found to be wanting in both areas, as exhibited in the protracted war in Iraq and the embarrassment over the absence of weapons of mass destruction.

Can the United States truly locate all of the nuclear facilities and wipe them out? Even if such a strike were to be effectively carried out, it might not end the Iranian threat, as it is likely to provoke the extremists in Iran and elsewhere in the Islamic world, to rededicate their efforts to attack the United States at home and abroad. In fact, the likelihood is that a military strike that is intended to be of limited duration, might well expand into a protracted military struggle and increased terrorism, as had occurred after US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Cold War model - that of pressure and isolation of the enemy, appears to offer the best prospects for long-term peace. This means organizing the "good guys" in the world into an alliance that will isolate Iran, thereby demonstrating to Iran that it has more to gain by joining the world community than by opposing it. This approach is a more comprehensive and difficult approach. It views negotiations as a vehicle for restructuring global associations and not just as a conference to discuss surrender terms.

This is the approach favored by Barack Obama - negotiations without preconditions in order to achieve a new global strategy of peace. The effort involved is valuable if only for the strengthening of the Western alliance, and is one that could ultimately lead to mutual respect and cooperation among nations; in short, peace. It is an approach that requires creative new thinking, but one that, if successful, would achieve a better final result than a military option.

2a)Olmert to Obama: By late 2009, early 2010 Iran will be able to assemble nuclear bomb



Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert told visiting US Senator Barack Obama Wednesday night, July 23 that within little more than a year, Iran would be able to assemble all the components for a nuclear bomb. He said the international penalties to force Iran to give up its nuclear plans must speed up without removing the military option from the table.

Earlier, senior Israeli defense sources reported Iran is set to receive Russian S-300 anti-air missiles for fighting off strikes against its nuclear facilities by early September, seriously complicating any air attack.

Military sources note this was the second statement in four days by Israeli security sources, stressing the need for expeditious action to preempt Iran’s military nuclear progress.

It is not by chance this latest statement coincided with the visit by the Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. He spoke in general about his commitments on Iran if he wins the race to the White House. This second Israeli statement indicated a specific time frame for action.

The Israeli sources, who refused to be named, said the first delivery of S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, weeks away, and could take six-to 12 months to be deployed and made operable.

“There is no doubt,” he said, “that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult.

This assessment clashed with a statement by US defense secretary Robert Gates who said on July 9 ”… it’s highly unlikely that those air defense missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon.” Gates is known to be a firm objector to a US or Israeli military operation against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, who is spending a week in Washington will no doubt update American officials on Israel’s latest intelligence on Iran’s plans.

Saturday night, July 20, an Israeli “security-political official” estimated that if diplomatic efforts to bring Iran to give up uranium enrichment failed, President George W. Bush would order Iran attacked between the November 4 presidential election and his exit from the White House in January. The quote was aired shortly after the six-power talks with Iran in Geneva – with US official participation for the first time – ended without an answer from Tehran.

One of the purposes of the Israeli air force drill over the Mediterranean last month, widely seen as a dress rehearsal for a possible raid on Iran, was to practice passes against the S-300 batteries which Greece acquired from Russia via Cyprus.

2b) Obama to 'Post': I'll do all I can to foil Iranian nuke race
By DAVID HOROVITZ


Senator Barack Obama, the visiting Democratic presidential candidate who is leading the race for the White House, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday evening that, if elected president, he would do "everything in my power" to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Obama says he'll never compromise Israel's security

Asked about concerns that the Iranians would abuse his stated readiness for "tough diplomacy" to play for time and keep moving ahead toward the bomb, Obama said that his "willingness to negotiate" had "very clear and direct goals" and "a sense of urgency." So "if the Iranians fail to respond, we've stripped away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action."

Speaking to the Post in his room at the King David Hotel, Obama said that one of the failures of the US approach on this issue in the past "has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military."

Asked, therefore, whether having backed Israel's air strike on a Syrian nuclear facility last September, he would support an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities in the coming months if Israel felt it had no choice but to act, Obama replied, "My goal is to avoid being confronted with that hypothetical."

He stressed that "Israelis, and Israelis alone, have to make decisions about their own security." But, he went on, "the grave consequences of either doing nothing or initiating a potential war with Iran are such that we want to do everything we can, to exhaust every avenue, to avoid that option."

The interview came toward the end of a grueling day that had taken the 46-year-old Obama to Yad Vashem, Sderot and Ramallah, featured meetings with President Shimon Peres and other Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and continued late into the night with dinner with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and a visit to the Western Wall.
US Democrat presidential...

US Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama meeting The Jerusalem Post's Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz in Jerusalem, Wednesday.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski

Nonetheless, Obama seemed fresh and answered questions articulately on a range of issues crucial to Israel.

He spelled out a succinct position on Jerusalem that followed from the correction of what he had called the "poor phrasing" of his address to AIPAC last month, telling the Post simply: "I believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But I think that how Israel and the Palestinians resolve this issue is a final-status issue. It needs to be left up to the two parties."

Asked whether he felt Israel had a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank - for security, religious, historic or other reasons - he answered firmly that Israel "should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously.

"Israel's security concerns," Obama went on, "have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement construction doesn't necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements, and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security. Ultimately, though, these are part of the discussions that have to take place between the parties." 2b)


3) Dillon Dam Contamination Threat:Water Over the Dam
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart



In order to understand the contamination threat to the water contained by the Dillon Dam (the Dillon Reservoir), we must first understand the layout of the dam, the road that runs over the dam, the reservoir itself, and the area surrounding it. First, the road that runs over the dam is separated from the water by several yards. A recreational trail that is several feet lower than the road runs between the road and the reservoir. Second, the road over the dam is patrolled 24/7 by armed guards and monitored by closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera.

The Dillon Reservoir itself is very large. It has a surface area of 3,233 acres, is surrounded by 26.8 miles of shoreline and contains nearly 83 billion gallons of water. It is not only used as a source of drinking water for the city of Denver, but also serves as a major recreational area for camping, boating and fishing. The towns of Dillon and Frisco are both located on the edge of the reservoir, and both have marinas. There are also a number of campgrounds and picnic areas surrounding the lake, and there are many places where the roads surrounding the reservoir run in close proximity to the water.

Because of these factors, we did not see the threat of contamination to the reservoir to be a realistic one. Contaminating 83 billion gallons of water to a meaningful level of toxicity would take a very large amount of agent. To take the contamination level of the water in the reservoir to just 10 parts per million would require 830,000 gallons of contaminant. That would require a fleet of over 55 tanker trucks carrying 15,000 gallons each. Manufacturing, transporting and distributing that quantity of agent would require a tremendous amount of effort.

Secondly, even if one were able to manufacture a substantial quantity of toxic agent and transport it to the reservoir, from an operational standpoint, the road over the dam is simply not an ideal location from which to dump it into the reservoir. Draining a large amount of liquid from a tanker truck takes time, and any large vehicle that stopped on the road over the dam would be quickly noticed by the dam security force. Furthermore, the placement of the bike path between the road and the water would make it very difficult to ensure that whatever was dumped from the road would make it into the reservoir unless a long hose were used. Tactically, such an attempt would have a much higher chance of success if it were conducted in a more discreet place with less security and better access to the water’s edge. Backing a tanker truck down a boat ramp and dumping the contents of the truck directly into the water would likely be more effective.

All in all, because the dam is not an optimal place to release a contaminant, and because the more suitable areas for doing were not closed to public access, it was fairly easy for us to deduce that the dam was closed due to the perceived threat of a bombing attack and not contamination. The statements published by the Denver Water Board also clearly indicate that the board made the decision to close the road over the dam due to the threat to the structure of the dam, and not a threat to the water behind it.

Even though the Denver Water Board did not make its decision based on the contamination threat, let’s now take this opportunity to explore the topic of drinking water contamination.
Water Contamination

In general, there are several different types of substances that can be used to contaminate drinking water: pathogens, toxic metals, toxic organic compounds and radioactive material. Many of these elements are already present in water. Some occur naturally, like the pathogens E. coli, giardia and cryptosporidium, while others, like dioxin and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), result from human activity. Still others, like mercury and arsenic, find their way into water from both natural and human sources. Indeed, there are many places in the world where drinking water has been heavily contaminated by these toxins. Even in wilderness areas where the water appears to be crystal clear and pristine, people can still become sick from naturally occurring microorganisms like giardia.

Because of the natural and man-made contamination in water, treatment plants have evolved over time, developing methods to either filter or kill potential hazardous elements. Most water treatment plants use a series of different processes to remove contaminants. Some of the processes are designed to remove the solids, while others utilize substances such as sand and activated carbon to filter it. Still other processes employ ozone, chlorine and chloramine to disinfect water. In some locations, treatment plants will even use technologies such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis to remove impurities.

For the most part, water treatment plants do a good job of removing contaminants. Occasionally, however, a water treatment plant will experience a failure or be overtaken by a flood, which can result in contaminated water being delivered to homes. In 1993, for example, a water plant failure in Milwaukee led to the cryptosporidium infection of more than 400,000 people. More than 100 of those infected died as a result. Frequently, after a flood has compromised a water treatment plant, the community will be advised to boil drinking water until tests ensure that it is free of pathogens and other contaminants.

Such water testing is not done only in emergency situations. Under Environmental Protection Agency guidelines (which are not just guidelines, but legally enforceable standards), drinking water must be regularly tested for the presence of various contaminants, including microorganisms, organic and inorganic toxins and radionuclides.

Now, let’s look at intentional water contamination. Even if there were no water treatment plants that could detect or remove contamination, most water supply systems are enormous, and contaminating them with enough material to make the water toxic after the agent is diluted by all the water in the system would be very difficult. For example, there are 83 billion gallons of water in Dillon Reservoir. Denver Water, the company that operates the Dillon Reservoir, provides water to more than 1.1 million people and can process up to 715 million gallons of water a day at its three water treatment plants.

This large quantity of water means that even if one could manufacture or otherwise obtain a large quantity of some sort of a pathogen or toxic compound, say, 3,000 gallons (the amount contained in a small tanker truck), the millions of gallons of water that flow daily through the major water mains in an urban area would still likely result in significant dilution, unless the contaminant could be injected into the system at a point close to the end of the line.

Water systems handle about 168 gallons for each person served, which accounts for the hundreds of millions of gallons treated and transported daily. For example, a small concentration of something like sodium cyanide would have a harmful effect on people exposed to it over the long term. But in order to achieve an acute poisoning effect on a victim — the lethal dose for cyanide ingested by mouth to humans is between 50 milligrams and 200 milligrams — the concentrations would have to be much higher, and high concentrations are difficult to achieve in a system that involves hundreds of millions of gallons of water. In fact, it would take hundreds of thousands of tons of cyanide to contaminate the hundreds of millions of gallons of water that flow daily through the Denver Water system to the point where one glass of drinking water would contain enough cyanide to kill a person. This is not to mention that even the most incompetent of management at the worst water t reatment center in the world would find it impossible to miss toxicity levels of such magnitude.

Because of this dilution effect, toxins such as cyanide and ricin, which could conceivably be used to contaminate water, are generally more effective when used for targeted assassinations than they are in mass terror attacks. Even though a small amount of such substances is in theory enough to kill a large number of people, its distribution and dilution within a water system is difficult to predict, and efficiently dispersing such a substance in uniform, lethal doses would prove a daunting task. Furthermore, any person attempting to obtain a huge quantity of something like a cyanide compound from a commercial source would be carefully scrutinized in the post-9/11 environment.

Existent waterborne pathogens could be injected into the system post-processing (and some pathogens are resistant to neutralizers like chlorine or chloramine in treated water), but the pressure in water lines makes such an attack difficult. Once water leaves the treatment facility, it is pressurized by pumping stations so that it will run through the thousands of miles of distribution pipelines and up into high-rise buildings. Injecting a contaminant into these pressurized water lines could prove difficult without the proper equipment to overcome that pressure. There are also pressure gauges and alarms on the pipelines, and any attempt to access them to inject a contaminant could trigger an alert. Using an existent pathogen, however, once again raises the issue of obtaining enough of the organisms to effectively contaminate the water system.

The quantity problem could be overcome if some sort of super-pathogen were developed that could reproduce rapidly in water, bypass filtration, withstand disinfection and somehow pass water quality tests undetected. If such a bug were developed, a small quantity of the organism could conceivably be sufficient to contaminate an entire reservoir or water system. However, the development of such a vector would be very difficult and occupy a considerable amount of time and resources. This is because no such bug exists at present. Realistically, it would require the resources of a state, and not a lone wolf actor or a militant group, to design. Even then, the person engineering the organism would still have the additional challenge of assuring that it was sufficiently virulent to acutely infect its victims. Virulence is a huge issue in bioterrorism. It is something that groups who have carried out biological attacks in the past, like Aum Shinrikyo and the Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh c ult, have struggled with.

Granted, terrorist planners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have contemplated such attacks, among other chemical and biological weapons plots, but we have not seen concrete steps taken to implement such plans. This is likely due to the difficulty of conducting such an attack. Such schemes sound good when you are throwing ideas around, but they are very difficult to implement.
Realistic Vulnerabilities

In general, we do not believe that drinking water systems are the type of targets a militant organization such as al Qaeda or Hezbollah would choose to strike, as they do not have the inherent symbolism these groups generally look for when selecting targets. Such an attack would also not generate the same type of “shock and awe” effect that a suicide bombing or other more traditional attack would. However, a strike against the drinking water system of a highly recognizable city such as New York, Washington or Los Angeles might be seen as meeting this criterion. Other entities or actors, such as a delusional lone wolf or apocalyptic cult, might see the drinking water system in a particular city, like Denver, as a more attractive target.

That said, there are still some vulnerabilities in the water supply system that would not require a super pathogen and are within the reach of many militant actors, should they choose to attack. Perhaps the largest vulnerability in any system is the water treatment plant itself. As we saw previously in the Milwaukee example, a failure at a treatment plant can result in a very large contamination incident. Such a failure could be induced by sabotage at the plant, though such sabotage might be quickly noticed if it were not conducted in a subtle manner, and warnings would be sounded. Because of this, perhaps the greatest threat to a treatment plant is that posed by insiders, such as engineers who understand the system and know how to disable or bypass the safeguards in that system. Another threat to the plant could come in the form of a clever and knowledgeable hacker who could assume control of the plant’s fu nctions and subtly shut down critical systems. Such attacks would require far less resources than a program to genetically engineer a superbug.

Another factor to consider is the psychological impact of even an unsuccessful attack if it were conducted in an obvious manner. The perpetrators could even conduct such an obvious attack knowing that they were not going to induce mass casualties, and that the water treatment system was going to thwart their plans, but proceed anyway in an effort to sow panic and create a huge disruption.

This is where psychology comes in. If people hear that there is an incident at a water treatment plant due to a malfunction or flood and are asked to boil their water until further notice, they will do so without too much hysteria. However, if five apparent militants are seen dumping buckets into a reservoir — even if the contents of those buckets is green Kool-Aid — and people are asked to take the same course of action, the response is likely to be quite different. Even if tests failed to turn up evidence of a toxic substance, or enough of a toxic substance to make a measurable difference, the hysteria created by the specter of terrorism could very well have a tremendous psychological impact. Mass panic is likely to erupt.

Like many other potential targets, the drinking water system is vulnerable to attack. In fact, it could be easily attacked — though such an undertaking would most likely be unsuccessful at creating mass casualties. Like the 2001 anthrax attacks, however, such an event could trigger mass panic that would cause far more disruption and economic impact than the immediate effects of the plot itself.

4) Bankrupt "Exploiters": Part II
By Thomas Sowell

We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.

How did the government help create the current financial mess? Let me count the ways.

In addition to federal laws that pressure lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to, and in places where they would otherwise not invest, state and local governments have in various parts of the country so severely restricted building as to lead to skyrocketing housing prices, which in turn have led many people to resort to "creative financing" in order to buy these artificially more expensive homes.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve System brought interest rates down to such low levels that "creative financing" with interest-only mortgage loans enabled people to buy houses that they could not otherwise afford.

But there is no free lunch. Interest-only loans do not continue indefinitely. After a few years, such mortgage loans typically require the borrower to begin paying back some of the principal, which means that the monthly mortgage payments will begin to rise.

Since everyone knew that the Federal Reserve System's extremely low interest rates were not going to last forever, much "creative financing" also involved adjustable-rate mortgages, where the interest charged by the lender would rise when interest rates in the economy as a whole rose.

In the housing market, a difference of a couple of percentage points in the interest rate can make a big difference in the monthly mortgage payment.

For someone who buys a house costing half a million dollars-- which can be a very small house in many parts of coastal California-- the difference between paying 4 percent and 6 percent interest would amount to more than $7,000 a year.

For people who have had to stretch to the limit to buy a house, an increase of $7,000 a year in their mortgage payments can be enough to push them over the edge financially.

In other words, government laws and policies at federal, state and local levels have had the net effect of putting both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb.

Yet, when that limb began to crack, the first reaction in politics and in the media has been to look to government to solve this problem because-- as always-- it was called the market's fault, the lenders' fault and everybody's fault except those politicians who created this dicey situation in the first place.

Markets often get blamed for conveying a reality that was not created by the market.

For example, the fact that "the poor pay more" for what they buy in stores in low-income neighborhoods is often blamed on those who run these stores, rather than on those who create extra costs through crime, vandalism and riots.

If the store owners were making big profits, the big chain stores would be rushing in to share in the bonanza, instead of avoiding low-income neighborhoods like the plague.

Markets were also blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s and New Deal politicians were credited with getting us out of it. But increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that it was government intervention which prolonged the Great Depression beyond that of other depressions where the government did nothing.

The stock market crash of 1987 was at least as big as the stock market crash in 1929. But, instead of being followed by a Great Depression, the 1987 crash was followed by 20 years of economic growth, with low inflation and low unemployment.

The Reagan administration did nothing in 1987, despite outrage in the media at the government's failure to live up to its responsibility, as seen in liberal quarters. But nothing was apparently what needed to be done, so that markets could adjust.

The last thing politicians can do in an election year is nothing. So we can look for all sorts of "solutions" by politicians of both parties. Like most political solutions, these are likely to make matters worse.

5) Shut Up and Produce Some Oil
By Peter Ferrara


Liberals are flailing about looking for some political cover on energy and gas prices. For decades now, they have supported the policies of extremists who have systematically sought to shut down every major energy source for our economy. We can't drill for oil offshore, we can't drill in the frozen tundra of north Alaska, we can't even develop oil shale on the mainland. Liberals are even opposing the development of new oil discoveries in the Plains states. Meanwhile, China is now producing oil from wells in Cuban waters off the coast of Florida, selling and reaping enormous profits from oil that America should be producing.

Nuclear power? Can't have that. Jane Fonda showed us in a movie in the 1970s how dangerous that is. France and Japan have produced most of their electricity for decades through the nuclear power technology that America developed, and they are now competing to sell nuclear plant development to China and India.

One of the last U.S. nuclear projects was the Shoreham plant begun by Long Island Lighting Company in 1973. After years of ridiculous regulatory delays, the plant was shut down in 1989 by protests by liberal flower children, before producing any electricity. Long Island Lighting went bankrupt as a result. New Hampshire's Seabrook plant was held up for 14 years by similar regulatory delays, before finally opening in 1990 (and operating without harm ever since).

This is why there has been no new nuclear plant construction in the U.S. since then. Those regulatory delays are due to laws and policies adopted by liberals, who are willing to let extremists use them to shut down any such construction.


LIBERALS ARE NOW even opposing the development and even the maintenance of coal fired electric plants. The energy policy statement on Barack Obama's website says, "Obama believes that the imperative to confront climate change requires that we prevent a new wave of traditional coal facilities in the U.S." In Georgia, a state judge denied a permit for a new coal electricity plant on the grounds of global warming (which is a figment of the liberal imagination to justify a big government power grab). Meanwhile, China opens a new coal plant every week on its way to eventually pass the U.S. as the number one economy in the world.

The last new oil and gas refinery was built in the U.S. in 1976. A good example of the reason why is going on right now in Indiana. BP is constructing a $3.8 billion expansion of its already existing Whiting refinery in that state. But the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has now brought suit against BP seeking an injunction against the expansion, and fines of $32,500 for each day construction has been under way. The NRDC is urging the court to adopt a new interpretation of state law that would require BP to get a new state permit first because with the expansion the refinery would supposedly discharge more "pollution" than the current state permit allows. If the NRDC has found a liberal enough judge, it may get its way, to the great detriment of the rest of us.

Some liberals are even now calling for the elimination of already built and operating hydroelectric power plants, on the grounds that the dams in such projects distort the environment too much. This would require dams to be destroyed and occupied valleys to be flooded.

The problem for liberals is that we are now running into the iron logic of the law of supply and demand, which, unfortunately for them, most voters can understand. Shut down the supply of oil and you get gas prices starting to run towards $5 a gallon. This winter, the price of home heating oil will brutalize the budgets of many families. We are getting to the point where an effective bumper sticker will be, "Keep the Lights On, Vote Republican."


THAT IS WHY the bold Republican initiative to expand oil production and other energy supplies, originally developed by Newt Gingrich, is so effective, and so threatening to liberals. Polls show increasingly overwhelming public support.

As a result, liberals are flailing about offering increasingly absurd distractions. One argument is that even if we started drilling for oil now, we wouldn't get any increased supply, and any reduction in gas prices, for 10 years or more. One popinjay from the misnamed Center for American Progress was recently spouting on TV that there would be no effect until 2030.

Well, let's see. On Friday, July 14, the price of a barrel of oil hit $147. On Monday, July 17, President Bush withdrew the Executive Order banning offshore drilling. That doesn't even start any new drilling because there is still a Congressional ban in place. Nevertheless, by Friday, July 21, after 4 straight days of decline, the price of oil had plummeted to $128, a decline of 13% on a symbolic action alone. The Center for American "Progress" was only off by 21 years, 51 weeks.

There are oil wells off the Pacific coast that were capped years ago when the offshore drilling ban was first adopted. They could be brought back into production in less than a year. Expert oil engineers recently interviewed have said other sites could be producing in 18 months. The standard estimate for production from new drilling in Alaska is 10 years. But if the government gets the lawsuits and regulatory delays out of the way, here's betting the new wells would be producing in less than 5 years.

More importantly, if Congress adopted a comprehensive plan to open up domestic oil production in the U.S., everyone would know that in the long run the price of oil would be heading down. That would break the back of the oil panic today that has driven the price up to ridiculous levels. If the Fed reversed its weak dollar policy at the same time, within a year the price of oil would drop by 50% or more, dropping the price of gas down close to $2 a gallon, which is where it should be. In a competitive market, price is supposed to equal the marginal cost of production. For a barrel of oil, that would be $25 to $40 at most, which is where the long term price of oil would be if the U.S. removed production restrictions.


ANOTHER DISTRACTION is the argument that even if new oil production is allowed, there is no guarantee the oil companies won't sell the oil to Japan or China rather than to American consumers. This argument is 100% bad economics. The truth is, it doesn't matter where the oil is sold. All the new production would increase the world supply of oil regardless of where it is sold. With world supply up, the world price would decline. If new production from Alaska is sold to Japan, the oil that would have otherwise been sold to Japan could then be sold to the U.S.

In fact, if you look at a globe, you would see that Alaska is close to Japan. It would be most efficient, meaning reduced costs and prices, for the production there to be sold to Japan, and for production from South America that would otherwise go to Japan to go to the U.S. instead. That would be the natural result of an efficient market. But to counter the distracting nonsense of desperate liberals grasping for power at all costs, the new production can always be required to be sold in the U.S.

Still another distracting argument is that the oil companies already have millions of acres in oil leases, so why don't they just produce more oil from those areas? The oil companies pay for those leases for exploration. There is no guarantee that any leased areas will actually hold producible oil. Given that the oil companies must pay rent for the term of those leases regardless of whether any oil is produced, and that the price of oil is at record, unprecedented, historic levels, any oil company that was not producing all it could from any of its leases would be subject to shareholder lawsuits for waste of corporate assets. It is just like liberals to demand that oil companies produce more from areas that do not hold any more oil while denying access to areas with massive proven reserves.

Liberals argue that if we would just sell a small portion of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that the U.S. government holds in case of emergency, oil and gas prices would fall. So now all of a sudden liberals recognize that increased supply on the market would reduce prices. But any such sales would be a drop in the bucket, and only temporary, likely, indeed, to be reversed later to restore the reserve. So this would have no significant, lasting effect.

Yet another distraction is that we should just increase the required miles per gallon under the CAFÉ standards for the production of new vehicles. This is no answer to the oil and gas price problem because it involves only restricting consumer freedom of choice, and ultimately reducing the American standard of living. It means that consumers should be prohibited from buying the vehicles they want, and instead should be allowed to buy only the vehicles the government wants them to have. The SUV explosion was all about the American consumer wanting bigger, more powerful vehicles rather than vehicles with better fuel economy. There have long been low cost vehicles available for sale in the U.S. operating with close to 50 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency. But consumers have failed to choose those cars, while close to half of sales of new vehicles have been SUVs with low fuel efficiency exempt from the CAFE standards.


IF NOW WITH HIGHER gas prices American consumers want to abandon SUVs and buy more fuel efficient cars, that should be their choice. But the government should not be imposing that choice on them. Yet Barack Obama says on his website that he wants "to double fuel economy standards within 18 years." That involves an assault on the standard of living of the middle class, which would be forced to give up the big, powerful vehicles they now enjoy for the tiny, little sardine cans that most Europeans drive. In fact, there has been talk precisely of allowing car manufacturers to import into the U.S. the little fuel efficient vehicles that they now make for Europe.

Assaulting the standard of living of the middle class is what Barack Obama is all about. For you can search through all of his position papers, speeches and talking points and not find a word about reducing the price of gas or oil. He clearly has no intention of trying to reduce the price of gas at all. He has said, in fact, that the high price of gas and oil is good for the environment, and the only problem is that the prices increased too suddenly. This is the Marie Antoinette school of energy policy.

Remember Obama's famous quote:

"We can't just keep driving our SUVs, eating whatever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the tundra or the desert, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just 4 percent of the world's population, and expect the rest of the world to say you just go ahead. We'll be fine. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

What he means by this is that the current standard of living of the American people is unfair. It represents massive inequality in comparison to the rest of the world. So here we have a leading Presidential candidate who thinks truth and justice requires a reduction in our opulent middle class living standards. Good luck, and good night.

6) Ashkenazi in Washington for Iran talks


While US Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama told Israel during his visit to the country that he would do "everything in his power" to stop Iran from acquiring news, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi seemed to receive the same message from senior American officials during his visit to the Washington, D.C.

Ahmadinejad: Iran will never suspend its uranium enrichment

"We all agree that Iran ought to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, and there is no doubt that the preference is for diplomatic action and sanctions," Ashkenazi said on Wednesday, after holding a number of meetings on the subject in the US capital..

Ashkenazi added that "everyone understands- both we and the Americans- that one must prepare for every option."

The issue of the Iranian threat stood at the center of the IDF chief's meetings and talks with his American counterparts.

Ashkenazi was greeted on Wednesday evening with a special reception in his honor at the Israeli embassy in DC, and commented to the journalists present that he was pleased with the meetings' progress and is eagerly anticipating his session with US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, on Thursday.

According to the Israeli general, the goal of his had been to expand operational inclusion and to intensify the dialogue between the Israeli and American militaries and indicated that he has been pleased with the results thus far.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen....

7) Obama's Berlin Moment
By James Lewis

Obama's Premature Inauguration Syndrome is still giving him trouble, witness the mass Obama rally scheduled for Berlin's SiegessSaeule or Victory Column, to celebrate his penetrating insight in foreign affairs. Google's top listing of this Ueberphallic Prussian monument has to be seen to be believed: It is a favorite Berlin gay newspaper, as you can see. You have to admit those Germans have a sense of humor.

What superficial American tourists never understand, of course, is that just about all those magnificent European monuments stand for historical massacres. Even the big cathedrals symbolize the religious wars of the Reformation, which killed more people than anything before Napoleon and the World Wars. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris commemorates Napoleon's imperial invasions of just about all of Europe (with 41 million dead). The Prussian Victory Column in Berlin, before it became a gay icon, was a proud celebration of Prussian victory against Napoleon's invasion of Germany, Spain, Russia, the Low Countries, Sweden, and Egypt. It reminds Germans of the Prussian victory over Napoleon at Waterloo (with Lord Wellington playing a minor role), plus the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and of course World War I. It all adds up to tens of millions of dead people.

Just like one of those embarrassing American tourists, Obama insenitively reminds Europeans of past massacres and the war propaganda and hysteria that marked the Prussian rise to dominance. The German crowds probably won't chant "Hoch! Hoch!" at Obama, as they used to when der Kaiser's Prussian troops went marching by on the way to the killing fields of World War I. But what will they chant? Or is chanting forbidden, along with banners?

As a German politician remarked,

"The Siegessaeule in Berlin was moved from the Reichstag (German parliament) to its current position by Adolf Hitler," Rainer Bruederle, deputy chairman of the opposition Liberal Party, FDP, said in an interview with Bild am Sonntag. He said he questioned, "if Barack Obama has been well advised to use it as the site of a speech outlining his vision of a world of cooperation."


Yes, well. Good taste is not exactly the mark of Obama's rallies so far. The Germans are lucky that Obama isn't opening with the Decemberist rock band playing the Soviet National Anthem, as they are wont to do, the same way his famous "75,000 person rally" opened in Portland, when he beat Hillary in the Oregon Primary. The real Decemberists were secret Russian revolutionaries, whose movement ultimately led to the mass murder of some 100 million unfortunate people during the reign of Marxist regimes in Europe. That ended with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s, at the urging of Ronald Reagan. But Obamanistas wouldn't know about that.

The history of Europe is all glorified blood, blood, and more blood. Today, Eurosocialists claim to be all about peace. But in fact socialism has been a classic European imperialist movement -- what do you think the Soviet Union was all about? Today Eurosocialism is limited to peaceful imperialism, but not a few decades ago it taught agitators like Pol Pot how to kill, and sent him off to Cambodia to murder three million of his people. As long as the massacres happened far away, European socialists were happy. They still are.

In fact, Eurosocialism still contains all the seeds of classic European imperialism: The endless sense of Europe's superiority over the rest of the world, the preachiness of how the rest of the world must live, the constant efforts to impose global carbon taxes, poverty taxes, and UN rules on subject nations (like the US) for the greater glory of Germany-France-Spain-Britain -- all the classic European imperial powers look at the US with green imperialism envy.

Imperialism never stopped in Europe. It just stopped being violent for a while, because America beat European imperial powers in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. And don't think they don't know it. Why do you think Europeans loved to hate America over the overthrow of Saddam? Saddam's Baathist Party was modeled after Europe's fascist parties, after all.

As Roger Cohen just wrote in the New York Times, itself the very home and soapbox of Eurosocialism in America,

"Barack Obama has already won the U.S. election by a landslide. In Europe, that is. Polls show the French putting the first African-American in the White House with 86 percent backing. Obamania is about as intense in Germany and Britain, the two other European countries the Senator will visit this week."


Welcome back to Europe, Senator Obama. They will recognize you there, although they might be just a little bit nervous about those screaming mass rallies on their home grounds. That hasn't really happened a lot since you-know-who.