Goodbye America! A Simple Case of Bad Math!

In 6 months our quick change artist president has bailed out our banking system, taken over the auto industry, intruded the government into compensation packages and marketing directives, expanded union control, paid off constitutent voting blocs with tax payer revenue, ignored threats from N Korea and Iran and made a lot of speeches to disaffected groups in the treasured hope America will be loved again.

This week Obama goes to Egypt to pay homage to the Muslim world in the desire to change their opinion of America - the evil empire. He set the stage by announcing he would close Gitmo, has bent over backwards to apologize for everything the prior administration did to protect our nation from radical Islamist threats and has altered our relationship with Israel. (See 1 and 1a below.)

He has nominated a Supreme Court Justice whose background is comparable to those whom he voted against because they were chosen by a Republican president and he has sought to blame most everything he complains is wrong on his predecessor(s.)

Most importantly, he now seeks to change our health care delivery system by having government bureaucrats decide what medical professionals should do and not do and he has apparently abandoned the school children of his own race while educating his own by choice.

Obama has made promises with abandon and, to date, delivered very little of substance. The press and media have given him a pass and continue to highlight rhetoric over accomplishment but in time his accomplishments will become evident for better or worse. (See 1b below.)

Obama believes in a one world concept where government controls just about everything including the very air we breathe and he has the votes to pretty much accomplish his objective of remaking our nation into a clone of European Socialism.

When our whirling dervish president has completed his frenetic dance, attacked all the pinatas he has set up, then and only then it possibly will dawn upon the masses whether they got more than they bargained for and, by then, it may be too late, if they have, because the die will have been cast and turning back will be beyond reach.

So goodbye America - it was great while it lasted but we outspent our resources, debased our currency, leveraged our economy, borrowed to the hilt, dumbed down our education system and, in the process, wound up sacrificing our industrial might on the anvil of profligacy and political correctness. Our standard of living is going to decline, our power as a pre-iminent nation is rapidly being eclipsed and the question remains unanswered how much we can retain of our former greatness. A depressing forecast? Yes, but one I firmly believe is set in concrete. (See 1c below.)

Perhaps it was inevitable and Obama has simply hastened the eventuality. No nation can spend beyond its means, produce less of what it needs to sell, while maintaining its stature on a base of self-indulging political nest featherers. If for no other reason, it is a simple case of bad math. (See 1d below.)

An American government that is based on wealth distribution and increasing methods to achieve same suggests a radical departure from the America I have come to know. Our nation has always been one furthering upward mobility, one that rewards success and encourages individual entrepreneurship. Politically speaking the widening disparity between the top and bottom socio-economic segments provided fertile ground for egalitarianism and the appeal of populist rhetoric. This paradigm shift was also enabled by an increasing number of citizens who no longer have skin in the game, ie. have been taken off the income tax rolls and most importantly by a rising increase in illegal immigration.

Viet Nam radically altered the nation's respect for law and order and the impact of Woodstock and drugs must never be forgotten in regard to their impact on social behaviour.

Unionization demands that outstripped the competitive cost equation for many industries led to job loss, outsourcing and factory relocation also laid the foundation for social discontent. America led the Industrial Revolution and we came through two wars basically unscathed while Europe bled. However, our own steep Depression provided FDR and his 'brain trust' (read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Schlaes) the petri dish for social engineering and experimentation from which we never recovered and, in fact, the current administration is simply the final clonal extension down the yellow brick road calling for vast changes and overwhelming government control and intrusion of the private sector.

Again, economic excess, ill-conceived social concepts, political pandering; an unpopular war, supposedly in response to an external threat, 9/11 and a president whose verbal skills were inept and decades of excessive spending raised the dissatisfaction bar allowing a skilled but inexperienced political novice to be swept into office on the soaring carpet of discontent. And so, the messiah has arrived and America is being changed. For some it will be for the better but, I believe, for most it will not be what they bargained for - time will tell and always does.

But, when all is said and done Obama simplistically boils it down to just another pinata - Israeli settlements. Follow my example and the world will be a better place. By constantly setting up straw-men our youthful president sets the stage for off-loading potential failure. (See 1e below.)

The N Korea we do not know. (See 2 below.)

A rosy economic outlook but within the context of a cautionary note. (See 3 below.)

Obama's outreach program - Muslims we are not your enemy! Maybe it has been Israel all along - they just won't stop their expansion! (See 4 and 4a below.)

Andrew Thomas seeks to define the ingredients that it takes to make up a Liberal. (See 5 below.)

Is Russia shutting the door on the trap Obama may be laying for himself and the world? You decide. (See 6 below.)

Can the world relate to Israeli reality, does it even care to or are Israeli's over-reacting to expressed extistential threats? (See 7 below.)

A black man find racism in Sotomayor's comments and 'taken out of context' becomes the Liberal fall back position. (See 8 below.)

Bret Stephen's reminds us of a little fact. (See 9 below.)


Eventually Murtha will be brought down by members of his own party, not because he was a corrupt lout and imperious bully but because his compatriots fear the spill-over effect from his excess. (See 10 below.)


Dick

1) Pressure on Israel raises war risk
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.



From this vantage point, two events this week appear to be ominous straws in the wind, warnings of a "man-caused" maelstrom that inexorably may plunge the Middle East into another, potentially cataclysmic war.


The first is that Israel feels obliged to undertake an unprecedented, countrywide civil defense exercise this week. At one point, every man, woman and child in the Jewish state is supposed to seek shelter from a simulated attack of the kind Iran may shortly be able to execute against it.


The second is President Obama's latest effort to reach out to the Muslim world, on Thursday from one of its most important capitals, Cairo. There, he is expected to make a speech reiterating his previous statements on the subject — which, unfortunately, can only have been interpreted by his intended audience as acts of submission.


If the past is prelude, the president of the United States will: apologize yet again for purported offenses against Muslims by his country; promise to be respectful of Islam, including those who adhere to its authoritative, if virulent, theo-political-legal program known as Shariah; and enunciate diplomatic priorities and initiatives designed to reach out to America's enemies in the region while putting excruciating pressure on its most reliable ally there, Israel.


This pressure has become more palpable by the day. It has taken various forms, including: U.S. stances adopted at the United Nations that will isolate Israel; blank political and even financial checks for Palestinian thugs such as Mahmoud Abbas; diminishing U.S.-Israeli cooperation on intelligence and military matters; and the withholding from Israel of helicopters (and perhaps other weaponry) being provided to Arab states.


Perhaps the most chilling example of this coercive pressure so far, however, was reported originally in the Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot and given international prominence by my esteemed colleague and fellow JWR contributor Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post. According to these accounts, in a recent lecture in Washington, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the American officer charged with training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, made a shocking declaration.


In Ms. Glick's words, Gen. Dayton "indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis." She noted that neither the general nor the Obama administration seemed to find this prospect grounds for rethinking the wisdom of such a training-and-arming program. In fact, her column observed that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates "just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy."


Taken together with the U.S. administration's refusal to come to grips with what truly is the most serious threat to peace in the Middle East — Iran's rising power and growing aggressiveness, reflecting in part its incipient nuclear-weapons capabilities — the stage inexorably is being set for the next, and perhaps most devastating, regional conflict.


Whether the signals Mr. Obama is sending are intended to communicate such a message or not, they will be read by Israel's enemies as evidence of a profound rift between the United States and the Jewish state. In this part of the world, that amounts to an invitation to an open season on Israel.


It is hard to believe the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress. Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally. Quite apart from a sense of moral and religious affinity for the Jewish people's struggle to survive in their ancient homeland, most of us recognize it is in the United States' strategic interest to stand with Israel.


It is worrisome in the extreme that Mr. Obama does not appear to share this appreciation. To those who worried about his affinity for the Saudi king and Islam more generally and his long-standing ties to virulent critics of Israel such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and former Harvard professor-turned-National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, the president's attitude is not exactly a surprise.


His administration's posture may have been further reinforced by Arab-American pollster John Zogby's recent Forbes magazine article arguing that friends of Israel made up John McCain's constituency, not Mr. Obama's. (This raises an interesting question about the sentiments toward Israel of the 78 percent of American Jews who voted for the latter in 2008.)


My guess, however, is that, as the implications of Mr. Obama's Middle East policies — for the United States as well as Israel — become clearer, he will find himself facing the sort of popular and congressional revolt that has confronted him in recent weeks on Guantanamo Bay. The question is: Will such a reaffirmation of American solidarity with and support for Israel come in time to prevent the winds of war being whipped up by Mr. Obama's posturing and rhetoric — and driving Israelis into bomb shelters — from wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and perhaps far beyond?

1a) The Speech Obama should Give in Cairo
By Robert Spencer

As Barack Obama prepares to give his long-anticipated major address to the Islamic world from Cairo, as a public service I here offer the speech he should give:


Dear friends,


I have said that in this speech I would offer my personal commitment to engagement with the Islamic world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. Establishing peace between the forces of the global jihad and America and her ally Israel is something that I would very much love to do. The first thing I must acknowledge, however, is that much as I would love to see this peace dawning over the world, it is not within my power to achieve this.


That may surprise many of you. You have grown accustomed to thinking that the tensions between Muslims and the United States - tensions that boiled over on September 11, 2001 and on the occasions of many other acts of jihad terrorism as well - are entirely the fault of the United States. Americans have been told that we are hated because of our support for Israel, and because of our attempts to bring freedom and stability to the overwhelmingly Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are hated because we have spent American treasure to try to secure a better life for Muslims the world over, spending billions of dollars in aid for Egypt, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries.


I must speak honestly with you. It puzzles and pains Americans to see ourselves vilified and hated for trying to help others. Now, unlike the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Islamic entities, we seek no apologies, no restitution. We do not ask for a word of thanks for our numerous attempts to help Muslim societies become safe, prosperous places to live for all their citizens. We do not ask for your approval. But at this point we are going to cease efforts to build bridges of understanding with the Islamic world that have turned out to be fruitless, and even self-defeating.


We have showered billions on Pakistan to enable the Pakistani government to fight the Islamic jihadists, only to see a great deal of that many being funneled to those same jihadists, who are now stronger than ever.


We have tried to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to see non-Muslim minorities treated worse than ever, such that they have been streaming out of Iraq in unprecedented numbers, while the few that remain in Afghanistan are subject to increasingly violent persecution.


We have brokered peace treaty after peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians - from Camp David to Oslo to the Road Map for Peace - only to see the Palestinian side again and again trample upon its commitments to recognize and respect Israel's basic right to exist.


I have offered you America's outstretched hand. In doing so I have followed a path blazed by my predecessors. But that gesture of conciliation has never been reciprocated. And so now, even as my good will is still extended to you, I must act more realistically.


Pakistan and other Muslim countries will not receive another penny of American aid unless and until they demonstrate - in a transparent and inspectable fashion - that they are working against, not abetting, the forces of the global jihad. This will include instituting comprehensive nationwide programs to teach against the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism, teaching that Muslims and non-Muslims must live together as equal citizens on an indefinite basis, without any attempts by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.


I trust you will understand that we cannot continue to fund the cutting of our own throat.


Afghanistan and Iraq must immediately guarantee the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, or American arms will no longer devote themselves to keeping regimes in power that do not guarantee those rights.


I will call upon Israel to make no further territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 demonstrated only that such concessions whet, rather than sate, the appetites of Islamic jihadists for more concessions. The assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace ignores not only recent history, but also the stated goal of the jihadist movements arrayed against Israel: the destruction of the Jewish state.


That state is an American ally - a more reliable one than any Islamic state has ever been. And we will do whatever is necessary to preserve and defend that ally.


Our hand is outstretched, but we are not unrealistic about the nature of the world. The animus between us is as much, if not more, the result of the doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism as it is a result of American policy. I am telling you today that we understand this, and will be acting accordingly. Ultimately a policy based on realism will be much better for both of us than policies based on the fantasies and half-truths that have hitherto prevailed.


Thank you, and may God bless you.


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.



1b) The Obama Infatuation
By Robert Samuelson

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press -- on domestic, if not foreign, policy -- has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

The study examined 1,261 stores by The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent) , while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent).

Unlike Bush and Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."

When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets -- cable channels, news Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio -- the results were similar, despite some outliers. No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.

The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That's well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.

Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile; but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly-partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.

The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job performance rating is 63 percent. But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.

Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African-American president fail.

Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. "Independents" have increased, and "there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism."

The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.

1c) Geithner says global recession losing force
By Martin Crutsinger

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that the global recession seemed to be losing force but that it will be critical for the United States and China to institute major economic reforms to put the world on a more sustained footing.

Geithner said that a successful transition to a more balanced and stable global economy will require substantial changes to economic policy and financial regulation around the world and especially in the world's largest and third largest economies.

"How successful we are in Washington and Beijing will be critically important to the economic fortunes of the rest of the world," Geithner said in a major economic address at Peking University, where he had studied Chinese as a college student more than two decades ago.

The Obama administration's chief economic spokesman was using his first trip to China as treasury secretary to pursue closer economic ties with China, seeking to turn the page on years of acrimony between the two countries over contentious trade issues.

Geithner had told reporters on his way to Beijing that he wanted to foster the same kind of working relationship with China that the United States has enjoyed for decades with major European economic powers.

In his speech, Geithner had extensive praise for the economic transformation China has achieved and avoided emphasizing past trade disputes such as the aggressive campaign waged by the Bush administration to force China to move faster to allow its currency, the yuan, to rise in value against the dollar.

American manufacturers see the undervalued yuan as a primary culprit in the soaring trade deficits the United States has with China, deficits that critics contend have played a major role in the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs.

Geithner struck a positive note on the global economy, noting a number of signs in the United States that the huge plunge in activity that occurred last year when the financial crisis struck with force had started to slow.

"The global recession seems to be losing force.... The financial system is starting to heal," Geithner said.

"These are important signs of stability and assurance that we will succeed in averting financial collapse and global deflation, but they represent only the first steps in laying the foundation for recovery," Geithner said. "The process of repair and adjustment is going to take time."

Geithner said the necessary reforms will include getting the U.S. budget deficit under control once the recovery is firmly in place, something he said the Obama administration was committed to doing. He said China will need to strengthen its social safety net in such areas as pensions and health care so that the Chinese will feel more confident about spending more. That is viewed as critical if China is going to transform from an export-driven economy into one driven more by domestic consumption, a change that Geithner said was essential to assuring balanced world growth in the years ahead.

"Our common challenge is to recognize that a more balanced and sustainable global recovery will require changes in the composition of growth in our two economies," Geithner said.

Geithner sought to reassure the Chinese on the issue of getting control of the exploding U.S. budget deficit, which is projected to hit a record $1.84 trillion this year, a fourfold increase from last year's record, reflecting the massive spending to stimulate the economy and stabilize the banking system. China is America's biggest creditor, holding $768 billion in Treasury securities.

While not a main focus of Geithner's trip, the U.S. also hopes China will play a positive role in resolving a tense dispute with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.

Geithner could not escape the fallout from the recession even as he crossed the globe. He took a military aircraft with the latest in communications equipment that allowed him to be in frequent contact with Steven Rattner, head of the administration's auto task force, and Obama economic aide Lawrence Summers, who phoned with updates on the pivotal weekend negotiations with General Motors Corp.

Geithner spent the trip in a private cabin at the back of the plane that was equipped with a desk and a bed. Most of the time he was either working the phones, huddled with aides or revising the speech he was to give Monday.

China, with 1.3 billion people, ranks as the third largest economy after the U.S. and Japan. Geithner said China's new status should be recognized with a bigger voice in such institutions as the International Monetary Fund.

In addition to meeting with some of his former professors on Monday, Geithner was scheduled to visit an economist training program set up by his father when the elder Geithner was in charge of Ford Foundation programs in Asia.

China has turned its huge trade surpluses with the U.S. into the largest holdings of Treasury debt, but has raised concerns about America's commitment to deficit reform. Financial markets in recent weeks have sent long-term interest rates higher, a move that some attribute to worries about the U.S. budget deficits.


1d) Cap-and-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit
By Martin Feldstein



The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have proposed a major cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction. The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households. And to get political support in key states, the legislation would abandon the auctioning of permits in favor of giving permits to selected corporations.

The leading legislative proposal, the Waxman-Markey bill that was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would reduce allowable CO2 emissions to 83 percent of the 2005 level by 2020, then gradually decrease the amount further. Under the cap-and-trade system, the federal government would limit the total volume of CO2 that U.S. companies can emit each year and would issue permits that companies would be required to have for each ton of CO2 emitted. Once issued, these permits would be tradable and could be bought and sold, establishing a market price reflecting the targeted CO2 reduction, with a tougher CO2 standard and fewer available permits leading to higher prices.

Companies would buy permits from each other as long as it is cheaper to do that than to make the technological changes needed to eliminate an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions. Companies would also pass along the cost of the permits in their prices, pushing up the relative price of CO2-intensive goods and services such as gasoline, electricity and a range of industrial products. Consumers would respond by cutting back on consumption of CO2-intensive products in favor of other goods and services. This pass-through of the permit cost in higher consumer prices is the primary way the cap-and-trade system would reduce the production of CO2 in the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction -- slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target -- would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

The CBO estimates that the sale of the permits for a 15 percent CO2 reduction would raise revenue of about $80 billion a year over the next decade. It is remarkable, then, that the Waxman-Markey bill would give away some 85 percent of the permits over the next 20 years to various businesses instead of selling them at auction. The price of the permits and the burden to households would be the same whether the permits are sold or given away. But by giving them away the government would not collect the revenue that could, at least in principle, be used to offset some of the higher cost to households.

The Waxman-Markey bill would give away 30 percent of the permits to local electricity distribution companies with the expectation that their regulators would require those firms to pass the benefit on to their customers. If they do this by not raising prices, there would be less CO2 reduction through lower electricity consumption. The permit price would then have to be higher to achieve more CO2 reduction on all other products. Some electricity consumers would benefit, but the cost to all other American families would be higher.

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.

1e) Obama committed to close ties with Israel - but demands settlement freeze

Ahead of his high-profile speech of reconciliation to the Muslims world June 4, US president Barack Obama vowed to sustain close US tie with Israel but said the status quo in the region was "unsustainable" for Israel's security.

In a National Public Radio interview late Monday, June 1, he emphasized his differences with Israel when he said: "We do have to retain a constant belief in… negotiations that will lead to peace" and "I've said that a freeze on settlements, including expansion to accommodate successive generations of settlers, is part of that." Earlier Monday, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that halting construction in West Bank settlements would be equal to “freezing life,” and, therefore, “unreasonable.”

"The United States special relationship with Israel requires some tough love," Obama went on to say.

"Part of being a good friend is being honest," he said. "I think there have been times when we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction… in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also for US interests."

Obama also called on the Palestinians to improve security – a new White House demand meaning an end to terror and anti-Israel incitement.

Washington sources report that Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak's hopes of modifying the administration's stance on West Bank settlements and a Palestinians state during his current talks with US officials are unfounded: "New dialogue" is the current byword, as the US president reiterated, and it will not be abandoned until, or unless, it is completely unstuck. Obama's address to Muslims is integral to this policy as is his insistence on engaging Iran in diplomacy on its nuclear program.

Therefore the Netanyahu government's strategy of skirting the real issues to avoid a clash will not work.

Israeli leaders must practice the same honesty as the United States – and be less defensive, according to political sources, and state loudly that the Arab and Muslim world thrusts the "Middle East" issue, a euphemism for Israel, to the fore to present a solid front to the West, while avoiding addressing the real problems afflicting their societies and relations with the United States.

Even if every single settlement was removed from the West Bank, would Iran stop developing nuclear weapons? Would the Taliban, backed by al Qaeda, stop fighting to regain power in Afghanistan and Islamize Pakistan? Would the radical Middle East front led by Hizballah be stopped from winning Lebanon's general election on June 6 and dropping Beirut in the laps of Syria and Iran? Is Israel involved in the fate of Iraq?

And Israel must say just as frankly that, even for the Palestinians, locked as they are in bitter armed infighting, Israel is now a peripheral presence. The extremist Hamas, which seized the Gaza Strip after Israel's 2005 evacuation of every last settlement, is now bent on capturing the West Bank from the Palestinian Authority. While Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama talked quietly in the White House last week, Hamas laid plans to replicate embattled Beirut in Nablus, Tulkarm, Jenin, and Qalqilya, certain of its victory regardless of the training PA security forces receive from US, British and Canadian instructors.

Netanyahu would do far better to lay these issues out publicly and the clear the air over differences with Washington with "tough honesty" instead of pussyfooting around them.

As for clearing the air in US-Muslim relations, Middle East sources report rising resentment over the forthcoming Obama speech in the very Muslim circles which the US president wants to placate.

One point made in their media is that the Muslim world cannot be addressed as a single collective unit - a kind of one size fits all; another is that they would prefer deeds and will not buy the magical Obama rhetoric or his promises. The top priority shared by almost every Muslim is the removal of US troops from their neighborhood. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are seen as American wars against Muslims rather than campaigns against terror.

President Obama is also criticized for picking Cairo as the venue for his speech. Some Muslim columnists say the choice brings no comfort to President Hosni Mubarak and his regime because the Muslim Brotherhood, its Palestinian offshoot Hamas and other radical Islamic groups will be able seize on it as a gesture of understanding for their cause.

Egyptians are also deeply offended by his decision to use Cairo as a platform and then leave without spending a single night there as a guest.


2) Time to Face Facts on Our North Korea Ignorance
By Robert Baer

It's not what we know about rogue states and their nuclear bombs that should scare us — it's what we don't know. North Korea's test of a nuclear device on Monday may not have come as a surprise to Washington, but only in the sense that Washington knew Pyongyang was defiant enough to set one off. Beyond that, truth be told, Washington is completely in the dark about North Korea's intentions. It can only expect the worse and hope for the better. (See pictures of North Korea's DMZ.)

Since its founding in 1948, North Korea has been an American intelligence nightmare. There's no American embassy in Pyongyang, few Americans visit the country, and, when they do, any substantive contact with North Koreans is impossible. We have no idea which generals are for the bomb and which are against. For that matter we're not even sure Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, is really in charge. (See TIME's photo-essay "Kim Jong Il: Doctored Photos?")

It is impossible for American intelligence to understand the North's military, the people who keep Kim in power. Military officers are rarely let out of the country, and when they are they travel in pairs, preventing any possibility of making contact. To give you an idea just how impenetrable the military is, North Korea is the only country in the world that can execute large deployments while maintaining radio silence. If it can enforce discipline like that on the military, it's not surprising that it has no problem keeping its nuclear secrets. (See TIME's photo-essay "North Korea Goes to the Polls.")

There are always lucky breaks, but we have to face that fact that we will never get inside North Korea to the point that we can rely on an international monitoring system. On Tuesday, the U.S. military flew "sniffer" planes off North Korea's coast, hoping to learn more about Monday's test. But it will be of little help. It cannot tell us how much plutonium the North still has, whether it intends to restart the Yongbyon reactor, or, for that matter, whether it is seriously thinking about invading South Korea.

We have the same problems with Iran, having no idea how close it is to a bomb. Since the Shah, the American intelligence community every four years incorrectly predicted Iran would get the bomb in the next five years. Today, even if Iran were to submit to complete international inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities, the suspicion would always hang over us that Iran has kept a secret nuclear-weapons program run by the military.

What this all means is that better intelligence, pre-emptive sanctions based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence, and threats are not going to stop North Korea or Iran from becoming nuclear powers. Instead what we need is an ex post facto international regime with real teeth: You test a bomb, and you face certain and total economic embargo, one that will make the pre-emptive sanctions we have in place now seem like a day at the polo club. Right now China should be closing its border with North Korea, cutting off everything except food. It is only when the lights go off in Pyongyang that the North Koreans will seriously consider giving up the bomb.

Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know.

3) Has the threat of a Great Depression vanished?
Anatole Kaletsky

Still not convinced? Green shoots are sprouting into a jungle around the world. Consider a few of the economic indicators published in the past two weeks: British house prices have risen in two of the past three months. Japan has experienced its biggest monthly increase in industrial production since the Fifties. Consumer and business sentiment are rising strongly in the United States and Britain and are even showing some signs of life in Europe. In America, where all the trouble started, unemployment claims have fallen, durable goods orders and property sales have bounced back and house prices have stabilised, although not yet in the 20 boom-bust cities sampled by the Case-Shiller index, which the markets, in their wisdom, have chosen to emphasise.

The list of bullish statistics could go on, but it can be best be summarised in the market's own judgment world share prices have enjoyed a three-month rally, led by commodities, retailers and financials, capital markets have re-opened, with record issuance of equities and corporate bonds, credit spreads have narrowed and government bond prices have fallen in exactly the way they did at the start of the recovery in 2003.

Yet most economic commentators have remained sceptical or even contemptuous of all this evidence. Surely, they argue, the threat of another Great Depression could not just have vanished in a puff of statistics? Is anyone so naive as to think that a crisis caused by over-leveraging can be solved by government borrowing and money-printing?

Actually, some people are so naive. I have always believed, for example, that private sector de-leveraging can, in principle, be outweighed by fiscal and monetary expansion, provided that this is aggressive enough. I also felt that the Great Recession was not some divine retribution for the moral turpitude of greedy bankers and pampered consumers but actually an avoidable accident, caused mainly by the incompetence of the Bush Administration's handling of Lehman and Fannie Mae. From this standpoint, there is nothing surprising about the recent improvement in economic conditions. From a financial standpoint, the scepticism of media and market commentators is a cause for confidence, not concern.

Bull markets always tend to “climb a wall of worry” because the inflow of money from sceptics as they become believers is what gives the uptrend its staying power. From this point of view, lurid media headlines can be regarded as encouraging. Nobody should be surprised that sterling shot up in response to the ludicrous story about a downgrade in the British Government's debt. Looking beyond the media hype, are there genuine reasons for worry? In meetings with businessmen and investors, I find anxieties focus on Seven Deadly Sins, which could yet set the world back on the path to economic perdition:

1. Rising bond yields could crush growth and produce a W-shaped recession.

2. America and Britain could follow Japan's experience, when government support for “zombie banks” thwarted economic growth.

3. Consumer and business de-leveraging, driven by collapsing property prices, could stifle any recovery.

4. Fiscal deficits could threaten government solvency or force central banks into printing money Zimbabwe-style.

5. Inadequate consumption in China, Germany and Japan could prevent a rebalancing of the world economy and create new asset bubbles.

6. Financial stability could be shattered by another bank crisis, probably in Europe.

7. Structural inflation, created by unions, protectionism and energy cartels, could turn a cyclical stagnation into long-term “stagflation”.

The first four are greatly exaggerated, but the last three may be understated. Let me explain:

Bond yields always rise in economic recoveries without causing W-shaped recessions. The only exception was the US in 1981, when the Fed increased overnight interest rates by ten percentage points to control runaway inflation - hardly likely in 2009. Moreover, stronger economic prospects have narrowed credit spreads. The price and availability of money for businesses and homeowners is improving, even as bond yields rise.

Japan's experience of supporting “zombie” banks coincided with long-term economic stagnation. But the question is whether government support for weak banks caused economic stagnation or whether economic stagnation prevented banks getting stronger. The same question must be asked about an IMF study, which shows that recessions accompanied by banking crises last longer than others. These banking crises were accompanied by extreme fiscal and monetary contractions. In contrast, the Eighties' Third World debt crisis, when US banks traded their way out of insolvency, did not lead to recession but coincided with the strongest period of economic growth in history.

Lost housing wealth probably does mean slower US and British consumption growth. But most of the increase in savings has likely already occurred. In the US, the household savings rate has risen from 0.1 per cent a year ago to 4.2per cent, its highest level since 1994. Savings will probably rise until next year, but after that US and British consumption should grow in line with personal incomes. After that, most of the debt reduction will occur in the financial sector. Moreover, a further big fall in US house prices is unlikely since prices have already overshot on the downside. In Britain, recent signs of housing strength suggest that supply restrictions may have created a long-term up-trend in valuations.

Fiscal and monetary policies do not pose anything like the threat generally believed. The deficits now planned by the US and British Governments follow many years of debt reduction relative to GDP. As a result, their debt burdens will remain well below the levels of

100 per cent of GDP, levels typical for much of the 20th century. There is no more reason to worry about fiscal solvency in the US or Britain than in Germany and France (see chart). The only large economies that could face genuine solvency threats are Italy and Japan and, significantly, their bond markets show no signs of alarm.

Meanwhile, the near- doubling of central bank money in Britain, the US and the eurozone should not lead to inflation, unless it is lent to the private sector by banks. So far, this is not happening. Once banks do resume lending, monetary conditions will have to be tightened, by forcing commercial banks to hold higher reserves of central bank money than before.

Now for the bad news. There remain three genuine reasons to worry about the medium-term outlook. A rebalancing of growth is required between consumers in America, Britain, Spain and Central Europe and producers in China, Japan and Germany. It is far from clear whether this will occur and the difficulty of achieving this rebalancing could trigger a financial crisis within the eurozone. Further ahead, it is possible that inflationary pressures will revive, even in conditions of high unemployment and low capacity utilisation, if global competition is thwarted by unions, protectionist governments or commodity cartels. A return to Seventies-style stagflation is a genuine medium-term threat. So if you want real reasons to worry about inflation, look at trade, energy and labour policies, not at public deficits and central banks.

4) Obama will carry friendly message to Muslim world
By Christina Bellantoni


Expectations are high for President Obama's second trip across the Atlantic when he attempts this week to befriend the Muslim world and pushes for a renewed Middle East peace effort, with many demanding he offer specifics for the troubled region.

Analysts and scholars characterize the visit as a major opportunity and say Mr. Obama must do more than use lofty rhetoric if he wants to restore some of the international good will lost during the Bush administration.

The showcase event of Mr. Obama's five-day, four-country trip abroad will be a speech in Cairo, and the new president said he will offer a broad message about how the U.S. can build mutual understanding and improve its relationship with the Muslim world.

As he underlines common ground in an attempt to reverse dramatic U.S. unpopularity in Arab countries, Mr. Obama also issue a reminder about the U.S. role in World War II that once endeared America abroad, with a series of ceremonial events in France and Germany.

"The president is eager to change the conversation with our Muslim and Arab friends," said Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "It's an important opportunity to advance the national interest."

Polls suggest that no matter how uplifting the words, Mr. Obama faces a steep climb to win over Arab countries.

"He will face a nation hardened in its negative view of the U.S. and its role in the region, and unconvinced that this or any American president can or will change policy," said James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

He cited a poll by Zogby International, led by his brother John Zogby, showing that "deep skepticism" of Mr. Obama remains in Egypt and Jordan, with 75 percent of Egyptians giving the president a negative job approval rating.

"Egypt was the right choice. ... Given Egypt's sheer size and the importance of its role in the region, if President Obama can't sell his message there, it may not have its desired impact anywhere," Mr. Zogby said.

The speech is part of a layered approach Mr. Obama has employed since his Jan. 20 inauguration, when he offered the pursuit of "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

His first television interview as president was to Al Arabiya; he recorded a message for the Iranian new year, known as Nowruz; and during his last trip abroad in April he told the Turkish Grand National Assembly that the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.

"Our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people," he said in Turkey.

Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said U.S. popularity rose from 10 percent or less among Turksto a range of 45 percent to 50 percent after Mr. Obama spoke in their country.

A March Ipsos poll of 7,000 residents in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan found Mr. Obama's popularity as an individual far outpaces the view of the U.S. on the whole.

Only 33 percent of poll respondents have a favorable view of the United States, while 43 percent have an unfavorable view and the others are neutral or didn't have an opinion. In contrast, Mr. Obama's popularity ranged from 35 percent in Egypt to 58 percent in Jordan.

The Ipsos pollsters said the results suggest Mr. Obama has an opportunity to "bridge the gap" and use the good will he engenders to boost America's standing in Arab countries. Still, some scholars pointed out the limits any U.S. president faces.

"The United States was not only unpopular among many Muslims; it was reviled," said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at CSIS. "There's nothing Barack Obama could say to Muslims on June 4 that will make the United States popular, and he shouldn't try."

Others think the speech will go a long way if Mr. Obama includes condemnations of human rights violations and calls for truly democratic elections in Egypt.

A group of Muslim scholars from the United States and abroad, along with leaders from other religious and U.S. groups from across the political spectrum, signed an open letter to Mr. Obama asking for "bold" action.

"What they need ... is a commitment to encourage political reform not through wars, threats, or imposition, but through peaceful policies that reward governments that take active and measurable steps towards genuine democratic reforms," they wrote.

They said the early outreach is of "no small significance" but "must be followed by concrete policy changes."

The letter accuses former President George W. Bush of turning his back on Middle East democracy after promising the U.S. would not support tyrants.

"This is a huge opportunity and it's not to be wasted," said Mirette F. Mabrouk, visiting fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "They want to see that America is going to regain its role as a diplomatic power as opposed to a bludgeoning power ... [and] become a major diplomatic force in the region again."

Mr. Obama has chosen to speak from Cairo University at an event jointly hosted with the historic Al-Azhar University. Cairo University was established in 1908; it has educated three Nobel Prize winners and deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Analysts said the location - a school known for serving Egypt's working class - is a stark contrast to the American University in Cairo, where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered a major speech on democracy in June 2005. The university has traditionally been a school for Egyptian elites.

During the speech, one of her first trips in her role as chief diplomat, Miss Rice declared the new course was to support "the democratic aspirations of all people."

Egyptians have been telling the press they expect an inspiring speech in line with the president's style, as well as different from Miss Rice's 20-minute talk where, according to press reports, attendees held applause until it was completed.

Obama aides said the president has invited a range of Egyptian political activists to be part of the audience and noted the attendees will reflect Egyptian society broadly. The president also will be "engaging" with journalists in Cairo, Mr. McDonough said.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo is responsible for distributing the more than 3,000 tickets to the speech.

In offering a brief preview of the speech last week, Mr. Obama said he wanted to emphasize the contributions of Muslim Americans to U.S. society.

Many are waiting to see whether Mr. Obama will offer support for Egyptian groups seeking democracy.

Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Mr. Obama has "raised the level of hope for real change" but that the president's language must be backed up with policy plans and holding every nation to the same standards of justice and equality.

"Otherwise, we as a nation risk wasting the good will that has been garnered by your ongoing outreach to Muslims," Mr. Awad said. "For too long, we have claimed to be champions of freedom and democracy, while turning a blind eye to repression, occupation and authoritarian rule."

Mr. Obama will talk about broader Middle East peace efforts, which the president has said are too urgent to push down the line, even assuming he would be re-elected by saying it can't wait until "my second term."

But Muslims worldwide condemn U.S. support for Israel, the Jewish state's occupation of the West Bank, and its recent Gaza war. Mr. Obama reaffirmed the U.S.-Israel alliance in bilateral meetings last month held at the White House.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars - one major factor for U.S. unpopularity in the Arab and Muslim worlds - nuclear nonproliferation, Iran, Pakistan and upcoming regional elections also are likely to be on his agenda for meetings with world leaders at each stop.

The images from this trip will be far different from the massive crowds Mr. Obama addressed in a series of town halls and large speeches during his last European visit. The Cairo speech - inside an auditorium - is the largest public address on the schedule.

After the speech in Cairo, he will visit eastern Germany and see the Buchenwald concentration camp that his great uncle helped to liberate. Mr. Obama also will mark with world leaders the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy on June 6.

The president will recognize U.S. veterans during a visit with wounded troops and also at the D-Day event, aides said.

4a) Approval of U.S. Leadership Up in Some Arab Countries: Most remain low overall; more Palestinians disapprove than before.
By Julie Ray and Mohamed Younis

President Barack Obama may find audiences in many Arab countries more willing to listen when he addresses the Muslim world Thursday from Cairo, Egypt. New Gallup Polls conducted in 11 Arab countries show that although approval of U.S. leadership remains generally low, ratings are up in 8 countries including Egypt.

Throughout much of President George W. Bush's second term, Gallup found U.S. leadership approval ratings in many Arab countries at times in the single digits and among the lowest in the world. Declines in approval were evident in several Arab countries over time, and in some nations, Egypt in particular, views soured significantly toward the end of Bush's term.

Surveys conducted roughly two months into Obama's presidency show median approval of U.S. leadership across the 11 Arab countries surveyed at 25%, ranging from a low of 7% in the Palestinian Territories to a high of 56% in Mauritania.

In eight Arab countries, including Egypt, Gallup recorded double-digit increases in approval from the last measurements of Bush's term. These upsurges, which ranged from 11 percentage points in Syria to 23 points in Tunisia, may reflect positive reception to Obama and his administration's public outreach to the Muslim world. The president's overtures toward pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and closing Guantanamo Bay prison, two actions that respondents in previous Gallup surveys said could help improve the United States' image, also may have resonated with residents.

While approval is up in a number of countries, it is important to note that considerable numbers of respondents appear to be reserving their judgment or just didn't know enough about the new leadership in the United States to express an opinion. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Yemen, the percentage of respondents answering "don't know/refused" increased at least twofold.

Palestinians More Disapproving Than Before

Approval ratings took a negative turn in the Palestinian Territories, dropping from 13% to 7%. Perhaps related to Obama's silence during Israel's attacks on Gaza shortly before he took office, Palestinians grew more uncertain about the leadership of the United States between 2008 and 2009. Disapproval of U.S. leadership during this period remained steady at about 80%, but the percentages of Palestinians who did not have an opinion doubled from 6% to 12%. It's important to note that when Gallup asked Palestinians in 2008 whether it would make a difference who was elected president of the United States, a substantial majority (72%) said it would not.

In two other Arab countries surveyed, Yemen and Lebanon, approval ratings in 2009 didn't change significantly from ratings in 2008.

Bottom Line

Gallup Polls show that Obama will deliver his message Thursday with an arguably stronger basis of support than his predecessor ever had in many Arab countries. Nonetheless, approval remains low and underscores the work that remains as Obama seeks to pave a new, more positive way forward. Given the higher percentages of people in many Arab countries who do not have an opinion about U.S. leadership, Gallup surveys later this year in these same countries may provide a clearer picture of public opinion about the administration and its efforts to move relations forward.

In addition to policy decisions on matters of concern to the Arab world, Obama's Mideast policy will continue to figure prominently in future relations. The administration's reaction to Israel's shifts in rhetoric on the negotiation of a two-state solution will likely have a bearing on future views of U.S. leadership.

Survey Methods

Results are based on face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, conducted in February and March 2009 in Egypt, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania, Yemen, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Non-Arabs were excluded from the sample in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait; samples in these countries are nationally representative of Arab adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranged from a low of ±3.3 percentage points in Tunisia to a high of ±3.8 percentage points in Yemen. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

5) Do Liberals Crave A Master?
By Andrew Thomas

Everybody's looking for something...
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree? - Eurythmics
Contemporary liberals, having abandoned the belief in God-given inalienable rights, masochistically crave a worldly master. This master is a sadistic god-substitute who will provide the stern discipline needed to force economic equality and "fairness" by requiring painful sacrifices and bestowing government-created rights onto obedient and acquiescent groups of left-leaning masochists.


Of course, I am not referring to the sexual variety of masochism, but rather the recognized psychosis of moral masochism. Large segments of the population, and even entire nations can suffer from this illness as described in Daniel Rancour-Laferriere's book, "The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering".


First, some re-definitions: In the same derogatory fashion liberals refer to contemporary Conservatives as "neocons", I will label this group as "neolibs" going forward. I feel this is appropriate, as the Liberal movement has taken a decidedly leftward leap and become more radicalized in their outward behavior in the last few years, and is therefore a new phenomenon.


In most conservative writing (Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, and more recently Mark Levin) the common theme is the sanctity of individual freedom and liberty. The conservative is an individualist and an independent thinker, as opposed to those who primarily identify themselves as members of a group. The term "conservative" is a misnomer for this philosophy, as it connotes a preservation of the status quo, or even a "regressive" yin to the "Progressive" yang. This is why I believe a more appropriate label for conservative philosophy is "individualist", and I will refer to it in this manner for the remainder of this article.


Next, a pop-psychology primer: individualists gravitate toward existential thinking, or a view of the world where individuals have complete freedom of choice and take full responsibility for the results of those choices. This mandates that choices must be made with a logical evaluation to determine the potential consequences. The impartial evaluation of phenomena to determine the truth is an offshoot of existentialism known as phenomenology. The phenomenologist is rational and emotionally detached from the subject of analysis, eliminating judgment and perception. Once the perceptions of reality are stripped away as much as possible, the phenomenologist then attempts to perform an insightful analysis of the object to determine what is real or "true". I believe that many individualists tend to be effective phenomenologists due to their ability to separate themselves from group-think and emotional judgment. Therefore, let's use the phenomenological process to analyze the "Neolib as masochist" theory.


In our first analysis, we will impartially examine Neolib behavior. Objectively listen to Janeane Garofalo in the Youtube video linked to her name. In listening to neolibs such as Janeane speak, it is evident that they appear to be driven predominantly by emotion rather than logic. Just reviewing an alphabetical list of emotions, as extracted from a list in Wikipedia, lends itself to describing neolib behavior:


Anger,
Angst,
Anxiety,
Compassion,
Contempt,
Despair,
Disgust,
Empathy,
Envy,
Guilt,
Hatred,
Hope,
Hostility,
Hysteria,
Rage,
Shame,
Suffering,
Worry.


Anyone who views the world through these emotions would naturally feel threatened when interpreting individualists' behavior. The neolib typically projects hatred, bigotry, selfishness, and greed onto the individualist when there is no physical evidence to support the interpretation. The strong passions exhibited by neolibs, coupled with delusions of persecution, foster these masochistic tendencies.


Now let's objectively review the initiatives in the neolib agenda: Environmentalism, global passivism, overpopulation, socialized healthcare, and promoting government intervention into all aspects of life. All of these priorities require individuals to sacrifice their lifestyles, their income, and/or their basic comforts.


This past week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory..." in order to sacrifice ourselves to the gods of global warming. As presidential candidate Obama said, "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times..." He seems to indicate that he wants us to starve and freeze.


Most of these initiatives involve the inflicting of pain and misery. Tom Daschle, in his book "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis" says health-care reform "will not be pain free" and that seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of having them treated. In other words, you will suffer a slow agonizing death under government mandate.


As a final phenomenological exercise, impassively observe the level of neolib support for this agenda. It has not appeared to wane. In fact, neolib fervor continues to increase as the promised level of suffering increases.


According to Rancour-Laferriere, increasing Russian masochism coincided with the rise of the Soviet Union and Communism, although it was pervasive in the soul of Russia prior to that. The conclusion to this analysis is that as neolib moral masochism increases, so does the emotional need for an all-powerful master to govern them. As the governing master becomes more dominant and disciplinarian, the masochism is reinforced and the spiral continues.


Is there a cure? Self-destructive behavior is very difficult to overcome. Many years ago in an Abnormal Psychology class, I studied the case of a group of young adults who would continually pound their heads against a wall until they became bloody pulps. Psychologists found that the only thing that would interrupt their behavior was a 9,000 volt shock from a cattle prod.


This is probably an impractical solution. Since 45% of the nation thinks we are going in the right direction, there are too many neolibs and too few cattle prods.


Andrew Thomas blogs at Darkangelpolitics.com.

6) Israeli FM in Russia amid discord over Hamas, Iran


Lavrov says Obama administration's approach increases chances of resolving nuclear standoff with Iran diplomatically; Lieberman tells reporters Russia-Israel relations 'probably at their highest point'; military official says Moscow to deliver 50 armored personnel carriers to Palestinian Authority

Russia's foreign minister said the new US administration's approach to Iran has increased chances of resolving the standoff over its nuclear program, but gave no indication of whether Moscow would increase pressure on Tehran.

During Damascus visit, FM Lavrov says Moscow noticed 'responsibility Islamist group feels not just for what happens in Gaza but for fate of entire Palestinian people'; adds shunning Hamas from peace process helped lead to Gaza crisis
Full Story


Sergey Lavrov, speaking after a meeting with Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman, also ceded no ground publicly over Russia's engagement with the violent group Hamas, which has angered Israel.



It was Lieberman's first visit to Moscow as Israel's foreign minister, and he and Lavrov focused their comments to reporters on Russian-Israeli relations vastly improved since the Soviet era, when Moscow strongly supported Israel's Arab foes.



Lieberman said the countries' ties "are probably at their highest point" since diplomatic relations were established diplomatic 18 years ago.



Israel wants Russia, however, to use its close relationship with Iran to pressure Tehran to stop nuclear activities it believes are aimed at developing weapons. Lavrov said he told Lieberman about steps Russia is taking along with other UN Security Council members and Germany, but he said nothing about any efforts by Moscow itself. He said Russia and the other nations "expect a constructive answer" from Tehran on proposals aimed toward reviving negotiations.



"We really have a very good chance now, in part due to the position of the new US administration," Lavrov said. Lieberman was also meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, and was expected to fly to St. Petersburg to meet with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.



Born and raised in the Soviet Union, Lieberman speaks Russian smoothly and seemed at ease in Moscow. But it was unclear if his background would help him sway Russia on points such as Iran and Hamas - issues that continue to cloud relations.



'Cooperate in the most serious way'
Unlike its partners in the Quartet leading Mideast peace efforts - the United Nations, European Union and United States - Russia has engaged Hamas and said isolating the group is counterproductive.




Lieberman expressed "deep disappointment" last week over Lavrov's recent meeting in Syria with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.



On Tuesday, Lavrov said Hamas must help create the conditions for removal of the blockade of Gaza. "We are sending the corresponding signals to Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas in terms of the necessity to cooperate in the most serious way," Lavrov said.



Russia has also sought to maintain close relations with the Palestinians.



Lavrov also told reporters that the Quartet for Middle East Peace could meet in June, stressing that Russia and Israel support "energy" efforts to resume the talks.



The Quartet "plans to meet this month in the ministerial level, "said Lavrov after a meeting Lieberman.



The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have not resumed since the victory of the right of the Israeli elections in February.



The head of Russian diplomacy also reported also in progress the project to organize a conference on the Middle East this year Moscow.

Advertisement





Lavrov also told his Israeli counterpart that Russia would sell weapons to Middle East countries only if they are not likely threaten stability in the region.



The Interfax news agency cited an unnamed Russian military official as saying Tuesday that Moscow would deliver 50 armored personnel carriers to the Palestinian Authority from July to September.



Israel initially had balked at the planned deliveries, but has since given its approval.



Russia says the vehicles would be used to help the Palestinians keep order.

7) Welcome to our reality

Say you live in any one of these cities: Oslo, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, London, Stockholm or Washington, and at 11 a.m. today the war siren goes off. You've been told it's just a drill - your city isn't being attacked by ballistic missiles or long-range rockets. Your country neither plans to attack anyone, nor is there intelligence indicating it is the target of imminent attack.

Still, the wailing siren - a curiously anachronistic instrument for the 21st century - is upsetting. You do as you're told and seek out a nearby bomb shelter, or enter the reinforced-concrete room common in homes built since the 1990s.

At work, there is some gallows humor as colleagues file into the bomb shelter. At school, your children will head into the shelters with their teachers. It may strike you that the authorities were imprudent in collecting for refurbishment those cardboard boxes with their plastic shoulder-straps containing gas masks and a chemical-warfare antidote.

Of course, if you do live in any of the above-mentioned capitals, this scenario is beyond far-fetched. There are no shelters. No safe rooms. No gas masks.

No one is threatening to wipe Sweden, Germany or Scotland - or any of the others - off the map. There are no Sajil II ballistic missiles aimed your way. Your country didn't absorb 5,000 rocket hits in the course of a single summer. It doesn't share a border with a country that deploys Scud D missiles. And the notion that missiles laden with WMDs could explode over your head is simply beyond imagination.

Though Muslim extremists struck in Spain, Britain and the United States, the sense that any further danger looms is not widespread. That's why no one undergoes a security check to enter a supermarket, department store or cinema. And why armed guards are not posted outside schools.

WE ISRAELIS live in a very different reality.

That truth was brought home in remarks Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made at Sunday's cabinet meeting regarding Turning Point 3 - the week-long nationwide emergency drill.

The exercise is "routine," something the country does annually, he said, adding that it "reflects the special way in which we lead our lives - which, upon reflection, is not all that routine."

Want to understand the Israeli psyche? Consider that when our country was born, those with whom we sought to share this land rejected our right to exist. Though we have created a technologically advanced, Western-oriented country, and made peace with Egypt and Jordan, our "normality" still demands that a high-school graduate head not to university or for a gap year, but to basic training.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s (when there were no settlements and no "occupation") our homeland was under attack anyway. A single example: On March 17, 1954, gunmen ambushed an Eilat-Tel Aviv commuter bus. First they murdered the driver, then they proceeded to shoot the passengers, one by one.

In the 1970s, we fought off a surprise attack on our most solemn holy day - after having withstood a war of attrition. In the 1980s, we fought bitter wars in Lebanon to fend off attacks against our northern border.

In the 1990s, we signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian leadership. And since then? More Israelis have been murdered by terrorists than ever before.

Efforts to reach an accommodation with a violently fragmented Palestinian polity have thus far proven fruitless. The "moderates" appear no less unyielding than the fanatics.

We caught the Syrians, to our north, building a clandestine nuclear facility under North Korean tutelage. They make no secret about hosting Hamas's politburo, pressuring it to resist even a tactical timeout in its anti-Israel belligerency.

Hizbullah dominates Lebanese affairs and provides Iran with shock-troops along our border.

Then there is Iran, which may have enriched enough uranium to manufacture a nuclear bomb by year's end. Even as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our obliteration, he insists that the Nazis did not systematically destroy European Jewry. Yet he is feted at UN forums, while Europeans shamelessly subsidize trade with his country.

That is our reality. It's the one many of us will be contemplating at 11 a.m. today, when the siren sounds.

8) 'Out of Context'
By Thomas Sowell

In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said.

The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.

What could such statements possibly mean-- in any context-- other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.

The Supreme Court of the United States thought that case was important enough to hear it, even though the three-judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor served gave it short shrift in less than a page. Apparently the famous "empathy" that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor's court.

The very idea that a judge's "life experiences" should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous.

It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance-- and nobody can know in advance what the "life experiences" of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be.

It is absurd because it flies in the face of the facts. It was a fellow Puerto Rican judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals-- Jose Cabranes-- who rebuked his judicial colleagues for the cavalier way they dismissed the white firefighters' case.

On the Supreme Court, the justice whose life story is most like that of Sonia Sotomayor-- Clarence Thomas-- has a very different judicial philosophy from hers.

The clever people in the media and elsewhere are saying that "inevitably" one's background influences how one feels about issues. Even if that were true, judges are not supposed to decide cases based on their personal feelings.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he "loathed" many of the people in whose favor he voted on the Supreme Court. Obviously, he had feelings. But he also had the good sense and integrity to rule on the basis of the law, not his feelings.

Laws are made for the benefit of the citizens, not for the self-indulgences of judges. Making excuses for such self-indulgences and calling them "inevitable" is part of the cleverness that has eroded the rule of law and undermined respect for the law.

Something else is said to be "inevitable" by the clever people. That is the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But it was only a year and a half ago that Hillary Clinton's winning the Democratic Party's nomination for president was considered "inevitable."

The Republicans certainly do not have the votes to stop Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed-- if all the Democrats vote for her. But that depends on what the people say. It looked like a done deal a couple of years ago when an amnesty bill for illegal aliens was sailing through the Senate with bipartisan support. But public outrage brought that political steamroller to a screeching halt.

Nothing is inevitable in a democracy unless the public lets the political spinmasters and media talking heads lead them around by the nose.

The real question is whether the Republican Senators have the guts to alert the public to the dangers of putting this kind of judge on the highest court in the land, so that they will at least have some chance of stopping the next one that comes along.

It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his "empathy" determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge.

9) The Axis of Evil, Again: Every nuclear-weapons state had foreign help.
By BRET STEPHENS

Not 24 hours after North Korea's nuclear test last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a statement insisting "we don't have any cooperation [with North Korea] in this field." The lady doth protest too much.

When it comes to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, history offers two hard lessons. First, nearly every nuclear power has been a secret sharer of nuclear technology. Second, every action creates an equal and opposite reaction -- a Newtonian law of proliferation that is only broken with the intercession of an overwhelming outside force.

On the first point, it's worth recalling that every nuclear-weapons state got that way with the help of foreign friends. The American bomb was conceived by European scientists and built in a consortium with Britain and Canada. The Soviets got their bomb thanks largely to atomic spies, particularly Germany's Klaus Fuchs. The Chinese nuclear program got its start with Soviet help.


Britain gave France the secret of the hydrogen bomb, hoping French President Charles de Gaulle would return the favor by admitting the U.K. into the European Economic Community. (He Gallicly refused.) France shared key nuclear technology with Israel and then with Iraq. South Africa got its bombs (since dismantled) with Israeli help. India made illegal use of plutonium from a U.S.-Canadian reactor to build its first bomb. The Chinese lent the design of one of their early atomic bombs to Pakistan, which then gave it to Libya, North Korea and probably Iran.

Now it's Pyongyang's turn to be the link in the nuclear daisy chain. Its ties to Syria were exposed by an Israeli airstrike in 2007. As for Iran, its military and R&D links to the North go back more than 20 years, when Iran purchased 100 Scud-B missiles for use in the Iran-Iraq war.

Since then, Iranians have reportedly been present at a succession of North Korean missile tests. North Korea also seems to have off-shored its missile testing to Iran after it declared a "moratorium" on its own tests in the late 1990s.

In a 2008 paper published by the Korea Economic Institute, Dr. Christina Lin of Jane's Information Group noted that "Increased visits to Iran by DPRK [North Korea] nuclear specialists in 2003 reportedly led to a DPRK-Iran agreement for the DPRK to either initiate or accelerate work with Iranians to develop nuclear warheads that could be fitted on the DPRK No-dong missiles that the DPRK and Iran were jointly developing. Thus, despite the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran in 2003 had halted weaponization of its nuclear program, this was the time that Iran outsourced to the DPRK for proxy development of nuclear warheads."

Another noteworthy detail: According to a 2003 report in the L.A. Times, "So many North Koreans are working on nuclear and missile projects in Iran that a resort on the Caspian coast is set aside for their exclusive use."

Now the North seems to be gearing up for yet another test of its long-range Taepodong missile, and it's a safe bet Iranians will again be on the receiving end of the flight data. Nothing prevents them from sharing nuclear-weapons material or data, either, and the thought occurs that the North's second bomb test last week might also have been Iran's first. If so, the only thing between Iran and a bomb is a long-range cargo plane.

Which brings us to our second nuclear lesson. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has lately been in Asia taking a tough rhetorical line on the North's nuclear activities. But it's hard to deliver the message credibly after Mr. Gates rejected suggestions that the U.S. shoot down the Taepodong just prior to its April test, or when the U.S. flubbed the diplomacy at the U.N. So other countries will have to draw their own conclusions.

One such country is Japan. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, then the leader of the country's Liberal Party, told Chinese leaders that "If Japan desires, it can possess thousands of nuclear warheads. Japan has enough plutonium in use at its nuclear plants for three to four thousand. . . . If that should happen, we wouldn't lose to China in terms of military strength."

This wasn't idle chatter. As Christopher Hughes notes in his new book, "Japan's Remilitarization," "The nuclear option is gaining greater credence in Japan because of growing concerns over the basic strategic conditions that have allowed for nuclear restraint in the past. . . . Japanese analysts have questioned whether the U.S. would really risk Los Angeles for Tokyo in a nuclear confrontation with North Korea."

There are still good reasons why Japan would not want to go nuclear: Above all, it doesn't want to simultaneously antagonize China and the U.S. But the U.S. has even better reasons not to want to tempt Japan in that direction. Transparently feckless and time-consuming U.S. diplomacy with North Korea is one such temptation. Refusing to modernize our degraded stockpile of nuclear weapons while seeking radical cuts in the overall arsenal through a deal with Russia is another.

This, however, is the course the Obama administration has set for itself. Allies and enemies alike will draw their own conclusions.

10)Murtha Scandals Keep Eyes On Earmarks:Reform Bills Are Increasingly Winning Support From Democrats
By Eliza Newlin Carney


At a time when the federal budget tops $3 trillion, it's easy to see why some regard earmarks, which account for an estimated 1 percent of spending, as insignificant.

But calls on Capitol Hill to rein in earmark spending may get increasingly hard to ignore. President Obama has asked Congress to restrain earmarks, and Democrats and Republicans alike are pushing bills, resolutions and investigations aimed at curbing abuses.

Fanning the anti-earmark fires are scandals involving Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. The chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Murtha is now associated with so many pay-to-play allegations that it's getting hard to keep up. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has even launched a Web site, You Don't Know Jack, to help out. Murtha-related controversies include:

• Federal investigations into the PMA Group, a now-defunct defense lobbying firm, and Kuchera Corp., a defense contractor in Murtha's district. The FBI has raided the offices of both firms, which have close ties to Murtha. A widening federal probe is reportedly investigating Murtha's links to lobbyists and defense contractors who have received funds earmarked by Murtha and who have donated generously to his campaign.
• Calls to shut down the National Drug Intelligence Center, a counter-narcotics center in Murtha's home district. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., recently asked the Justice Department to explain plans for a costly name change at the center. Coburn and other Republicans have long tried to strip out federal funds that Murtha earmarked for the center, which they call a costly boondoggle.
• A federal probe -- recently disclosed by the Washington Post -- of earmarks that Murtha steered to another company in his district, Mountaintop Technologies, ostensibly for law enforcement work. The company is a defense contractor with little police work experience.
Murtha has denied any wrongdoing, as have the many firms and contractors allegedly under investigation. But Republicans are doing their best to capitalize on the scandals, which have the potential to entangle other Democrats.

Four watchdog groups have asked the House ethics committee to investigate whether any lawmakers were improperly influenced by campaign contributions from the PMA Group. Those calling for the probe -- Democracy 21, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG -- questioned the firm's dealings with not just Murtha but with Reps. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., and Jim Moran, D-Va. Visclosky acknowledged last week (subscription) that he and members of his staff have received federal grand jury subpoenas in the PMA probe.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., the House's leading earmarks foe, has introduced eight privileged resolutions this year calling for the ethics committee to investigate earmarks abuses by PMA and in general. Flake's first such resolution, in February, drew only 17 Democrats, but his most recent one -- introduced on May 12 -- won 29 Democratic votes.

"It's been a pretty steady increase in the number of Democrats that have supported it," said Flake spokesman Matthew Specht. "The PMA scandal doesn't seem to be going away."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has reportedly enlisted ex-ethics committee chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., to discourage freshman Democrats from backing the Flake resolutions.

But some junior Democrats are pushing their own anti-earmarks agenda. A handful who have signed on to Flake's resolutions -- sophomore Reps. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., and Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and freshman Tom Perriello, D-Va., have introduced a bill (H.R. 2038) that would ban lawmakers from accepting campaign contributions from companies for whom they've requested earmarks.

It's one of several earmarks-related bills introduced in this Congress in both the House and the Senate, many of them solidly bipartisan. In the Senate, two separate bills reining in earmarks and giving the President line-item veto power have the backing of Democrats Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, as well as of Republicans Coburn and John McCain of Arizona.

In the House, Flake's most recent piece of earmarks legislation -- H.R. 2512, which would ban lawmakers from awarding earmarks to for-profit entities -- was co-sponsored by four Democrats and four Republicans, including Flake.

When asked about earmarks, Pelosi tends to stress the changes brought about by the sweeping lobbying and ethics overhaul enacted in 2007, which included disclosure requirements for approved earmarks. In this Congress, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, announced that they would go one step further, requiring all lawmakers to post on their Web sites the earmarks that they request.

These latest postings move the ball forward, said Taxpayers for Common Sense Vice President Steve Ellis, but the disclosures are far from comprehensive. For one thing, anyone seeking information has to go to 535 different Web sites, where some lawmakers make the information easier to find than others.

For all the efforts at transparency, the catalyst for earmarks changes invariably ends up being scandals like the ones plaguing Murtha, Ellis noted: "That all amps up attention on earmarks, and on the issue."