Why Not Offer Us 'Pee Ons' What Congress Has?

As I wrote months ago Obama should have written a check to every unemployed for half a year's salary. Would have been cheaper.

Obama is angry and testy but he failed to sell his, Pelosi and Reid's 2800 page monster of a health bill because it was unsaleable. Americans may have been dumb to elect Obama but they too were angry and disgusted. Now they have wised up and see through the charade they could/did not at election time.

Thus, their anger at being duped is something Obama and his staff will have to contend with and probably cannot overcome. Far too many voters have lost faith in Obama, do not trust him, have found his commitments meaningless and his principles shallow.

Voters have taken the measure of the man and find him a street smart empty suit when it comes to leadership. Also, IQ smart but not much else and that's about it. (See 1 below.)

I too may be dense but if the people in Congress have an acceptable and workable health care program then why do they not offer the same to the rest of us 'pee ons?' Our political servants seem content with what they have, it already functions so it should be easy to pass. Am I missing something? (See 1a and 1b below.)
---

Blind New York Governor sees the political light! Interceding on behalf of a staff member, if that be the case, was not wise. Is it fair to ask were Paterson white and had appointed Ms. Kennedy Senator would he be in the same pickle? Does Cuomo have the New York show all to himself? He is the Attorney General investigating the Paterson matter. Is that a matter of conflictual concern? (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
More intrigue coming out of Dubai. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---

Making nice to Syria not likely to produce much of substance. (See 4 below.)
---

Can Pelosi ditch Rangel and if so will she? How can Pelosi measure up to her claim that she will preside over a cleansed House and allow Rangel to maintain his powerful gavel?

Liberal wonks helped create PC'ism and now they are caught on their own petard.

PC'ism has served as a sham to attack our nation's culture, to supplant what distinguished being an American means and in far too many instances much of what made us a powerful and successful nation.

PC'ism helped foment a decline in our basic education system, holding people responsible for their own behaviour and, on the wings of a misguided 'compassion bird' called 'welfare,' contributed to breaking up the family unit.

In reading Halberstam's: "The Fifties" it is obvious the post WW 2 years radically altered our culture all the way from where we lived, how we lived, the music we listened to as well as our increasing dependency upon comfort purchases, sexual attitudes and most importantly our ability to use credit to gratify instant needs. We were free but towards what purpose?

The Fifties also placed us on the path of better racial relations, lessened work force discrimination and addressed other 'Victorian' attitudes regarding women and their place outside the kitchen.

However, in far too many ways these 'improvements' disconnected us from our more traditional values. As has been written: "... getting and spending we lay waste our powers." We are no longer the nation we once were. In some ways that is very good. In other ways that is not so good.

Can we return to our deep rooted values that served us well while retaining the positive benefits derived from technology and experience? Frankly, I believe we cannot because the genie is out of the bottle. Our public education system has been degraded and its recovery is beyond our reach. The family unit is shattered, marriage has been downgraded, raising children out of wedlock has become commonplace and those who adhere to a religious belief are mocked - righteousness has been down ticked!

I rest my case on the mere fact that there is even a debate about Rangel retaining his authority. (See 5 and 5a below.)
----

Who is to blame for losing Iran? The author has candidates but I believe the entire feckless Western alliance is to blame and individually speaking every leader handed the baton by his predecessor just added to the problem. The West has no current, clear and courageous leadership offering a definitive solution maybe because there is none at this point. We have allowed Iran to go beyond the point of no return and we remain paralyzed by our own inept calumny. (See 6 and 6a below.)
---

How safe are dollar investments? (See 7 below.)
---

Dick
---

1)The CBO just came out this morning and each job the stimulus created cost $397,000.00 per job!!!!!!!! $397,000.00 ., and the Govt borrowed the money to do it. These jobs will go away in less than a year. Oh yea the average salary the person got was $38000.00 Ten times less. Does anyone think the OBAMA people can run health care?

1a).Defining ObamaCare Down: We're all free-market moderates now

A bipartisan health-care consensus will remain elusive after yesterday's marathon summit, as expected, though viewers who stuck out the full seven-plus hours could be forgiven for wondering what happened to all the liberals. General anesthesia? To listen to President Obama and his closest Democratic allies, you'd think John McCain had won the election and their bill had been drafted by Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn and the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute.

In his opening statement, Mr. Obama said the key issue is "figuring out how can we control the huge expansion of entitlements," especially "the exploding costs of Medicare." He said Congress must fix "some fundamental structural problems" in U.S. health care, with reforms that lower spending by increasing "choice and competition."

If only politics hadn't intruded—"politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense," he claimed—peace would reign upon the Earth and the two parties could "focus on where we agree because there actually is some significant agreement on a host of issues."

It's as if the last year didn't happen. Only minutes into the discussion, it became clear the Democratic strategy was to portray this debate as somehow taking place between the 49 yard lines. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus chimed in that "The main point is, we basically agree."

Yet the reality is that there is a vast philosophical and policy gulf on health care in Washington. Everyone agrees there are severe problems in the health-care markets. The disagreement is over solutions.

The morning was dominated by an argument over whether ObamaCare would lower insurance costs, and the exchange was telling. Republicans, led by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, rightly said that premiums would increase, while the President disagreed. "This is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight," he said, in keeping with his strategy of depicting any disagreement as factually challenged or politically motivated.

One fact is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums in the individual market would jump by 10% to 13% in 2016 because the government will mandate that consumers buy richer benefits than they otherwise would. Mr. Obama eventually conceded that point but said these mandates are simple consumer protections. "Yes, I am paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I'm getting an orange," Mr. Obama said. "We want competition, we just want some minimum standards."

Well, yes, politicians always claim their standards are the minimum. Despite vastly different consumer health needs and preferences, the core of ObamaCare is the brute-force regulatory standardization of benefits and how they should be paid for, so that government can afford to subsidize health care for all. West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller let the mask slip when he said the goal is to stomp on the insurers and "clip their wings in every way you can," because it is "a rapacious industry that does what it wants." Mr. Rockefeller added that "Sometimes decisions have to come from Washington."

Mr. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, posed the fundamental question: "Should people in Washington decide exactly how this works and what you can and cannot buy?" We thought the GOP acquitted itself fairly well, noting the irresponsibility of using Medicare cuts to float a new entitlement when the status quo has $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. They also focused on smaller, incremental reforms that might do some modest good.


But the root cause of surging health-care costs is the irrational and regressive tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance only, and both parties left it virtually unmentioned. Mr. McCain missed an opportunity to point out that most people would have done better than they do now under his campaign plan that Mr. Obama savaged in 2008. The subject didn't come up until Democratic backbencher Ron Wyden's 11th-hour argument that "real reform changes the incentives that drive the system" and Mr. Coburn argued that "If we don't reconnect health-care purchasing with health-care payment, we're not going to get good value out of this system."

Mr. Obama also claimed that "Every proposal that health-care economists say will reduce health-care costs, we've tried to adopt," yet this is demonstrably untrue. The White House has delayed its own excise tax on ultra-expensive health plans (previously sold as the key cost-control measure) until 2018, well after Mr. Obama is out of office, assuming he wins a second term.

In the end, after all the bipartisan cooing, the President's 20-minute closing argument explained where the debate really is. Democrats won the election and they are going to do what they want to do, starting next week and on a partisan vote if they can shanghai enough Members.

The point of yesterday's session was to give a soothing, moderate political gloss to a government health-care takeover that will raise costs, greatly expand the entitlement state, and reduce choice and competition—the opposite of everything Mr. Obama claims.

1b)A Historic and Dangerous Senate Mistake:Using 'reconciliation' to ram through health reform would only deepen partisan passions.
By BILL FRIST
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that while Democrats have a number of options to complete health-care legislation, he may use the budget reconciliation process to do so. This would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.

Budget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget—not sweeping social legislation.

Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate's health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy.

The first use of this special procedure was in the fall of 1980, as the Democratic majority in Congress moved to reduce entitlement programs in response to candidate Ronald Reagan's focus on the growing deficit. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, reconciliation was used to reduce deficit projections and to enact budget enforcement mechanisms. In early 2001, with projected surpluses well into the future, it was used to return a portion of that surplus to the public by changing tax rates.

Senators of both parties have assiduously avoided using budget reconciliation as a mechanism to pass expansive social legislation that lacks bipartisan support. In 1993, Democratic leaders—including the dean of Senate procedure and an author of the original Budget Act, Robert C. Byrd— appropriately prevailed on the Clinton administration not to use reconciliation to adopt its health-care agenda. It was used to pass welfare reform in 1996, an entitlement program, but the changes had substantial bipartisan support.

In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003.

The same concerns I expressed about using this procedure to fast-track prescription drug expansions with a simple majority vote were similarly expressed by Majority Leader Reid, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and others last year when they chose not to use the procedure to enact their health-care legislation. Over the past several months, an additional 15 Democratic senators have expressed opposition to using this tool.

The concerns about using reconciliation to bypass Senate rules which do not limit debate reflect the late New York Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan's admonishment—that significant policy changes impacting almost all Americans should be adopted with bipartisan support if the legislation is to survive and be supported in the public arena.

Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process.

Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the "cornhusker kickback," etc. The public will likely—and in my opinion, rightly—rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate.

Americans want bipartisan solutions for major social and economic issues; they don't want legislative gimmicks that force unpopular legislation through the Senate. Thomas Jefferson once referred to the Senate as "the cooling saucer" of the legislative process. Using budget reconciliation in this way would dramatically alter the founders' intent for the Senate, and transform it from cooling saucer to a boiling teapot of partisanship.

Mr. Reid was right to rule out this option when this saga began last year. He would be wise to abandon it today.

Mr. Frist served as U.S. Senate majority leader from 2003–2007.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)NY Gov. Paterson won't seek new term
By MICHAEL GORMLEY

Gov. David Paterson, who repeatedly and defiantly said he would let voters decide if he should run the state, abruptly quit his nascent election bid Friday amid a stalled agenda, faltering popularity and criticism of his handling of a domestic abuse case involving one of his most trusted aides.

Democratic officials in Washington and a person briefed by Paterson in New York were informed of his plans early Friday. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because Paterson had not publicly disclosed his decision.

Paterson, who had publicly prided himself on beating the odds, including overcoming blindness to rise through treacherous New York politics, formally announced his campaign last weekend but faced mounting calls to drop out of the race in the midst of controversy. A top aide is ensnared in a domestic-violence scandal, the governor was finding dwindling support in his own party and his campaign bank account paled in size to those of his rivals.

Paterson became governor in 2008, when former Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal. Paterson's decision paves the way for Andrew Cuomo to make an unimpeded run for the Democratic nomination.

"The governor isn't feeling pushed out," said a person who talked with the governor about his decision and who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because Paterson hadn't yet announced why he was ending the campaign. "He certainly realizes it's very difficult to do a campaign and govern, and the focus now is on governing and the best interests of the state."

Paterson was the scion of a Harlem political power base that included his father, former state Secretary of State Basil Paterson; the late Percy Sutton, who was Manhattan borough president; Rep. Adam Clayton Powell; former Mayor David Dinkins; and embattled U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel.

Now, Paterson's gubernatorial campaign will end amid a domestic violence scandal involving a trusted aide from Harlem, David Johnson. More than a decade ago, Paterson took Johnson on as an intern as part of his efforts to bring youths snared in Harlem's crack epidemic to give them a second chance.

On Wednesday, the most alarming call for Paterson to end his campaign came from state Sen. Bill Perkins, the Democrat in Paterson's old Harlem seat, who told the AP that Paterson's cabinet is "falling apart" and his campaign was crippled.

"The crisis we are suffering in this state and in the community is being distracted by these reports and very, very serious allegations," Perkins said. "What we are learning is unacceptable, and the viability of his candidacy is obviously crippling."

It has been widely expected — and among some Democrats, eagerly awaited — that the more popular Cuomo would run for governor and help prop up the state's reeling Democratic party. Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, has already built a campaign fund five times larger than Paterson and consistently outpolls Paterson among New York Democrats, who hold a 2-to-1 edge over Republicans statewide.

Paterson's campaign "was going nowhere very quickly and the numbers couldn't have been any more bleak for him before this," said Lee Miringoff of the Marist College poll. "Regardless of the legalities involved and this specific controversy, the odds of him taking the oath of office next January were very remote."

Paterson's decision lets Cuomo avoid an expensive and divisive primary, Miringoff said.

For Republican candidate Rick Lazio, it means he can no longer try to split the Democrats and now must confront the far better funded and more popular Cuomo.

"The fundamental issue is not who is going to be nominated for governor, at this point the fundamental issue is governing," said Gerald Benjamin, a political scientist and former dean at SUNY New Paltz. "You have a lame duck governor, a governor that has been ineffective already."

Paterson has been weighed down by low approval numbers for months. His problems intensified in recent weeks with a series of critical articles in The New York Times. The last, published Thursday, raised questions about how Paterson and state police officials responded to a domestic abuse complaint lodged against Johnson.

Court papers said state police may have pressured the woman to not level criminal charges against Johnson. The newspaper also said Paterson spoke with the woman personally, although the governor's office said it was the woman who placed the call.

Renewed calls for Paterson's exit were made hours after the story's publication, including one from a longtime ally, Rep. Steve Israel. The Long Island Democrat said he felt compelled to tell his friend that he should not seek election to a full term.

Paterson, an affable, slightly built politician, was never really seen as gubernatorial in the eyes of legislators, lobbyists or voters. Until he recently insisted on more formality, his staff and even rank-and-file lawmakers referred to him as "David."

He had been forced to confront allegations of sexual affairs and drug use since the day he rose to office on March 17, 2008, some of which were true. He held an extraordinary news conference detailing past affairs he and his wife were involved in during an 18-month period when it appeared their marriage would end. He also recounted past drug use from his youth.

He said he made the extraordinary admissions so that he couldn't be compromised as governor and to avoid further fracturing of a government rocked by Spitzer's resignation.

"We in public service and in life have all these great plans," Paterson said in a press event in Queens in the fall. "There's an old Jewish expression, I can't quote it, that man plans and plans and plans and God laughs. Because things change in a moment ... 24 hours in politics is a lifetime."


2a)Paterson's "Realistic" Exit Has Democrats Sighing With Relief
By John Nichols


The decision of embattled New York Governor David Paterson to quit his bid for a full term is exceptionally good news for Democrats--not just in New York but nationally.

Rocked by scandals, including the recent revelation that he had personally meddled in a domestic violence dispute involving a top aide, the governor decided to drop his 2010 bid--although, according in the he will not resign the governorship.

"I am being realistic about politics," Paterson explained. "Today I am announcing that I am ending my campaign for governor of the state of New York."

This is a personal tragedy for Paterson, who has struggled personally and politically since assuming the governorship of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign after getting wrapped up in a prostitution scandal.

It is, as well, a tragedy for the Paterson family, which had been at the forefront of New York Democratic politics since the current governor's father, Basil, was one of the first African-Americans to earn a top spot on a statewide ticket in the country. (Basil Paterson was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1970 and served as New York Secretary of State. He remains an epic, and active, figure in New York labor, civil rights and political circles.)

Just about everyone in New York Democratic politics would have liked to see Basil Paterson's son make a success of the state's top job. But his tenure has been plagued by budget crises, political stumbles and personal conflicts. And his decision to seek a full term unsettled Democrats who may have liked the governor personally but did not like his prospects politically.

Thus, for New York Democrats--who faced the prospect of a bruising primary fight between Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which might in turn have weakened the eventual Democratic nominee in what is shaping up as a tough year for Democrats in every state--Paterson's exit is anything but a tragedy.

Cuomo, the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is well positioned to make the gubernatorial run, with good prospects of winning the primary and general election.

That's important for Democrats in New York because, though New York is a blue state, it has a history of electing Republicans to the governorship--especially in years when national trends favor the GOP. Having a strong candidate at the top of the ticket should benefit Democratic prospects in the race to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's old U.S. Senate seat (where appointed incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand could face tough primary and general election challenges) and a number of marginal House seats where recently-elected Democrats will struggle this year to retain formerly Republican seats.

Perhaps, most importantly, a strong showing for New York Democrats in 2010 will put them in a good position when it comes time to redrawing congressional districts in a state where redistricting has historically provoked bitter partisan wrangling.

The 2010 gubernatorial races--as well as state legislative contests--will define the direction of redistricting nationally. And the drawing of district lines remains the most definitional force in our politics, even more meaningful than money or the personal appeal of particular candidates.

In the absence of the sort of redistricting reform that would foster honest competition -- as opposed to the current system that allows politicians to use the map-drawing process to reduce and even eliminate competition in some states -- it matters who controls the statehouse when fresh census figures arrive. And it matters particularly in New York state, where Democrats have in recent years claimed a half dozen suburban and upstate seats that used to be considered reliably Republican. Many of those districts remain highly competitive and the redistricting process could well determine whether they tip to one party or the other.

With national Democrats worrying more and more about not just the 2010 election cycle but the redistricting fights of 2011 in key states such as New York, Paterson's exit will inspire some sadness for an overwhelmed man and his family. But there will, as well, be a great sigh of relief at the news that their prospects for retaining the upper hand in New York politics have just improved--dramatically.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Dubai police claim of DNA and fingerprints is not credible


Mabhouh's shadows remain unidentifiable Dubai's police chief Dhahi Khalfan said Friday, Feb. 26, that DNA and fingerprint evidence of at least one of the 26 team of assassins had been found in the hotel room where Hamas commander Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was found dead on Jan. 19. The first arrest warrants have now been issued through Interpol.

Intelligence sources report that the Dubai authorities believe that a persistent stream of "revelations" about the Mabhouh investigation will make Israel and its Mossad intelligence agency slip up and admit responsibility for his death.

According to those sources, it makes no sense for the Dubai police to have found DNA or fingerprints in room 230 of the Al-Bustan Rotana luxury hotel occupied by Mabhouh and in none of the other rooms taken by hit team members. Any fingerprints will not be of much use unless they can be matched with prints of identified persons already on file with the Dubai police, and in any case are probably not genuine.

Our sources disclose that all the suspects arrived in Dubai disguised from head to toe and their fingerprints were most likely faked along with the rest of their appearance. Therefore, the Dubai police's fine collection of video clips and passport photos are of little use to the inquiry.

Sources therefore dismiss the claims by the Dubai police and certain Israeli publications citing "security experts" that the Mossad was caught unawares by the security cameras which tracked the death squad's movements. They missed the fact that the team was not only aware of the cameras but controlled them and used them in support of their mission.

Therefore, when Khalfan comes out with his next round of "revelations," he will most likely produce video depictions of some of the suspects using electronic gadgets to open the door of 230, Mabhouh's hotel room, at 8:24 p.m. Jan. 19, as the victim climbed up from the lobby to his room. The next shot 19 minutes later will show the same suspects leaving room 230, relocking the door and with the same gadget shooting the inside bolt home to concoct the appearance of a locked room mystery.

But the Dubai police are clearly missing the essential 19-minute segment covering the action inside room 230, without which they have no real evidence of a crime.
That did not happen by chance.

According to our sources, the death squad kept the cameras running long enough to exhibit their facility to penetrate any secure site in the Middle East, but switched them off when they wanted to conceal the actions they took in pursuance of their mission.

3a)Dubai says DNA of one assassin found: Police chief contacts various countries in attempt to assemble global team to pursue 26 alleged killers
By Roee Nahmias


Dubai police chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim announced Friday he possessed the DNA of at least one of the assassins of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh.


"We've (identified) traces of DNA on the scene, belonging to the criminals," he told Al-Arabiya satellite TV. "We have fingerprints and DNA traces and we know what they look like (thanks) to cameras that have revealed the whole operation."

Tamim also said he plans to appoint an international investigation team to pursue the 26 people suspected of committing the murder.

Tamim estimated Friday that the Interpol would put 15 of the new suspects on its most wanted list as early as next week. He said a delegation on behalf of the Dubai police had visited a number of European countries as part of the investigation which led to the assassins' exposure.


Tamim told the United Arab Emirates-based Al-Bayan newspaper that he was working with European countries, Australia, and the US through diplomatic channels in order to establish an international detection team including members from "at least seven countries".


To the Mossad he called, "Crime does not pay", and hinted that there was no use in disguises, false identities, and concealment. Tamim also stressed that the alleged assassins did not use diplomatic passports.


Dubai identified 15 new suspects in the assassination this week, bringing the total number of people believed involved in the death to 26.


“In addition to the previously released list of 11 suspects, Dubai Police has now identified another six suspects who include a woman who used British passports, a man and three women travelling on Irish
passports, two men who used French passports, and three people with Australian passports. The Australians included a woman," the Dubai government's media office said in an emailed statement.


"Friendly nations who have been assisting in this investigation have indicated to the police in Dubai that the passports were issued in an illegal and fraudulent manner," the statement said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)Must We Waste Another Year?
Michael J. Totten

The United States is re-establishing ties with Damascus and hoping to lure Syria away from Iran, but Lebanese scholar Tony Badran warns the Obama administration that Syria’s President Bashar Assad is laying a trap. The U.S., he writes in NOW Lebanon, needs to avoid making concessions until Assad “makes verifiable and substantial concessions on key Washington demands, not least surrendering Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Otherwise, Assad may dictate the avenues, conditions and aims of the engagement process.”

Syria has been cunningly outwitting Americans and Europeans for decades, and most Western leaders seem entirely incapable of learning from or even noticing the mistakes of their predecessors. Assad is so sure of himself this time around — and, frankly, he’s right to be — that he’s already announced the failure of President Obama’s outreach program. Yesterday he openly ridiculed the administration’s policy in a joint press conference with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Syria will not abandon its alliance with Iran, nor will it cease and desist its support for terrorist groups, until at least one of the two governments in question has been replaced. The alliance works for both parties. While Assad’s secular Arab Socialist Baath Party ideology differs markedly from Ali Khamenei’s Velayat-e Faqih, “resistance” is at the molten core of each one. Syria’s and Iran’s lists of enemies — Sunni Arabs, Israel, and the United States — are identical.

Understand the lay of the land. Syria is no more likely to join the de facto American-French-Egyptian-Saudi-Israeli coalition than the U.S. is likely to defect to the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah axis. It’s as if the U.S. were trying to pry East Germany out of the Communist bloc during the Cold War before the Berlin Wall was destroyed.

No basket of carrots Barack Obama or anyone else can offer will change Assad’s calculation of his own strategic interests. His weak military and Soviet-style economy would instantly render his country as geopolitically impotent as Yemen if he scrapped his alliance with Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Today, though, he’s the most powerful Arab ruler in the Levant. Because he contributes so much to the Middle East’s instability and starts so many fires in neighboring countries, he’s made himself an “indispensable” part of every fantasy solution Western diplomats can come up with. He wouldn’t be where he is without Iranian help, and that help will be more valuable than ever if and when Tehran produces nuclear weapons.

Last month Obama admitted he was “too optimistic” about his ability to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it’s “just really hard.” Prying Syria away from Iran won’t be any easier. As Tony Badran points out in his NOW Lebanon piece, the United States has been trying to drive the two countries apart now for more than 25 years.

Obama has not been paying attention if he thinks “engagement” with Syria hasn’t been tried. Badran alone has been documenting the futility of Western attempts to cut deals with Damascus ever since I started reading him, almost six years ago. The problem itself is much older than that, of course. It goes all the way back to the 1970s. Many of us who have been following Syria for some time were exhausted by the failure of “engagement” before we had ever even heard of Barack Obama.

The administration has already lost a year to the locusts with its “peace process” to nowhere and its “engagement” with Iran. A whole range of options exists between negotiating with murderers and invading their countries, and it’s long past time they were applied.

It won’t be Obama’s fault when his Syria strategy fails, but it is his fault that he’s wasting time trying. The president really ought to have learned by now that reaching out to terror-supporting tyrants in the Middle East is a mug’s game. His charm, sincerity, and inherent reasonableness count for little in a hard region where leaders almost everywhere rule at the point of a gun, and where the docile and the weak are bullied or destroyed by the ruthless.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Why Pelosi can't just get rid of Rangel: The ethics committee is set to report that Rep. Charles Rangel broke House rules. What's a Speaker to do?
By Steve Kornacki

Ways and Means chairman Charlie Rangel stands behind Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as she talks to reporters about healthcare after a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama and House committee chairs at the White House in Washington January 6, 2010.Suddenly, it looks like Nancy Pelosi will have to confront her Charlie Rangel problem after all.

For more than a year, the House Speaker has managed to buy herself time every time Republicans or the media (or both) have made noise about Rangel and his ethical issues. The House ethics committee is looking at it, she would say, and I won’t do or say anything until they report back.

But now there’s word that the slow-moving panel has found Rangel, the 79-year-old chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, guilty of breaking House rules by taking a corporate-funded Caribbean junket.

Already the calls for his ouster from Ways and Means have begun. Republicans have been shrieking for Rangel’s head for months, rubbing Nancy Pelosi’s “most ethical Congress in history” pledge in her face, and now even some Democrats – mindful of the election-year albatross that Rangel represents – are joining the chorus. “Time to strip Rangel of his W&M chairmanship,” the Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas tweeted tonight.

Let’s be clear: Pelosi would like to see Rangel go. Railing against him – a tax cheat running the tax-writing committee! – is a political goldmine for the GOP (which has already tried to embarrass House Democrats by forcing floor votes on Rangel’s gavel status). But prying him from Ways and Means is trickier than you’d think.

Her first option is to convince Rangel to give up his post voluntarily. Good luck with that. Rangel is a House lifer. He won his seat in 1970, part of a generation of African-American congressmen who decided they’d have better luck climbing the internal House ladder than trying to run for higher office in their home states. The seniority system ensured his slow, steady rise and when – after 12 long years of GOP rule – Democrats won back the House in 2006, Rangel, at 76 years old, found himself in one of Washington’s most powerful perches.

For Rangel, the Ways and Means chairmanship is both a reward and a ticket to relevance. The alternative – backbencher status – is flatly unacceptable. Don’t forget: he was so fed up with being out of power that he announced in the summer of 2006 that he’d retire after that year’s election if Democrats didn’t take back the House.

Not surprisingly, Rangel already began digging in his heels on Thursday night, insisting that the forthcoming report – to be released on Friday – actually exonerates him. Expect him to stick to this script for as long as he can.

So it’s likely that Pelosi will have to play hardball if she wants to oust Rangel. Which is where things get tricky, because within the Democratic caucus, big-picture political calculations – what will help us win in November? – are often secondary to factional politics.

In Rangel’s case, the particular issue has to do with the Congressional Black Caucus, of which he is a founding member. For understandable reasons, the CBC tends to be sensitive when it comes to gavels and committee assignments. Historically, many of its members – like Rangel – have relied on the seniority system for their political status and power. The idea of removing a CBC member from a choice assignment or bypassing a CBC member for a plum opening is not to be considered lightly.

Pelosi discovered this four years ago, after the feds raided then-rep. William Jefferson’s home and discovered in his freezer $90,000 in – literally – cold, hard cash. Jefferson was a member of Ways and Means and, as with Rangel now, the Republican taunts began almost instantly.

The 2006 election was months away and Republican corruption was a key plank in the Democratic platform. Pelosi wanted to be rid of Jefferson – fast. He wouldn’t resign from Ways and Means, so she sought his expulsion. And when she did, all hell broke loose. CBC members rushed to his defense, noting that he hadn’t been convicted of anything (or even) indicted. To punish him preemptively, they argued, would violate due process – and raise the specter of a double-standard, since white Democrats under similar clouds had not been forced to give up their committee seats.

After weeks of maneuvering, Pelosi finally arranged for a vote of the full Democratic caucus on Jefferson’s fate. The meeting was heated, with CBC members – and some unlikely allies—revolting. Despite the strong case for booting Jefferson, nearly 60 House Democrats voted not to remove him – not quite enough to save him, but plenty to teach Pelosi a lesson.

It’s worth noting, too, that Pelosi received some quiet help when she moved on Jefferson from Rangel and several of his CBC allies. Jefferson was something of an outcast in the group. Out of principle, most CBC members stood with him. But some of the group’s most important leaders – like Rangel – quietly assisted Pelosi (hoping, no doubt, to gain a chit from a future Speaker).

But when it comes to Rangel now, Pelosi won’t find similar help at the top of the CBC. The Harlem Democrat is a CBC lion, a founding member who inspires deep reverence from its members. If Rangel asks them to fight for him, they will.

This is why Pelosi has been dreading this day for so long. If she pushes, she could probably muster the votes to bounce Rangel, but the price would be steep: an ugly fight that would attract national press attention, hand Republicans cannon fodder, and divide her own coalition. Or she could look the other way, which would give the GOP even more ammunition and anger swing-district Democrats, who don’t want to have to explain to their constituents why they’re “protecting” Charlie Rangel.

Maybe Rangel will have a change of heart and fall on his sword. But to hear him on Thursday night, that hardly seems likely. So now it’s Pelosi’s move.


5a)Pelosi's Choice: Rangel or the Swamp
By David Paul Kuhn

Draining swamps is not so popular today. It's bad ecology.

We could understand Nancy Pelosi's defense of Charlie Rangel this way. It's an issue of conservation. I've heard those San Francisco liberals love the environment. Forget promises to "drain the swamp" during the 2006 campaign. She wants to conserve her ally's job.

Don't get Pelosi wrong. Surely, if a powerful House member "has proven himself to be ethically unfit" we know "the burden" indeed "falls upon" his party to oust him. In such a case, party leaders would obviously ask: "Do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"

So Pelosi explained in October 2004. The subject was Tom DeLay. The House ethics committee had admonished the Republican majority leader. DeLay used the Federal Aviation Administration to track Democratic state rivals. He hosted a fundraiser with energy lobbyists while energy legislation was under consideration.

Pelosi argued: "We must stop the influence of special interests so that the people know that we are here for the people's interests."

After all, this is why we have institutions like the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Except, that is, for the namesake and the center. An oil drilling company (special interest) made a $1 million donation to Rangel's center. The quid pro quo, allegedly, included legislative favors. The matter, like so much of Rangel's world, is under investigation.

Rangel has one of the powerful jobs in government. The New York Democrat is chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. The committee has jurisdiction over all taxation. And that's the rub. Rangel has a problem paying all his taxes.

The chairman failed to report more than a half million dollars in income. He later amended his financial disclosure forms. Perhaps it was a senior moment. The public servant simply forgot about his New Jersey real estate and a quarter million dollar account.

But perhaps he's just corrupt. There are other investigations. Possibly still more absent taxes, this time regarding rental income and a Dominican villa. There's the four rent-stabilized Harlem apartments used by Rangel, reportedly, well below market value. House lawmakers cannot accept gifts worth more than $50.

Rangel's cloud grew still larger on Thursday. The House ethics committee ruled that Rangel violated Congressional rules by accepting Caribbean junkets.

Thank goodness for Pelosi's past stands. Back in October 2004, the ethics committee had not yet acted on DeLay's links to a more serious money laundering investigation. But Pelosi saw that as no excuse. The cloud was big enough. Action had to be taken on behalf of the "people's interests."

Certainly, Pelosi is not foolish enough to not apply a Democratic double standard. Well, you know how this story goes. In Washington, the cynics are rarely proven wrong.

Some Democratic lawmakers are calling for Rangel to step down. But not the House leader. She says slow down. Don't jump to those conclusions. She told reporters Friday, "There's obviously more to come and we'll see what happens with that."

This year already looks like an awful political storm for Democrats. Pelosi is hoping one more cloud won't matter. This is what many party leaders do when they are in the eye of the storm. They forget how ugly it looks from the outside.

Rangel has served in Congress for nearly four decades. The grey pol does not want to leave the stage on this note. We get it. But Rangel is harming his party by holding that gavel as well as his cause. It's prime red meat for Republicans. This year, Democrats are dogged by great anxiety over potentially higher taxes. And their top man on the tax committee is not paying all his taxes.

Pelosi knows how these stories end. Her party lost control of Congress in 1994, in part, because of Democrats' ethical issues. Newt Gingrich pledged to clean the town up. Pelosi's Democrats regained power making the same pledge.

DeLay spanned this period. He was the onetime exterminator who infested the House. His most recent claim to fame is inelegantly dancing on television. DeLay is a cautionary tale. A joke. But he is also serious lesson in what happens to those partisans who confuse loyalty for cause and power for principle.

We know Washington was built on a swamp. But Pelosi need not let Rangel be one more reminder of it.

David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Who Lost Iran?
By James Lewis

"Who lost China?" was the Republican slogan in the 1950s, after Mao Zedong conquered China and turned it into a Communist tyranny. Jozef Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union at the time and controlled half of Europe. China and Russia were both nuclear-armed tyrannies, and democracy was in retreat all over the world.


The Western Left constantly lied about Communist Imperialism -- to the point where they redefined the very word "imperialism" to exclude any Communist regime. Even today, the Left won't admit that the Soviets and Chinese were running a classic imperialist enterprise. The Western Left enabled Fidel Castro to establish a Communist prison colony in Cuba, and he promptly lobbied Nikita Khrushchev to place nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida.


That slogan"Who lost China?" reminded American voters to elect Ike Eisenhower. As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he had unsurpassed experience in national security and international politics. He was a wise and reassuring presence, the right president for the First Nuclear Age.


We are once again threatened by a fast-rising rogue state, run by a totalitarian, suicidal cult soon to be armed with nuclear weapons. The life-or-death question for the coming elections should therefore be: Who lost Iran?


We have to pin that tail on the donkeys who let it happen. The Left is always boasting about their "compassion" and "progressivism" -- and most recently, they are boasting that they are "the educated class," when they have nothing but abysmal ignorance to show. Grandiose boasting and abysmal performance -- whom does that remind you of? It's a shocking sight. But as long as the Left controls the organs of propaganda -- the schools and the media -- it will be an uphill battle to tell the simple truth.


And yet, the Iranian bomb should wake some people up. The only way to stop a nuke is before it goes off, before it's ever made. But "preemption" is a dirty word to the high priests of the media. Pathetic.


The responsibility of the Left for this looming disaster is undeniable. Who enabled the viciously anti-American Khomeini revolution, right at the height of the Cold War? (Jimmy Carter!) Who allowed the suicide cult of Khomeini to get the biggest weapons of mass destruction ever? (Jimmy! Bill! Barry!) Who radicalized the Democratic Party, so that a once-decent group of mainstream politicians were replaced by radical Lefties? (The Left.) Who constantly sabotaged efforts by sane U.S. presidents -- all Republicans -- to stabilize the Middle East? (Jimmy! Bill! Barry!) Who failed to protect this country against the biggest terror attack ever? (Bill!) And who didn't lift a finger to keep the Khomeini fascists from getting strategic missiles and nukes? (Barry!)


There you have it. Who lost Iran? The Left. The Left has constantly sabotaged U.S. defenses, always agitating to expose the civilized world to nuclear terror. Who blocked anti-missile defenses in Poland and Czechoslovakia? (Yes.) If ever the world has been led by a suicide cult, this is it.


Bush and Cheney were trying to stop the two dangerous powers in the Gulf: Saddam and Iran. As a direct result, George W. Bush was bruised and bloodied for two terms. The Left -- Carter, Clinton and Obama -- go out of their way to surrender to Islamic fascism whenever they can. Obama just appointed a Muslim Brotherhood agitator to be his ambassador to the Organization of Islamic States.


At some point we're no longer looking at stupidity and ignorance on the Left, but rather at real malevolence, a real desire to destroy this country and civilized life. When you see the same people always driving the school bus into the same marsh, over and over again, you have to finally realize they are really acting out of destructive hatred. And that is how they sound on their "progressive" websites: They are filled with rage and hatred. These are just not normally constructive people.


These people destroy real science when they can. It is the Left that undermined and hounded respectable climate scientists to drive through own their mad green agenda by corruption, intimidation, and indeed, by conspiring to sell a Big Lie to the world. They've done that ever since Stalin and Karl Marx himself, who also pretended to be "scientific" when peddling his millenarian fantasy-world to ignorant and brainwashed people. These people lack simple honesty, ordinary decency, and even good intentions. Why else do you suppose Kevin Jennings was appointed "School Safety Czar" by Obama? It wasn't to make the schools safer. On the contrary. Whatever they think their intentions might be, these people are very perverse. They celebrate perversity.


When -- not if -- Ahmadinejad gets his fingers on the nuclear button, it is our responsibility to pin that tail on the donkeys. The media will scream and Blame Bush for Iranian nukes. We have to tell the truth and ensure that it is never forgotten.


Who allowed the most dangerous suicide cult in the world to get nukes?


Obama!


Who built up the Khomeini cult in the first place?


Carter!


Who sabotaged American defenses against terror strikes?


Clinton!


Who are you going to vote for in 2012?


...wait for the answer...


Once that nuke goes off, Americans must come to their senses.


Obama is not the Messiah. He's more like the Prince of Darkness.

6a) Is Iran 'inviting' Israel to strike its nuclear facility?
By Yossi Melman


Is Iran goading Israel to strike one of its nuclear facilities? That is one explanation that international nuclear experts and analysts have come up with to explain why Iran recently moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched uranium to above-ground storage, according to a report published Friday in the New York Times.

According to the New York Times, which quotes the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report, on Feb. 14 nuclear inspectors watched as Iran transferred more than 2,000 kilograms (4,300 pounds) of low-enriched uranium from deep underground storage to visible storageabove ground.

Supposedly, this enriched uranium will be used for a further enrichment of 20 percent to be used for its small reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for medical equipment.

The report says the move makes no sense, because Iran does not need that much fuel to run an aging reactor in Tehran. Iran has repeatedly claimed its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes and not for developing atomic weapons.

Analysts have called this a puzzling move, as Iran last September was caught building a new underground enrichment site at a military base near the city of Qom. The site was dug deep inside the Iranian mountainside, and Iran said it was forced to build it there because of the threat of an Israeli or U.S. attack.

One of the explanations analysts have used to explain the about-face is that Iran's Revolutionary Guards are "inviting" an Israeli attack to deflect attention from the eight months of post-election violence that have divided the country.

One senior European diplomat told the New York Times on Thursday that an Israeli military strike could be the "best thing" for the Iranian regime, because it would rally Iranians around the government and against a common enemy.

However, other experts gave a different reason. They say Iran has run short of suitable storage containers for its enriched uranium, so it had to move almost all of it.

Kenneth Pollack, a scholar at the Brooking Institution, told the New York Times that Iran is basically jockeying for a better position in negotiations with the West.

Intelligence experts in Washington and Europe are not certain that Iran is seeking to actually build nuclear weapons or just to have the capability to assemble an atomic bomb if and when it desires.

However, officials have said that U.S. President Obama wants to prevent an Israeli strike and dispatched to Israel both his national security adviser and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reiterate that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)How Safe Are Your Dollars?
By Martin Feldstein


Chinese officials and private investors around the world have been worrying aloud about whether their dollar investments are safe. Since the Chinese government holds a large part of its $2 trillion of foreign exchange in dollars, they have good reason to focus on the future value of the greenback. And investors with smaller dollar holdings, who can shift to other currencies much more easily than the Chinese, are right to ask themselves whether they should be diversifying into non-dollar assets – or even shunning the dollar completely.

The fear about the dollar’s future is driven by several different but related concerns. Will the value of the dollar continue its long-term downward trend relative to other currencies? Will the enormous rise of United States government debt that is projected for the coming decade and beyond lead to inflation or even to default? Will the explosive growth of commercial banks’ excess reserves cause rapid inflation as the economy recovers?

But, while there is much to worry about, the bottom line is that these fears are exaggerated. Let’s start with the most likely of the negative developments: a falling exchange rate relative to other currencies. Even after the dollar’s recent rally relative to the euro, the trade-weighted value of the dollar is now 15% lower against a broad basket of major currencies than it was a decade ago, and 30% lower than it was 25 years ago.

Although occasional bouts of nervousness in global financial markets cause the dollar to rise, I expect that the dollar will continue to fall relative to the euro, the Japanese yen, and even the Chinese yuan. That decline in the dollar exchange rate is necessary to shrink the very large trade deficit that the US has with the rest of the world.

Consider what a decline of the dollar relative to the yuan would mean for the Chinese. If the Chinese now hold $1 trillion in their official portfolios, a 10% rise in the yuan-dollar exchange rate would lower the yuan value of those holdings by 10%. That is a big accounting loss, but it doesn’t change the value of the American goods or property investments in the US that the Chinese could buy with their trillion dollars.

The Chinese (or Saudis or Indians or others outside the euro zone) should, of course, be concerned about the dollar’s decline relative to the euro. After all, when that decline resumes, their dollar holdings will buy less in European markets. While it is hard to say how much the decline might be, it would not be surprising to see a fall of 20% over the next several years from the current level of about 1.4 dollars per euro.

But the big risk to any investor is the possibility that inflation will virtually annihilate a currency’s value. That happened in a number of countries in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In Mexico, for example, it took 150 pesos in 1990 to buy what one peso could buy in 1980.

That is not going to happen in the US. Large budget deficits have led to high inflation in countries that are forced to create money to finance those deficits because they cannot sell longer-term government bonds. That is not a risk for the US. The rate of inflation actually fell in the US during the early 1980’s, when the US last experienced large fiscal deficits.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are determined to keep inflation low as the economy recovers. The Fed has explained that it will sell the large volume of mortgage securities that it now holds on its balance sheet, absorbing liquidity in the process. It will also use its new authority to pay interest on the reserves held by commercial banks at the Fed in order to prevent excessive lending. This is, of course, a formidable task that may have to be accomplished at a time when Congress opposes monetary tightening.

Looking forward, investors can protect themselves against inflation in the US by buying Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which index interest and principal payments to offset the rise in the consumer price level. The current small difference between the real interest rate on such bonds (2.1% for 30-year bonds) and the nominal interest rate on conventional 30-year Treasury bonds (now 4.6%) implies that the market expects only about 2.5% inflation over the next three decades.

So the good news is that dollar investments are safe. But safe doesn’t mean the investment with the highest safe return. If the dollar is likely to fall against the euro over the next several years, investments in euro-denominated bonds issued by the German or French governments may provide higher safe returns. Even if the dollar is perfectly safe, investors are well advised to diversify their portfolios.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.