Keep Baby From Crying-While Taking Its Candy !

No need to understand legislation Congress passes. All we need is to grope our way as they do. (See 1 and 1a below)

These new departments etc. will blow your mind. Welcome to Obamascare! (See 1b below.)
---
Are there any real core Constitutional Conservatives hanging around? If so who are they? If not why?

I suspect government largess has placed the hands on the Conservative Clock beyond reach. No Constitutional Conservative message would be understood and there would be too much resistance to anyone trying to re-set. Try taking candy from a baby while keeping it from crying. (See 2 below.)
---
How do you define Obama's legislative program and does anyone know where it is headed? Will it take the nation over the cliff? Does anyone really care? If they do, can they do anything about it?

Obama's newly defined nuclear deterrent policy undoubtedly has Iran shaking in their nuclear socks.(See 3, 3a, 3b and 3c below.)

This Britisher believes Obama's ability to stand in another's shoes and see their view point is reshaping the world. No doubt the author is right but does it make for sound policy to give your adversary what they want because you are empathetic? (See 3d below.)
---
Is al Qaeda's Saudi operative more and more involved in controlling and planing actions from Gaza and Lebanon against Israel and Western targets? (See 4 below.)
--
Assessment on Israel's tenuous future from a King who hangs on by his own fingernails.

Why is it that the way to peace with Arabs is to apply pressure on Israelis? Do Arabs have any part in making concessions? Apparently not, since they attacked Israel and lost they expect to be treated with deference because they have achieved victim status.(See 5 below.)
---
No need to go, California already there. (See 6 and 6a below.)
---
While Obama withdraws missiles pledged by GW, Putin challenges Obama off our shores. Obama's quid not met by Putin's pro quo! But then, maybe Obama looked into Putin's steel blue eyes and softened. (See 7 below.)
---

Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Does Anybody Really Understand ObamaCare?
By Peter Wilson

Since the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill, the Democrat leadership has embarked on a strategy of demonizing its opponents as angry, potentially violent racists. Charles M. Blow developed a new line of attack in his New York Times column last weekend, with an argument based on a recent Pew Research Council poll: Republicans don't understand ObamaCare, so they have no right to criticize it.


Coverage of the Pew poll took a good chunk of the Times Op-Ed page, with bar charts demonstrating "A lack of understanding" of Obamacare, based their poll question, "How well do you feel you understand how the new health care reform law will affect you and your family?" Democrats, who generally support the bill, reported greater understanding, with 64% answering "very much" or "somewhat" and 37% responding "not so much" or "not at all." Republicans were less confident that they understood the bill, with a 47/52 breakdown in these categories.


The Pew poll does not test anything quantifiable; it asks how respondents "feel" they understand the health care bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Blow's accompanying column, An Article of Faith, uses this data to draw sweeping generalizations that opposition to Obamacare is based on faith, anger and emotion, while supporters rely on knowledge, reason and evidence.


For a sample of Blow's laser-beam insights: he compares an exchange between Rush Limbaugh and President Obama. Obama said: "Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country." Rush responded, according to the columnist, "I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what's best for the country." Mr. Blow points out that Rush used the verb "believe" while the President used the verb "know," thereby proving that Republican opposition is faith-based, while Democrat support is reason-based.


xIs this what passes for serious analysis at the New York Times? Both men are expressing opinions that are open to argument. If one wanted to play the game of judging the majority of the American people by the word choice of a radio host who talks for three hours a day without a script, one could argue that Rush's using the word "believe" acknowledges the subjective nature of his statement. Granted, President Obama's verb "know" is a synonym for "believe" in casual language, but it is typical of Obama's arrogance that he believes his opinions are irrefutable knowledge. And given the President's poll numbers, it requires a leap of faith to believe that Americans are behind him.


It gets worse. I double-checked Rush's quote from his Friday show, and what Limbaugh actually said varies from Mr. Blow's transcript in three places: "The American people do not think that Barack Obama is doing what's best for the country." The verb "believe" that Mr. Blow uses to buttress the thesis of his essay does appear in Rush's next sentence, but one could easily apply Mr. Blow's simplistic word games and conclude that Rush is an American thinker, while President Obama is a know-it-all.


Mr. Blow sums up by delivering a withering "gotcha":


[Most] Republicans say that they still don't understand how the new health care reform will affect them and their family.


They don't know what it means, but they believe it's bad.


The smugness is galling. Does Mr. Blow not recall that we have just listened to a year of blithe assurances from Democrat leaders that they haven't read the bill, but they know it's good? As Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We need to pass the health care bill to find out what's in it."


Or Representative John Conyers (D-MI): "I love these members that get up and say, ‘Read the bill'! Well, what good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?"


During the House debate, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) voted for the House bill that he had not read. "You'd have to have hours and hours and hours to be able to do all that," he explained.


This did not stop the Democrat leadership from promoting the Health Care Reform Bill with an astounding barrage of propaganda and outright lies.


Give this history, it seems more likely that the people who "feel" they understand the bill rely on faith in their party's propaganda, while those who doubt their understanding of the bill are suspicious of political machinations. The latter seems an eminently rational view.


If Pew had polled Congress, they would fall into the "not too much" category (assuming they answered honestly). We have already witnessed two examples in the last week. The coverage of children's pre-existing conditions turned out to hinge on the wording of one paragraph of a 2,400-page bill. One would expect that poorly written legislation would reflect poorly on Congress. The job of legislators is, after all, is to write legislation. John Kerry was typically shameless, writing in a fundraising letter:


Insurance companies, citing some made-up loophole they "discovered," announced that they wouldn't write policies for sick kids. Immediately, President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services let them know we wouldn't stand for any of this red tape, loophole nonsense.


Does Senator Kerry expect us to believe that the health care bill is free of red tape and loopholes? Now that requires faith.


Another of the 2,400 pages will cost corporations billions of dollars by eliminating a tax deduction for employee health care. Rep. Henry Waxman is furious that these companies have obeyed SEC requirements and reported this expense. Waxman apparently understood the bill not so much.


It seems unlikely that any single person understands a bill of this incredible complexity and self-contradiction. The invisible technocrats who wrote it might comprehend their tiny contribution, but its proponents -- including the President and Congressional leaders -- did not deign to read the thing. It is entirely rational to oppose the bill and not understand it; it is a bad bill because it is incomprehensible.


I fear that over the next decade as complicated new regulations unfold, we'll discover that we were all in the "understand not too much/not at all" category.

1a)Obama's bait-and-switch campaign
By NORM COLEMAN

President Barack Obama shakes hands before speaking about health care reform at an event in Portland, Maine.

One telling moment in the 18-month health care debate was at the White House Summit. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminded President Barack Obama of his campaign promises to "bring us together" on health care.


"We're not campaigning anymore," the president said, "the election is over." The next question should have been, "Does that mean your campaign promises are null and void?"


Enough time has passed, and enough actions seen, to conclude that Obama ran as one kind of president but is governing as a very different one.


What the American people want is the kind of president Obama sold them: a post-partisan consensus-builder.


They are justifiably angry at the massive bait-and-switch on health care reform, the most important public policy debate in our lifetime. Obama has violated their trust, especially devastating with the long list of challenges we need unity to tackle, like jobs, energy and the deficit.


Health care is an emotional issue for everyone. In my years in government I learned that the deeper an issue, the more carefully leaders have to listen; and the greater the need for consensus-building rather than using raw political power.


Obama promised to expand health care coverage by 32 million people, and add not one dime to the deficit. He promised Americans who wanted to keep their coverage that the government would leave it alone.


He promised the bill would help the economy and grow jobs when millions of unemployed Americans are looking for hope.


He promised not to add to states' debts.


But those promises won't come true.


The law will not pay for itself. In a New York Times op-ed piece, former CBO head and American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimates it could put the country about $560-billion in the hole.


The law could cost jobs, hurt economic growth and hamper innovation. Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, 3M and others have filed SEC reports that this bill will cost them a combined ten billion dollars.


Beacon Hill Institute, the fiscally conservative economic research group of Boston?s Suffolk University, estimates 700,000 jobs will be lost, as small and medium-sized businesses try to provide health care for their employees.


The law does not allow seniors to keep the insurance they have. By 2019, 4.8 million seniors will be squeezed off Medicare Advantage.


The law does not help states with the high cost of health care. It makes the states? budget situations worse. By 2014, states will be required to pay 50 percent of the administrative costs that come with expanding Medicaid.

This law will not let the middle class keep its plans. CBO projects that by 2016, the basic plan, covering only 70 percent of a family's medical expenses, will cost $14,100 a year. Families making $88,000 or more won't qualify for the government subsidies.


This means a family making $100,000 could spend as much as one-fifth of annual income to keep private insurance.


Everybody understands that the status quo on health care was not acceptable.


This issue cried out for a bipartisan approach. We should have worked together, and done things differently.


In fact, Obama promised during the campaign that he would do things differently -- with change we can all believe in.


The American people believed that he would change how Washington does business. That he would seek consensus. That he would genuinely listen to the other side, find the best ideas and move forward in such a way as to unify the country.


But he didn't. Instead, he decided to jam legislation down the throats of the American people. Poll after poll shows that a majority of the people do not support this law.


They don't like the cost. They don't like what they believe will be its impact on their personal health insurance.


Most of all, they don't like the process. They don't like the back-room deals. They don't like the arm-twisting. They don't like exercise in raw power that shows that the politicians are not listening to them.


And it is not just on health care. On issue after issue, Obama campaigned one way and is governing in a different way.


He said he would fight waste, but he signed a pork-filled stimulus bill. He said he would cut taxes on the middle class, but they face tax increases on health care. He said he would be Israel's strongest supporter, but we all now know that isn't true.


He said he would unify the country. But the country is more polarized than ever.


The president took great pride in signing this health care law. But that won't help him with the American people.


He is not living up to his promises. This law does not live up to its promise.


We can do better. The president is right. We aren't campaigning any more.


But it is obvious that Obama the campaigner was more compelling than Obama the president -- who looks to be a rather conventional liberal politician.


Norm Coleman, who served as Republican senator from Minnesota, is now chief executive officer of the American Action Network.


1b)Below is a list of new boards and commissions created in the bill:

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

*Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Searching for Core Beliefs
By Vasko Kohlmayer

"By cutting out the middleman, we'll save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years," claimed Barack Obama as he touted the legislation that will change how student loans are issued. For those who have not heard, beginning July 1, student loans will no longer be administered by banks. Instead, they will be issued directly by the federal government via the U.S. Department of Education.


Tellingly, Obama used the same line of argument when pushing for health care reform. There, too, he argued that government takeover will save money.


Such assertions are obviously absurd. To see why, we need only to ask this question: When has any government-run program saved money? Not only do such programs never deliver the promised savings, but they invariably turn into boondoggles. And the more far-reaching the program, the bigger the boondoggle. The costs, for example, of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to skyrocket to such levels that each of them alone could eventually sink this country's budget. In any event, one thing is certain: If this triad of government programs are not reformed soon, this country will not financially survive them. It is, however, difficult to see how meaningful reform can ever be achieved, since entitlements are considered the third rail of American politics. Because of this, no self-interested politician will touch them with a ten-foot pole. To ensure that this country goes bankrupt even faster, Obama has now added health care and student loans to the government portfolio.


Many Americans are startled by these developments. What is happening now, however, is not all that surprising. After all, the ground had been prepared long before Obama took office. Even before his health care bill passed, areas of American medicine were partially socialized already. What Obama did was merely to take the whole thing one step farther. There is nothing to be shocked about here. Whether through Hillary or Obama or someone else, it eventually had to happen. As long as there is extensive government involvement in any sector, leftists will try for a takeover, and sooner or later, they will succeed. The only way to prevent this from happening is to keep the federal government out of those areas in which it is not authorized by the Constitution to operate. Health care is certainly one such area, and so are education, retirement, currency, and the economy.


Sad to say, there is no significant political force that would strive for this outcome. The hope that the Republican Party will seriously roll back government is surely a futile one. Despite their rhetoric, most Republican politicians are as invested in big government as their Democratic counterparts. We have seen the latest example of this with Scott Brown. Although portraying himself as a proponent of limited government, upon taking office, Brown promptly sided with Democrats to vote for a bill that would extend unemployment benefits.


But the problem goes beyond the Republicans in Washington. Take the case of Mitt Romney, who routinely calls himself a conservative and who is by many taken to be one. Last week, this "conservative" had to once again contend with the charge that Obama's health care plan is rather similar to the one Romney himself implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts. There are, of course, differences between the two programs, but they are very similar in their underlying philosophy. They both require, for example, that people purchase coverage while subsidies are offered to those who are unable to do so. In other words, both see government as the solution to the health care problem.


Mitt Romney is not a real conservative, some may say. It is, however, telling that he was among the more conservative in the last batch of Republican presidential contenders. He was certainly far more conservative than the eventual nominee John McCain, who claimed -- as did all the other candidates -- to be the true bearer of the conservative mantle. McCain's claim was a bad joke, but it is also an indication of the sorry state of American conservatism when a bunch of government types argue publicly and with impunity over which one is the real deal.


The sad fact is that there is currently no national political figure who is also a real constitutional conservative. Can you think of a single major politician who would advocate getting government out of health care? And yet this is the only position that a true constitutionalist can take. Not only is this the only constitutionally sound stance, but it is also the only workable one in the long run.


But health care is not the only area where we conservatives are deficient. What about the economy? The Founders were very explicit in their effort to limit governmental involvement. This meant no direct taxation, no income-redistribution, no intrusive regulation. Most of us would consider this highly radical even though these are the very principles on which this country was founded. Or what about our currency? The notion that the federal government should not manage it would strike most conservatives as far-fetched, if not outright crazy. But this is how the country operated for a long time. Most people do not realize that the United States got its central bank only in 1913, which was an event that opened the way for currency-manipulation by the political class. What we got as a result are persistent deficits, loose credit, asset bubbles, and inflation. It is very revealing that since 1913, the dollar has lost over ninety percent of its value.


Sad to say, the majority of those who call themselves conservatives today would respond by saying that times have changed and more government involvement is required than was necessary at the time of the Founding Fathers. But this is surely not the case. Government intervention is almost never beneficial in the long run. Quite to the contrary, it almost always results in more bad than good. So why should we keep piling bad on bad by giving government ever more power and scope?


The destructive measures that are now being implemented by Barack Obama are a direct consequence of our abandonment of the original principles. Because we have been unfaithful to the writ and vision of the Founders, we now get socialized medicine, government control of the automobile industry, high taxes, unconscionable deficits, debased currency, and impending national bankruptcy. Looking at all this, we conservatives cry fault. But where were we when the ground was being laid long before Obama was sworn in? Why were we not more bothered by the prodigious growth of Leviathan? Is it because despite of what we like to think, we are not really constitutionalists at heart?


This may be a good time to ask these questions and -- in the immortal words of Bill Clinton -- search for our core beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama's List
By J.R. Dunn

Over the past year and a half, we've seen much in the way of speculation of what Obama is really up to, what his true agenda might be behind all the soothing and meretricious rhetoric. It was quite clear that "Obama" was a construct, a carefully manufactured image, as all politicians are to one extent or another. But Obama was an extreme example -- all image, most of it having little or no connection with any discernable substance. The gap between what he said and what he would then proceed to do was wide and glaring. This obvious and undeniable discontinuity is the major factor feeding all the conspiracy theories -- the ones featuring George Soros as puppet master, or the claims of adherence to Islam and so forth. If only it were that simple! The past few weeks have clearly revealed that Obama is something at the same time entirely more commonplace while also being more obnoxious.


Obama is an example of that peculiar American contribution to the long line of political deviancy, the romantic leftist, a combination of undergrad Marxism, New Deal activism, Great Society idealism, and late 60s dementia. In fulfillment of this role, he is going down the list of left-wing daydreams, wish-fulfillment fantasies, and unfinished business, and doing his damndest to see them made reality. No more than that, and certainly no less.


Take a look at his latest series of crimes. Start with health-care "reform." We all know about this -- or, at least as much as we can be expected to know about a bill that is incoherent, contradictory, longer than Remembrance of Things Past and not fully grasped by even its most fanatic adherents. (Oh, there is one thing we do know that they don't -- that things that go up also come down, either by way of the Supreme Court, Congressional repeal, or the streets of Washington opening up to swallow everyone who voted for the atrocious thing.)


As for the newly announced nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, we know even less about that, apart from it being a "breakthrough." The single concrete point I've been able to gather is that the treaty terms will allow 800 launch systems, a provision that only indirectly involves nuclear weapons as such. If true, this has the feel of complete disarmament and not the nuclear variety at all. Does this mean 800 missiles? Or missiles, bombers, and submarines, and what have you? It doesn't sound at all good. We'll know more when Massa O comes down from the big house to explain it to us.


Third is the manned space program, now effectively kaput. Constellation was morphing into the standard gold-plated NASA make-work program, which does not mean that it wasn't worth pursuing anyway, as the only game in town. The idea of a major nation not possessing a manned program in the 21st century is an absurdity in and of itself. Particularly in light of the fact that such world powers as India, China, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos are all moving into manned spaceflight in a big way. Eventually somebody is going to stop ditzing around in low earth orbit and start exploiting the vast resources available on the moon and in the inner solar system. It would be nice if they spoke English.


All three of these have been on the leftie checklist for decades or longer. Health care since Harry Truman... or was it FDR? Or perhaps Aristides the Just? Government health care was the goal the left was aiming at with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid a half-century ago. And we're still not there yet -- the left won't be satisfied until they have their completely centralized system on the model of the UK's National Health Service. That's why they don't really care what's in the current program -- it's designed to fail, and in short order, so that they can nationalize it in order to "save" it.


Nuclear disarmament was in large part of product of the KGB, the secret sponsors of every disarmament movement from the 1950s SANE to the to the 1980s Nuclear Freeze. But tainted origins don't matter. Anything is better than nukes, which must be banished forthwith.


The space program has been a left-wing target since it first began. The standard argument -- that it's a "waste of money" -- can be set aside. The left considers every dime outside its direct control to be "wasted". Rather, it's combination of elements, including lack of imagination and spirit, an inability to see what a new age of exploration would mean for America and the world at large, and a sense of bitterness at America's achievement -- the U.S. will always be the nation that first set foot on the moon, something that leftists find difficult to accept.


In the past two weeks, Obama has taken all three off the board. His other recent efforts: beating up on Wall Street, attempting to resuscitate the unions, groveling before third-world tyrants -- are also characteristic of the American left and nobody else. (When did you last see a Castro or a Chavez bowing to a sheikh?) Obama is a typical example of a particular type of left-winger, produced by the United States alone among all nations. He is doing exactly what would be expected from this type of leftist, out of absolute conviction. Not in the service of any third party. Not to destroy or cripple the country. With his college-sophomore grasp of the world, he seriously believes he's doing the right thing and will be vindicated before the end titles roll up. This in defiance of the clear failure of every last left-of-center domestic and international program of the past eighty years. This is ideological blindness at its deepest.


So what predictions can we derive from this? What else is on the list? The answer is -- what do the lefties want?


Cap & trade
Marijuana legalization (tied in with ending the drug war as a whole)
Amnesty for illegals
Cutting Israel loose (We saw the first step toward this last week)
Creation of an international legal system
Media "reform"
A new NRA (National Recovery Act here, playmates -- not the gun guys.)
A government-mandated green economy
An equal outcomes "multicultural" society


We will see attempted legislation on all these -- and likely more -- over the next few years, particularly in light of his recent "triumphs".


But what about the exceptions? Guns in the national parks? Clearance for new nuclear reactors in Georgia? The new offshore drilling program? Each case involves triangulation of the most transparent and inadequate type. Bill Clinton was at least taking concrete action with NAFTA and welfare reform. Obama is doing no such thing. Loosening gun restrictions is a bone thrown to the despised "clingers." The reactor projects must still clear the standard regulatory barriers, an unlikely event. The drilling program is almost completely bogus. More exploration fields off of Alaska were closed than opened, along with the entire Pacific Coast and much of the Atlantic.


Obama's problem is that romantic leftism is consistently disastrous. A brief examination of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, the models for Obama's efforts, will reveal that clearly. More to the point, the prototypes for his recent triumphs have also failed wherever they have been put into effect. Concerning health care, we're told that we've joined the rest of the civilized world. So here's what civilization looks like:


In 2008, the Australian health-care system came near to meltdown after the New South Wales hospital network collapsed. The money was all spent, vendors stopped supplying medical materials, patients just out of surgery lay screaming on their beds after the morphine and sedatives ran out, and hundreds of specialists and personnel jumped ship for jobs in private medical centers. How did it happen? Nobody knows. Last year, Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming head of Canadian Medicare, stated publicly that the system was nearing implosion. She promised to try to fix it. She did not sound enthusiastic. In the UK, mother of all national health services, not a week goes by without another series of stories in British papers detailing corruption, incompetence, and sheer cruelty within the NHS. Recent news includes reports that dozens of local hospitals will be closed down as a money-saving measure, leaving many communities with no medical facilities whatsoever. Tens of thousands have died in the hands of the NHS in recent years, and tens if not hundreds of thousands more will die before any meaningful reform occurs. These countries, compromising the core of the Anglosphere, are on their way to Third-World status as far as their health-care systems are concerned. We just joined them on that slide. As for me, I liked barbarism better.


There is an argument to be made for maintaining a small but useful number of nuclear weapons, but you won't hear it from the left. Their contention is that nukes are no good and must be gotten rid of in toto. Forget the fact that they ended World War II decisively and quickly, that they helped win the Cold War (Could the West have kept the USSR contained without them? The simple answer is "no".), and have played a large part in keeping the peace since. No matter -- they're Bad Things, and must be eradicated, along with DDT, alar, fast foods, and Toyota. So Obama has heroically tackled the job -- just as Iran is obtaining its own nuclear arsenal. Great timing.


The first manned space program, which culminated in the Apollo lunar missions, was cancelled by Richard Nixon while he was playing his "I'm a liberal too" game during the run-up to Watergate. The ensuing economic shock caused by the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs (Where did the liberals think those paychecks were going to? Somebody living on the surface of Pluto?), helping to kick off the 1970s recession that hung on like a bad flu until Reagan took office. Obama simply repeated Nixon's error, with a recession already in place. What will the results be? What would you guess?


Any one of these programs, in place or planned, would be problematic at best -- creating serious and intractable problems during a period where resources and finances are stretched thin. But going into effect all at once -- along with lesser examples I haven't mentioned -- is the political equivalent of opening the seven seals. Like all other leftists before him, Obama knows he's right and that once these gimmicks are passed the problems will simply solve themselves. It's the same attitude as afflicted FDR's brain trusters, LBJ's best and brightest, and all the little manipulators and systemizers in between. They change not all. They might as well be wearing baggy suits, two-tone shoes, and straw boaters.


It's tempting to simply stand aside and watch him crash and burn. But not enough, because innocents -- such as the people who have already canceled their health insurance and are awaiting their personal notification from Obama -- will crash and burn with him. We must rather make the effort to limit the damage as much as we can with whatever resources we possess.


All the same, the prospect is no longer frightening or foreboding. It's exhilarating. Thanks to O, the third millennium is getting interesting. We're off on swift ride down hell's highway, with a man at the wheel who thinks the truck steers itself. When we at last reach a turnoff, things are going to be very different.


Obama, quite contrary to his intentions, is set on ramming us into a brick wall before we complete the ride. Fortunately the truck is very large and very sturdy, while the wall is shoddy and poorly made, the bricks ancient, cracked, and deteriorating.


When it's all over, there will be one thing left standing amidst the wreckage. It will be either that perverse little political philosophy called romantic leftism, or the United States. I'm betting it'll be the old US of A.


One thing I know -- it won't be Obama's reputation.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker, and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.

3a)Obama to limit U.S. use of nuclear arms, but not on Iran


The Obama administration will formally unveil a new policy on Tuesday restricting U.S. use of nuclear arms, renouncing development of new atomic weapons and heralding further cuts in America's stockpile.

But even as President Barack Obama limits the conditions under which the United States would resort to a nuclear strike, he is making clear that nuclear-defiant states like Iran and North Korea will remain potential targets.

"I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure," Obama told The New York Times in an interview that previewed his revamped nuclear strategy.

Obama insisted "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated or renounced the treaty would not be protected.

The policy shift, calling for reduced U.S. reliance on its nuclear deterrent, could build momentum before Obama signs a landmark arms control treaty with Russia in Prague on Thursday and hosts a nuclear security summit in Washington next week.

But it is also likely to draw fire from conservative critics who say his approach is naive and compromises U.S. national security.

The Nuclear Posture Review is required by Congress from every U.S. administration but Obama set expectations high after he vowed to end "Cold War thinking" and won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a nuclear-free world.

Under the new strategy, the United States would commit for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if it is attacked with biological or chemical weapons, according to The New York Times and a U.S. official who confirmed the details.

Those threats, Obama said, could be deterred with "a series of graded options" - a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

Still, Obama is rolling back the Bush administration's more hawkish policy set out in its 2002 review threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attack, even from non-nuclear countries.

An exception under Obama's plan would allow an option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack if there is reason to believe the United States were vulnerable to a devastating attack.

To set an example for global arms control, Obama's strategy - another departure from Bush-era policy - commits the United States to no new atomic arms development, U.S. officials said.

The United States will, however, increase investment in upgrading its weapons infrastructure, which one White House official said would "facilitate further nuclear reductions."

Arms control experts see potential for significant cuts in the U.S. stockpile by upgrading weapons laboratories to weed out older, ineffective warheads.

Obama now faces the challenge of lending credibility to his arms control push while not alarming allies under the U.S. defense umbrella or limiting room to maneuver in dealing with emerging nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea.

The review is a test of Obama's effort to make controlling nuclear arms worldwide a signature foreign policy initiative. It is also important because it will affect defense budgets and Weapons deployment and retirement for years to come.

The strategy was developed after a lengthy debate among Obama's aides and military officials over whether to declare that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis but would act only in response to attack.

Obama appeared unlikely to go as far as forswearing the first-strike option, which will disappoint some liberals.

The review comes a day before Obama leaves for Prague, where he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign a new START pact to slash nuclear arsenals by a third.

The signing ceremony will occur nearly a year after Obama's Prague speech laying out his vision for eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged it might not be completed in his lifetime.

3b) Obama: A nuclear Iran inevitable
By HERB KEINON


US president says "current course would provide them with nuclear capabilities."

It is inevitable that Iran will produce nuclear weapons, as things stand, US President Barack Obama said in an interview with The New York Times on Monday, seeming to indicate his administration was now resigned to a future including a nuclear-armed Iran.

President Obama stated he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged the question of whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Obama took office.

Obama was speaking about revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, with exceptions directed at “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On March 28, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton warned of the White House moving towards acceptance of a nuclearly capable Iran. “I very much worry the Obama administration is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, that's why there's this extraordinary pressure on Israel not to attack in Iran,” Bolton told Army Radio.


On Saturday night, in response to an announcement by Iran’s nuclear chief of plans to build new atomic facilities in the country, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s newest warning regarding Israel’s demise, a senior Israeli government official called for “determined and effective international action.”

“Ahmadinejad’s continuous outbursts of extremist rhetoric only prove to the entire international community the seriousness of the threat posed by the Iranian regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and heightens the need for determined and effective international action,” the official said.

Ahmadinejad, referring on Saturday to escalating tensions in the Gaza Strip, said IDF action would “cost” Israel “too much.”

“I say to the Zionists and their supporters that they have already committed enough crimes,” he told an Iranian crowd. “A new adventure in Gaza will not save you, but hasten your demise.”

Faced with the prospect of new sanctions because
of Iran’s nuclear defiance, Ahmadinejad said that such penalties would only strengthen his country’s technological advancement and help it to become more self-sufficient.

“Don’t imagine that you can stop Iran’s progress,” Ahmadinejad said in remarks broadcast live on state television. “The more you reveal your animosity, the more it will increase our people’s motivation to double efforts for construction and progress of Iran.”

The Iranian president claimed US pressure on Iran had backfired and made Washington more isolated in the eyes of the world.

China, which has veto power in the UN Security Council and whose support would be key, has not confirmed US reports that it has dropped its opposition to new sanctions. Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is in China in the hopes of winning assurances from Beijing that it will oppose such measures.

Iran’s economy has suffered over the past year, and parliament approved a cut in subsidies that keep fuel prices low, a further blow to Iranians already experiencing high unemployment and inflation.

The UN Security Council could consider new punishments on Iran, including increasing financial squeezes on the extensive holdings of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The US has also said it could seek to penalize companies that sell fuel to the oil-rich Islamic Republic, which imports about 40 percent of the fuel it needs because its refineries cannot keep pace.

Ahmadinejad added that the US has failed to isolate Iran. He said the fact that Obama’s recent visit to Afghanistan was not announced beforehand for security reasons was evidence of America’s own isolation.

“First, let’s see who is isolated. We think those who can’t show up publicly among the people and directly address them are isolated – those who fear nations. Gentlemen go to a country where they have 60,000 troops without any prior announcement. Who is isolated?” Ahmadinejad said.

The Iranian president noted that his own recent trip to Afghanistan was announced in advance and said he was warmly received.

“You are isolated yourself, but you are a hotheaded and don’t understand it,” he said.

3c)Race and Politics
By Thomas Sowell

Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world.

You might think we would have learned a lesson from that and stay away from injecting race into political issues. Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed.


When the triumphant Democrats made their widely televised walk up Capitol Hill after passing the health care bill, led by a smirking and strutting Nancy Pelosi, holding her oversized gavel, some of the crowd of citizens expressed their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs directed at black members of Congress.

This is a serious charge-- and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.

Among the people who are likely to be most disappointed with the Obama administration are those who thought it would usher in a post-racial society. That they wished for such a society is a credit to their values. But that they actually expected a move in that direction suggests that they ignored both Barack Obama's history and the heavy vested interest that too many people have in race hustling.

This is just one of many areas in which this country is likely to pay a very high price for the fact that too many voters paid attention to Obama's rhetoric while ignoring his actual track record.

However soothing the Obama rhetoric, and however lofty his statements about being a uniter rather than a divider-- both racially and in terms of bipartisanship-- everything in his past fairly shouts the opposite, but only to those who follow facts.

Has he been allied with uniters or dividers in the past? Do Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger sound like uniters?

What has his administration done-- as distinguished from what the president has said-- since taking office?

It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters.

Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.

He preceded this appointment by talking about needing people on the court with "empathy." That is a pretty word but the ugly reality is that it is just another euphemism for bias. For generations, white Southern judges had all kinds of empathy for other white Southerners, which is to say, bias against blacks.

The question is whether you want equal treatment or you want payback. Cycles of revenge and counter-revenge have been at the heart of racial and ethnic strife throughout history, in countries around the world. It is a history written in blood. It is history we don't need to repeat in the United States of America.

Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they have lived peacefully side by side for generations. Ceylon was one of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, before the politics of group favoritism so polarized the country-- now called Sri Lanka-- that it produced a decades-long civil war with mass slaughters and unspeakable atrocities.

The world has been shocked by the mass slaughters of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda but, half a century ago, there had been no such systematic slaughters there. Political demagoguery whipped up ethnic polarization, among people who had co-existed, who spoke the same language and had even intermarried.

We know-- or should know-- what lies at the end of the road of racial polarization. A "race card" is not something to play, because race is a very dangerous political plaything.

3d)Mary Dejevsky: Obama's 21st-century world order

His instinct in making foreign policy reflects an ability to see the other's point of view

President Obama had no sooner secured his healthcare programme than implications were drawn for his foreign policy. The self-same doom-watchers who had predicted the failure of his young presidency as it stumbled on health, were transformed overnight into cheerleaders, projecting this legislative milestone on to his credibility abroad. Success, they affirmed, bred success. When the same week was crowned with the first US-Russia arms agreement for 20 years, their point was made.


Now it is surely true that Obama's triumph in an area where so many other Democratic presidents failed, enhances his authority more widely. However the new law works in practice – and the obstacles the insurance companies will raise to almost universal healthcare are not be underestimated – it gives him an early claim to a place in history beyond his election as America's first black President. It also clears one big preoccupation from his domestic agenda, freeing time and energy for other things. And those other things will include foreign policy.

But to expect a series of successes abroad – from progress in the stalled Middle East peace process to a resolution, on US terms, of the stand-off over currency values with China – is to ignore both the realities that drive foreign relations overall and the considerable foreign policy groundwork that Obama has already put in. Any rewards he eventually reaps will come from the many seeds already sown, far more than from any enhancement of his domestic authority through healthcare.

For there has been a pattern to be discerned in his foreign policy from the day he was inaugurated as Barack Hussein Obama, drew a line under the Bush presidency and extended a hand to those who would unclench their fists. And it is a pattern that, despite a variety of apparent setbacks, remains mostly intact 15 months later. Born of a recognition that the world as it evolved after the Second World War is already in the past, it is a coherent and pragmatic approach to the global power shifts that have already begun.

Probably there are few national leaders who do not see their own time in office as a watershed, or potential watershed, of some kind. George Bush certainly came to see his presidency in that way, embracing a new sense of destiny in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. So, undoubtedly, did Tony Blair. One of his more memorable musings on foreign policy came in his Labour Party conference speech shortly after 9/11, when he spoke with evident excitement of this being "a moment to seize" in the "fight" for freedom and democracy around the world. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken," he said. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."

In retrospect – and even for many at the time – it is doubtful that this was a moment to seize, at least not for the particular idealistic project Blair (and Bush) had in mind. They harboured a messianism that sought to impose on others what they judged to be in their best interests. What is more, they took for granted that the Western world was still the global leader and arbiter. There were echoes here of Madeleine Albright's astoundingly arrogant description of the US, when she was Secretary of State, as "the indispensable nation". "We stand tall," she said, "and we see further into the future."

It is 12 years since then, and almost a decade has elapsed since 9/11. But it is not just the passage of time that makes the difference. It is that Obama sees the world in different terms. That he was born 15 years later than either of his predecessors and outside the shadow of the last world war may have something to do with it, along with his international upbringing.

But his instinct in making foreign policy reflects an appreciation of how the world looks not just from Washington, but from elsewhere. Bill Clinton displayed unusual cultural sensitivity – he was feted in France, which is no easy trick for an American without a Jackie Kennedy in tow – but this derived more from his political genius than from an ability to stand in others' shoes.

From Iran and the Middle East to Russia to China and South America, Obama has shown an acute awareness of the domestic and regional constraints on those he is dealing with, along with an almost unerring facility for pressing the right buttons. Europe may not be in his sights, but he well knows that Europe presents no threat and can safely be left to decide its own level of engagement with the world.

In some places, Obama has been unlucky. Who knows if, with an Israeli prime minister other than Netanyahu or a more united and flexible Palestinian leadership, there might have been advances in the Middle East? In others, his overtures have had a perverse effect. In abolishing the "axis of evil" and appealing direct to Iranians, Obama helped precipitate the turmoil that followed Iran's elections. He had made demonising the US more difficult.

Something similar would apply elsewhere in the region; in North Korea, even in Russia. In hostile territory, Obama has split opinion, between those who still see him as cleverer, and so more dangerous, than his predecessors, and those who are tempted to engage. But none of this negates the evidence of a single mind at work, contemplating a world where the US will be one among several major players.

Choosing arms talks as the forum for "pressing the reset button" with Russia allowed Moscow to negotiate on familiar, and equal, territory. With a degree of trust established, wider cooperation may follow; we shall see when the agreement is signed in Prague this week. And there is a wariness with China, but one that sees Beijing's weakness as well as its strength. It is not cowardice, but pragmatism, that led Obama to delay publication of the currency report until after this month's nuclear summit. Why trigger conflict, if you have the power to fend it off?

In a year of new diplomatic directions, Obama has shaken the kaleidoscope for real, and the pieces are indeed in flux. But his patience is proven, and he will allow them to settle. If there is a moment to be seized, it will be months, even years, down the line. In the meantime, let no one be blind to the scale and world-changing nature of the US project that is evolving before us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) Saleh Al-Qaraawi: New al Qaeda Levant chief plans fresh assaults from Gaza, Lebanon

US Intel: Gaza may be next Yemen

Ethiopian Airline crash off Beirut caused by al Qaeda

Gazan Palestinians mount motorbike-RPG attacks

The Rich Jihadi Proved Anti-Terror Measures Don't Work

An Israeli major and sergeant killed in Hamas cross-border attack



After reading introductory interviews to Islamist websites, Saleh Al-Qaraawi, the newly-appointed al Qaeda chief in the Levant (Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian territories) appears to threaten a fresh wave of attacks on US and Israeli targets as well as UN peacekeepers in South Lebanon.

Counter-terror sources report Al-Qaraawi (aka Star of Piety), a Saudi aged 40, is on the oil kingdom's list of 85 most wanted terrorists. He is married to the daughter of another terrorist high on the wanted list, Sheikh Hazeima.

Al Qaeda's sites present Al Qaraawi as Commander of the "Abdullah Azzam Brigades," named for Osama bin Laden's precursor as the jihadi organization's founding ideologue in the late 1980s.

He is thought to be a personal appointee of al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zuwahri, who is chief of operations for the Middle East region.

In one of the interviews, the new man says the time has come to intensify attacks on Israel from two bases: the Gaza Strip, where al Qaeda has established a stronghold, and Lebanon.

Military sources report cluster of groups affiliated to al Qaeda, which have sprung up in the Gaza Strip under the Jalalat umbrella, keep their hand in with the occasional Qassam or mortar attack across the border into Israel. But most of their energies go into building up their power base in the southern areas of Khan Younes and Deir al-Balakh and pushing Hamas out. Building on Al Qaraawi's rich operational experience in Saudi Arabia - high command of the Saudi arena is said to be on his resume - his new job is to inject fresh impetus into cross-border offensives from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

As for assaults on US targets in the Levant area, al Qaeda plans to use the Kingdom of Jordan as its main arena, as it has in the past.

Al Qaeda's most ambitious operation from Gaza was mounted eleven months ago, on June 8, 2009, when a large contingent of raiders, some on horseback, swept across the border at several points from north to south.

An estimated 10 gunmen attacked a Golani infantry patrol and tried to kidnap Israeli soldiers. In the ensuing battle, a back-up al Qaeda force fired mortars from inside the Gaza Strip.

That operation failed in its purpose but demonstrated the scale of attacks the Islamist organization is planning to mount from the Gaza Strip against southern Israel.

Three months later, on Sept 11 2009, al Qaeda marked the date of its New York atrocity by firing two 122mm Grad missiles from the Qlaileh area in South Lebanon into Western Galilee, where they exploded on open ground near Kibbutz Gesher Haziv.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Jordan King: Israel's long-term future is in jeopardy


Jordanian King Abdullah has warned that Israel's long-term future would remain in jeopardy unless a permanent solution to the Middle East conflict was achieved, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

"I think the long-term future of Israel is in jeopardy unless we solve our problems," Abdullah told the paper in an interview that appeared online Tuesday.

The Jordanian monarch, who is scheduled to arrive to Washington on Saturday to attend President Barack Obama's Nuclear Security Summit, cautioned against "wasting too much time" in resolving the conflict in the region.

Pointing to the "tremendous tension" in the Middle East, Abullah warned that the "status quo is unacceptable."

"Over the Israeli-Lebanese border; if you spoke [to some Lebanese] today they feel there is going to be a war any second," he said. "[It] looks like there is an attempt by certain groups to promote a third intifada, which would be disastrous. Jerusalem as you are well aware is a tinderbox that could go off at any time, and then there is the overriding concern about military action between Israel and Iran."

"So with all these things in the background, the status quo is not acceptable; what will happen is that we will continue to go around in circles until the conflict erupts, and there will be suffering by peoples because there will be a war," added Abdullah.

Abdullah lauded Obama's efforts in pursuing a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, but said: "They've had other things to deal with on their shoulders. The problem is what happens over the next couple of months."

"The job of Jordan and the other countries in the international community is to keep common sense and keep hope alive until America can bring its full weight on the Israelis and the Palestinians to get their act together and move the process forward," said the Jordanian king.

"We're sort of the power brigade... us and other countries, trying to see where issues of contention between Israelis and Palestinians and make the atmosphere more amiable. With the background that evil does not sleep," said Abdullah.

"There are those out there on all sides unfortunately, rejectionists, I think that's maybe a good term to use these days, who will do everything they can to spoil the future of Israelis and the Palestinians," he added.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6) Debtor States
By James Surowiecki

Another year, another crisis. If we spent last year worried that big banks were going to fail, the fear of the moment is that entire governments may go under. The anxieties about “sovereign debt” have been most acute in Europe, where the infelicitously named PIIGS countries—Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain—have huge debt burdens, and where Greece in particular is in dire need of assistance. (It owes four hundred billion dollars, against an annual G.D.P. of around three hundred and forty billion and shrinking.) And now people are wondering if American state governments are headed for their own Greek tragedy. Last week, the Times suggested that the states could be plunged into a debt crisis, and the Wall Street Journal asked, “Who Will Default First: Greece or California?”

It’s not an outlandish question. Besides great climates and lovely beaches, California and Greece share a fondness for dysfunctional politics and feckless budgeting. While American states are typically required to balance their budgets annually, that hasn’t stopped them from amassing a pile of long-term debt by issuing municipal bonds. And, like Greece and other E.U. countries, states have used accounting legerdemain to under-report the amount they owe, even while accumulating huge, unfunded pension obligations. Just as a default by Greece (whose bonds are held by many big European banks) would have nasty ripple effects across the European economy, a state-government default would have all sorts of unpleasant consequences, as state bonds have traditionally been considered a thoroughly safe investment.

For all this, though, the comparison has been overblown. Our states’ debt burden, while sizable, is far more manageable than that of the PIIGS, which owe three times as much relative to G.D.P. as American state and local governments. And though states will certainly have to cut their budgets again this year, the cuts will be smaller (and therefore more politically palatable) than those of, say, Ireland, which is cutting government spending by almost nine per cent. Most important, the states have a fundamental advantage over euro-zone nations: they’re part of a country, not an ill-defined union, so they can count on help from the federal government.

Much of the assistance that the states get from Washington is close to automatic: in normal times, the government sends almost half a trillion dollars in aid (for everything from Medicaid to highways and education) directly to the states. And it can generally be counted on to step up its efforts in a crisis; last year’s stimulus sent more than a hundred and fifty billion dollars to state and local governments. There’s a long-standing tradition of this: one of the federal government’s first acts was to assume the debts that states had run up during the American Revolution. This meant that frugal states had to help pay the debts of profligate ones. But the assumption was that closing gaps between the states by some measure of redistribution was in the national interest. The theory is that we hang together in times of trouble lest we all end up hanging separately.


from the issuecartoon banke-mail this.In the E.U., things are very different. For all the lip service paid to “Europe” as an entity, local interests consistently trump continental ones, as evidenced by the fact that it took Europe months to agree to help if Greece finds itself unable to finance its debts. Despite the large economic imbalances between the E.U.’s members, there are few tools for correcting them. The E.U. does have structural subsidies for weaker economies, but they’re quite small, and there is no obvious mechanism for channelling aid to countries that get in trouble. (Indeed, the E.U. constitution explicitly includes a “no bailout” clause.) Worse still, the single currency means that struggling countries like Greece and Portugal can’t devalue to boost exports and create jobs. Their only option is to slash budgets to the bone.

Countries like Greece and Ireland need to learn to live within their means, of course. But in the middle of a severe recession steep spending cuts and tax increases can be disastrous. The refusal of European countries (especially Germany) to bail out profligate neighbors, although perfectly understandable, has increased the chances that Europe as a whole will suffer a double-dip recession. In the U.S., by contrast, federal aid to the states softened the impact of the recession, allowing the economy to start growing again; while states still had to cut thirty-one billion in spending, the stimulus aid saved hundreds of thousands of jobs.

All this aid comes at a price, of course: it increases moral hazard, and it increases the national deficit. But the federal government is able to borrow money at exceptionally cheap rates, and, at a time like this, when the economy is still trying to find its feet, forcing states to cancel building projects and furlough teachers and policemen makes little economic sense. (Indeed, there’s a strong case to be made that more of the original stimulus package should have gone to state aid.) The European model would do more harm than good, as American history shows: in the early eighteen-forties, after the bursting of a credit bubble, many states found themselves in a debt crisis. The federal government refused to bail them out, and eight states defaulted—a move that cut off their access to credit and helped sink the economy deeper into depression. The U.S. did then what Europe is doing now, putting the interests of fiscally stronger states above the interests of the community as a whole. We seem to have learned our lesson. If Europe wants to be more than just Germany and a bunch of other countries, it should do the same.

6a)California's $500-billion pension time bomb
By David Crane

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That's the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University's public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

To put that number in perspective, it's almost seven times greater than all the outstanding voter-approved state general obligation bonds in California.

Why should Californians care? Because this year's unfunded pension liability is next year's budget cut to important programs. For a glimpse of California's budgetary future, look no further than the $5.5 billion diverted this year from higher education, transit, parks and other programs in order to pay just a tiny bit toward current unfunded pension and healthcare promises. That figure is set to triple within 10 years and -- absent reform -- to continue to grow, crowding out funding for many programs vital to the overwhelming majority of Californians.

How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those promises.

As we saw during the recent financial crisis, hiding debt is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, General Motors did something similar to obscure the true cost of its retirement promises. Through aggressive accounting, for a while it, too, got away with making pension contributions that were a fraction of what it really needed to make, thereby reporting better earnings than was truly the case.

But eventually the pension promises come due, and for GM, that meant having to add extra costs to its cars, making its prices less attractive to consumers and contributing to its eventual bankruptcy.

In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.

What can we do about this? For the promises already made, nothing. They are contractual, and because that $500 billion of debt must be paid, retirement costs will rise dramatically no matter what we do. But we can reduce the sizes of promises made to new employees and require full and truthful disclosure so that pension debt can never again be hidden.

Last summer Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed exactly that. Since then? Silence. State legislators are afraid even to utter the words "pension reform" for fear of alienating what has become -- since passage of the Dills Act in 1978, which endowed state public employees with collective bargaining rights on top of their civil service protections -- the single most politically influential constituency in our state: government employees.

Because legislators are unwilling to raise issues that might offend that constituency, they have effectively turned the peroration of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on its head: Instead of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we have become a government of its employees, by its employees and for its employees.

This explains why legislators fight harder to overturn employee furloughs than to reform pensions and elect to pay more in compensation to just 65,000 employees in one single department -- corrections -- than they spend on a higher education system serving 10 times as many people.

Simply put, the single most important step a legislator can take to protect programs and taxpayers is to embrace pension reform. There is no structural impediment to pension reform, and no initiative has forced legislators to issue all that pension debt. All of the damage has been caused by legislation, most notoriously SB 400 in 1999, which retroactively and prospectively boosted pension promises by billions of dollars without boosting contributions. Likewise, all the remediation can be accomplished by legislation.

Even the state legislature of Illinois -- a legendary poster state for pension misbehavior -- has now passed pension reform. There's no reason the California Legislature cannot do the same.

Call or write your legislator about pension reform, and while you're at it, remind him or her that we are indeed a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

David Crane is special advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for jobs and economic growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Putin's Gambit



If anything should raise alarm bells in Washington, it's Vladimir Putin's visit to Caracas to make oil deals and sell weapons. AP View Enlarged Image
Security: If anything should raise alarm bells in Washington, it's Vladimir Putin's visit to Caracas to make oil deals and sell weapons. This signals not only the failure of the U.S. "reset" policy, but a new threat.

Friday, Russia's prime minister made his first trip to Caracas, jetting in with little fanfare to sign deals. The urgency baffled many, but Putin got right down to business, announcing that Russia had gotten the right to develop Venezuela's Hunin-6 field, the world's largest oil deposit.

He also announced that Russian companies would build refineries and handed Chavez a $1 billion "entry fee." Meanwhile, he said Russia would sell more than $5 billion in arms to Venezuela and build a Bolivian aircraft refueling stop, effectively a Russian military base near the center of South America.

Why the sudden visit? Putin sees a perfect storm of opportunity.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is in trouble domestically, unable to keep the lights and water on or store shelves stocked. A national assembly election looms, and polls show his allies will lose. In such straits, he gladly handed over what he could on concessionary terms to Putin, and he's always liked buying more weapons.

This is bad news for the U.S. and its regional allies such as Colombia and Chile, all of whom face new threats after Putin's trip.

The U.S. faces the growing possibility of Russian control of its second largest foreign oil supplier. Putin clearly sees President Obama's promises to drill oil in U.S. waters as hollow.

Russian control of Venezuelan oil means more leverage over U.S. energy than Venezuela has, given the new refineries.

In the past, the U.S. could check Chavez to some extent because of its near monopoly in refining Venezuela's specialized heavy oil.

Putin's move ends even that.

Meanwhile, Putin vowed to step up arms sales to Chavez. "I'll remind you that if all the countries pool their defense spending, it will be less than the USA's anyway, so the issue that the strengthening of the defense capability of smaller states might threaten someone seems incorrect to me," he told ITAR-Tass.

The problem here is that Russia's weapons to Venezuela and its de facto air force base in Bolivia threaten the U.S.' democratic allies far more than they do the U.S.

Colombia, Peru and Chile are all menaced by these moves, and Colombia's foreign minister has swiftly flown to Moscow to prepare for a presidential visit there next week.

Putin's sales will accelerate South America's arms race, which according to Sweden's SIPRI arms trackers is already up 150% in the last five years. So democracies such as Colombia will spend money on defense instead of development.

Meanwhile, the Russian base in Bolivia, just 1,000 miles way from Santiago, Chile, will upset the Peru-Chile-Bolivia balance of power and encourage Bolivia's claim on both countries for access to the sea.

Putin cynically justified Russia's move because the U.S. refused to sell weapons to Venezuela. "Nature abhors a vacuum," he smirked.

This neglects the fact that Putin isn't selling those weapons — he's effectively given them away. The last $4 billion in arms sales to Venezuela were financed by Russia, and Venezuela has effectively defaulted on all of them. The move is strategic, not commercial.

It's an acceptable price to Putin, because he sees the U.S. as weak.

Not only has Obama shown himself willing to abandon allies in Eastern Europe to win Russia's good graces, but Putin also sees the U.S., unlike in ages past, unwilling to address energy security or chase out Russian bases.

The State Department is publicly laughing at the new deals. But Putin's moves indicate a calculating mind that may one day have the U.S. over a barrel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------