We also stayed with family members in homes overlooking magnificent water views of various parts of southern Florida.
I listened to very little news and/or read much because I did most of the driving but I did some thinking which reinforced my conviction that Obama continues on his merry way of dividing our nation with his emphasis on the politics of envy.
America was not created by pitting one group against the other. The founding concept was to unite a diverse citizenship into a Republic. Private initiative, self discipline were among the characteristics our founder's highlighted in our Constitution. They sought to protect the people from the government and its destructive powers.
The way the media and Obama are portraying the proposed "tax compromise' is a sham. Extending tax rates neither increases or decreases income to the government. In fact GW's tax reduction, as did Kennedy's, brought in extraordinary revenue because lower taxes produces increased economic activity.
What is adding to our growing fiscal deficit is increased spending and additional gimmicks to 'stimulate' the economy which have mostly failed or delayed the recovery which would/could have taken place by free market forces.
Obama believes in wealth transference. This is not an American concept. Pettiness is not how Americans built our exceptional nation. In fact, Obama sends a negative and contradictory message because he believes if you succeed you should/can/must not retain what you create. His message is: Government is the final arbiter in who can retain the fruits of their labors. This is anti-thetical to what built this nation.
Reagan told us what we intuitively know and which Obama would have us forget -"Government is the problem not the solution."
What Obama and his radical thinkers are about will destroy our nation, will heighten our insecurity, wreck the value of the dollar, burden our future with untold debt and, in the end, weaken our resolve and ability to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.
Obama is on a mission which, if successful, will help hasten our demise as a world power both militarily and economically. (See 1, 1a and 1b and also 5 below.)
---
Subject: Natural Born Citizen or Hail Caesar! (See 2 below.)
---
Pelosi rammed 'Obamascare' through and it has proven soooo "Obomanable' that the desire to be excluded from its provisions, even for union Obama supporters, has been gathering steam. This discussion with Peter Suderman on PJTV.Com might prove insightful: From: PJTV
Then, the article by Professor Tyler Cowen is short and to the point as to why 'Obamascare' is the wrong medicine.(See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Remarks by Senator Kirk that are prophetic. Much of his message is being ignored by this Administration and Western nations.
Avi Jorisch, one of my recent speakers, discussed the effect of economic and financial sanctions against Iran and pointed out they were effective up to a point but the Administration was not being aggressive enough in their implementation.(See 4 below.)
---
My friend ,Yisrael Ne'eman, writes about the negative and dangerous effect and terrible consequences Israel undergoes because of coalition governments.
Very worthwhile read and so logical in its message! (See 5 below.)
---
How America lost its way. Sad indeed. (See 6 below.)
---
Katie Couric meets more than her match.
Couric said to her guest during an "HBO History Makers Series" interview, "Documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,"
Rice stopped the host dead in her tracks.
I have always said you have the right not to accept some one's premise. If you do when you really don't then they will lead you down their path not yours. Then you have no right to complain you are where you did not intend to be! (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)From Post-Partisan to Most Partisan
President Obama has energized his opponents by demonizing them.
By KARL ROVE
'I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues." President Barack Obama made that threat last week as Congress moved to pass his bipartisan tax-cut compromise. Why was Mr. Obama so pugilistic?
It was partly to reassure unhappy Democratic liberals, especially bitter Democratic congressmen. Many are from gerrymandered districts where little news about the midterm elections has apparently penetrated.
But a scorched-earth policy doesn't make sense for the Obama White House. Independents voted Republican last month by a 59% to 38% margin not because they thought Mr. Obama too civil, his course too centrist, and his bipartisanship too energetic. In fact, they were sick of the administration's direction and tone. The increased number of Republicans in Congress next year will stop Mr. Obama's leftward policy march, whether he likes it or not. But only he can change his manner of speaking.
In his first two White House years, Mr. Obama has seemed incapable of constructing a positive narrative. Instead, he has appeared hard-wired to justify his policy choices by blaming savage evildoers for monstrous wrongs.
Mr. Obama fell into this habit early. He kicked off his drive to pass a stimulus on Jan. 8, 2009 by attacking the "profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to . . . Washington." In December of that year, during a "60 Minutes" interview, he lashed out at bankers making multimillion-dollar bonuses, saying "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street."
His push for health-care reform was marked by frequent attacks on insurance companies. He depicted them as gluttonous profit-seekers intent on sticking it to their customers. He went after them with loaded words: They "discriminated," "rationed care . . . denied coverage" and were "bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor."
After his bill passed, the president kept it up. "This is no secret," Mr. Obama said in March. Health insurers are "telling their investors this: We are in the money; we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship." Even physicians found themselves in Mr. Obama's crosshairs for ordering needless but costly tests just to enrich themselves.
Was this necessary? Mr. Obama could have fashioned a case that emphasized the good that would come from his proposals, but instead he spewed venom on those he decided were his enemies.
This attitude has infected the president's speeches on the rest of his agenda. New financial regulations were needed because of those "fat-cat bankers." High mileage standards for cars were necessary because otherwise "everybody drives Hummers." High-income earners deserved higher taxes because "the playing field" has been "tilted so far in favor of the few." Why has it been so hard for Mr. Obama to fashion a positive call to action, without all these bogeymen and villains possessing his teleprompter?
He seems unaware that his attacks are creating a vast army of people who feel personally assaulted by him. Rather than being silenced by his assaults, they have been driven to action.
For example, Mr. Obama's health-care reform continues to drop in the polls. This week's ABC/Washington Post survey shows support at the lowest level to date, 43%, with opposition at 52%. Doctors, nurses, health-care professionals, hospital workers, drug-company employees and ordinary people who labor in the insurance industry are making their voices heard and are shifting opinion among those they can personally influence. Talk about payback: Mr. Obama has energized them, in part, by demonizing them.
Click here to order his new book,Courage and Consequence.
.Americans have come to expect the country's chief executive to set the tone for our nation's political discourse. But Mr. Obama's tenor has been worthy of a party press secretary, not the occupant of the Oval Office.
The rhetoric is predictable and embarrassing. Mr. Obama rarely surprises—except to sink further into argument and anger. He constantly uses his words to agitate, provoke and divide rather than to inspire and unite as he often did in his campaign. His call in his inaugural speech "to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and . . . the recriminations" is now at odds with his attack-dog tone. He has gone from post-partisan candidate to most partisan president.
In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke of his desire to appeal to "the better angels of our nature." It's a goal Mr. Obama should emulate. The likelihood of him again enjoying the support of independents and winning bipartisan support in Congress may depend upon his ability to do so.
1b)What Are Taxes For? Should the primary purpose of taxation be to support the government or maximize economic growth?
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Sarah, Mitt and several tea party groups say the tax compromise with Barack Obama is a bad idea, sells out the GOP's anti-spending promises and, worst of all, helps you-know-who's re-election chances. But Newt, Mike and Tim think it's a decent deal. Far be it from me to interrupt the GOP's holiday spirit. Let us stipulate, however, that the furtive, ragged tax bill being let out the back door of a lame duck Congress proves—officially and conclusively—that tax policy in the United States has hit the wall.
A compelling, even frightening article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal about a tax system that is a morass of extenders, extrusions, loopholes, credits and bubble-gum fixes ended with the story of a grievously ill cancer patient balancing the benefits of taking an experimental drug against the estate-tax benefits to his family of an early death.
Whether the tax rates in place for most of the past 10 years are extended for two more years this week or next month is politically interesting but doesn't get to the more important question we should be asking Govs. Palin, Romney, Pawlenty and the rest: What exactly do you think taxes are for?
It's possible this question hasn't come up in a serious way since it was first asked by a peasant in Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest. For centuries, no one has doubted that the textbook answer suffices: Taxes are levied on behalf of some public purpose. But the modern tax-paying peasant insists on asking: With a U.S. budget at $3.5 trillion annually, with Harry Reid this week off-loading a 1,924-page "omnibus" spending bill, what is the public purpose of taxes?
Someone is going to answer that question because suddenly tax reform is gaining "momentum"—a phenomenon that occasionally interrupts what Washington does the other 99% of the time.
Barack Obama told National Public Radio last week that he's for tax reform. This followed calls for tax reform from the Bowles-Simpson commission, another group led by former Clinton OMB director Alice Rivlin and, not least, from the next chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp of Michigan.
Obama economics adviser Larry Summers—who is shrewd enough to anticipate that a challenge to taxation's traditional role is gaining momentum in the American countryside—gave a farewell speech in Washington this week that included a forceful argument for taxation's public purpose.
"We risk a vicious cycle," he said, "in which an inadequately resourced government performs badly, leading to further demands that it be cut back, exacerbating performance problems, deepening the backlash and creating a vicious cycle. . . . While recovery is our first priority, it is essential that we establish long-run parity between revenues and expenditures."
Mr. Summers and others are worried that the new, Republicanized Congress that floated in on a tide of tea party sentiment represents some visceral antipathy toward government and its functions. This is a caricature of their concerns.
The more serious question that lies beneath the disaffection with government is this: What balance between the private and public economies will best allow the U.S. to remain the world's pre-eminent economic (and military) power for the next generation? That premise matters to how one answers the question about taxation's purpose. Barack Obama won't say it, but a school of thought linked to his presidency no longer sees a justification or need for U.S. primacy. That posture would indeed make it easier to maintain the "parity" between taxes and outlays that Mr. Summers seeks on behalf of the public sector.
There is an alternative. A radical (in the best sense) 21st-century tax debate—such as over Bowles-Simpson's three stripped-down marginal rates, topping at 23%, and lower taxes on business—would challenge the conventional 100-year-old idea in the U.S. that the first purpose of a tax regime is to ensure the functioning of the state. In the hypercompetitive world we will inhabit for at least a generation, might not it be time to rewrite the textbook? To ensure American well-being, the pre-eminent purpose of a modern tax system should be to achieve the highest possible level of growth in the private economy with a competent, efficient state in a supporting role.
The first tea party was about taxes, not British spending. That tea party happened when Americans were determined to have the means and freedom to start their long economic ascent. Now the time has come to discover yet another path to strong growth. The tax system along this path matters, and this month's debate shows that we are essentially at a dead end with the tax system we've got. By asking themselves "What are taxes for?" the Republican Party's presidential contenders may find a way to offer us a system of taxation that puts the country's economic aspirations ahead of Washington's. That would be an historic reversal and a worthy achievement.
1b)The 111th Congress's Final Insult
Bluto Blutarsky must have been an Appropriator.
The 111th Congress began with an $814 billion stimulus that blew out the federal balance sheet, so we suppose it's only fitting that the Members want to exit by passing a 1,924-page, $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill. The worst Congress in modern history is true to its essence to the bitter end.
Think of this as a political version of the final scene in "Animal House," when the boys from the Delta frat react to their expulsion by busting up the local town parade for the sheer mayhem of it. Bluto Blutarsky (John Belushi) did go on to be a U.S. Senator in the film, and a man of his vision must have earned a seat on Appropriations.
Democrats have had 11 months to write a budget for fiscal 2011, which began on October 1. But Majority Leader Harry Reid and Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye have dumped this trillion-dollar baby on Senators at the very last minute, when everyone is busy and wants to go home for the holidays. No doubt that was the plan. The continuing resolution to fund the government expires on Saturday, so Mr. Reid wants to squeeze Senators against the deadline. And with the press corps preoccupied by the tax debate, the spending bill is greased to slide through with little or no public scrutiny.
Defenders argue that the bill is restrained because it freezes overall spending for federal agencies at 2010 levels. But 2010 was an inflated budget with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Paul Ryan, soon to be House Budget Chairman, notes that nondefense discretionary spending rose 24% over those two years. Add stimulus funding and federal agency spending soared to $796 billion in 2010 from $434 billion, an 84% spending increase. (See nearby table.) Republicans have promised to return to 2008 spending levels, and the omnibus will make that much harder.
Then there are the pork and policy riders, such as a food safety bill with new authority for the Food and Drug Administration. The bill's 6,630 earmarks will cost more than $8.1 billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. While that's fewer than in 2009, what happened to the earmark ban promised by Republicans and supported by President Obama?
The late John Murtha of Pennsylvania is so powerful he's still getting pork from his grave: $10 million for the John Murtha Foundation. Ted Kennedy also scored a legacy earmark. The omnibus includes $8 million for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute secured by Congressman Ed Markey (D., Mass.). Thad Cochran of Mississippi, one of the GOP Senators who may vote for the bill, secured $6 million for the Mississippi Polymer Institute at the University of Southern Mississippi.
The bill makes a special effort to pad spending for programs likely to be targeted by Republicans next year, so any future cuts will occur off a larger baseline. That includes $36 million more for public broadcasting, $1.5 billion for high-speed rail projects that many states say they can't afford, and $3 billion for green energy pork.
Republicans should be especially upset with the $1.1 billion to implement phase one of ObamaCare. This gives the Administration's bureaucracy a running start and means that Republicans will have to pass new legislation to rescind the funding—which Mr. Obama will veto. Why would Republicans vote for a bill that makes it harder for them to achieve one of their main political goals?
We're told that at least six and perhaps as many as 10 Republican Senators may give Mr. Reid the votes he needs to pass this monstrosity. That list includes Susan Collins of Maine, Mr. Cochran, and looming retirees Kit Bond of Missouri, Bob Bennett of Utah and George Voinovich of Ohio. This is the same Senator Voinovich who yesterday voted against extending the Bush-era tax rates on grounds that they are unaffordable.
Mr. Voinovich is retiring with this Congress, and if there were any justice in politics taxpayers could revoke his pension. As for Mr. Bennett, this vote explains his re-election defeat.
The sliver of good news is that Republican Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma say they'll insist that this epic be read aloud on the Senate floor. That should slow down Mr. Reid and his bipartisan posse for a day or two. Perhaps if voters learn what's in it, they will turn enough Senators against it to save the day. Republicans should hold out for a clean budget with no earmarks that funds agencies at last year's level for an additional 45 to 60 days. They can then get busy cutting in January. If Mr. Obama wanted to help his fiscal credentials, he'd veto the omnibus and demand the same thing.
But don't count on any miracles. The 111th Congress has shown contempt for taxpayers from its first day, which is why it was so repudiated on November 2 and why Gallup found this week that Congress's approval rating has hit a record low of 13%. Which raises the question: Who are those 13%? At least "Animal House" was funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)This just might make your day a little brighter!! You, who worry about Democrats versus Republicans--relax, here is our real problem. In a Georgia State University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States . It was pretty simple. The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age. However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. The class was taking it in and letting her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?" Yep, these are the same kinds of 18-year-olds that are now voting in our elections!
They walk among US...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obamacare Waivers, Extreme Moderates, & Public Enemy Number One
Instavision: ObamaCare: Waivers, the Courts and the Law of Unintended Consequences
It's complicated, and no one seems to know how it will work. Welcome to Obamacare. Call it the Beta software version of heath care legislation. Companies are scrambling to obtain waivers, and some employers are dropping coverage. Can it get any worse? Find out as Peter Suderman joins Glenn Reynolds on this episode of InstaVision.
3a)Following the Money, Doctors Ration Care
By TYLER COWEN
UNEQUAL access to health care is hardly a new phenomenon in the United States, but the country is moving toward rationing on a scale that is unprecedented here. Wealthy people will always be able to buy most of what they want. But for everyone else, if we stay on the current course, the lines are likely to get longer and longer.
The underlying problem is that doctors are reimbursed at different rates, depending on whether they see a patient with private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. As demand increases relative to supply, many doctors are likely to turn away patients whose coverage would pay the lower rates.
Let’s see how this works. Medicare is the major federal health program for the elderly, who vote at high rates and are politically influential, and so it is relatively well financed. Medicaid, which serves poorer people, is paid for partly by state governments, and the poor have less political clout than the elderly, so it is less well financed. Depending on the state and on the malady, it is common for Medicaid to reimburse at only 40 percent to 80 percent the rate of Medicare. Private insurance pays more than either.
A result is that physicians often make Medicaid patients wait or refuse to see them altogether. Medicare patients are also beginning to face lines, as doctors increasingly prefer patients with private insurance.
Access to health care will become problematic, and not only because the population is aging and demand is rising. Unfortunately, the new health care legislation is likely to speed this process. Under the new law, tens of millions of additional Americans will receive coverage, through Medicaid or private insurance. The new recipients of private insurance will gain the most, but people previously covered through Medicaid will lose.
Ideally, higher demand for medical care would prompt increases in supply, which in turn would lower prices and expand access. But the health care sector does not always work this way.
Doctors are highly regulated and in that manner restricted in supply. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the United States could face a shortage of 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years. To its credit, the new health care bill does improve incentives for general practitioners, but still, supply probably will not keep up with the crush of demand.
We could go further by giving greater scope to nurse practitioners, admitting more immigrant doctors, reforming malpractice law and allowing cheap, retail “Wal-Mart style” medical care, all to increase access and affordability. Yet these changes do not seem to be in the offing, so access is likely to decline.
The health care bill will further privilege private insurance coverage by offering many individuals new subsidies for its purchase. That will create incentives for employers to game the system, dropping or discouraging coverage and sending their workers to buy health insurance on the more expensive federally subsidized exchanges. That will strain the federal health care budget. This problem is outlined by Amy Monahan and Daniel Schwarcz, law professors at the University of Minnesota, in their new paper “Will Employers Undermine Health Care Reform by Dumping Sick Employees?”
There is also the danger that a few governors with tight budgets will shirk their Medicaid responsibilities, with an eye toward sending potential recipients to the federally subsidized insurance exchanges. In both cases, the quest for a better deal will strain the federal budget.
The American system of federalism, with its checks and balances and slow policy evolution, has many strengths, but it has also helped create this crazy quilt of health care reimbursement rates. The more demand-side pressure is placed on medical supply, the more Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements rates will determine who and what is rationed.
One option is to simply allow budget pressures to dominate, forcing down even private insurance reimbursements. Most people would end up with low, Medicaid-like reimbursement rates, and would endure long waits and low-quality service. But wealthier people could jump the line by paying more. Think of “Medicaid for everyone” but the rich.
An alternative is giving most people means-tested vouchers for a fixed amount of insurance coverage — which can run out or face up-front caps — making Medicaid and Medicare less of a blank check. The cost explosion would be checked by shifting more of the burden onto consumers. We would have better incentives for consumer-oriented care, and cost control, but we would be making an explicit public decision, at some point or another, to let some people do without medical care.
Recently the Arizona state government restricted transplant coverage for Medicaid patients, but it remains to be seen whether such measures can be applied to Medicare recipients. President Obama already has reversed some of the planned, budget-saving cuts to Medicare.
AN entirely different approach is suggested by the system in Singapore, where the government requires savings (say 10 percent to 12 percent of income), patients pay for medical care from those savings, and the government takes care of additional catastrophic expenses. That system has a good record for cost control and access, but would Americans accept so much required saving?
The default course is to maintain or extend Medicare reimbursement rates, raise taxes considerably and accept that Medicaid recipients will face worsening health care access. If you hear of a new solution to the health care puzzle, put aside the politics and instead think through the endgame. Ask not about the rhetoric, but rather about the reimbursement rates.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Remarks by Senator Mark Kirk
December 9, 2010, Washington, (As Prepared for Delivery)
Thank you to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies for having me here today. FDD is doing good work –my staff worked closely with the Foundation as we developed our gasoline sanctions legislation – and you continue to be a resource to the Congress.
As a congressman, I spent a lot of my time focusing on the growing threat we face in Iran. And now as a Senator, I will do the same.
When we look at Iran today, we don’t see a lot of good news.
A nuclear program accelerating
A ballistic missile program expanding, and
A wholesale disregard for human rights.
On November 23rd, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its latest report on the implementation of Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards in Iran and the status of Iran’s compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803.
The findings showed the average monthly rate of Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) production increased with many additional centrifuges working by end of reporting period.
Iran’s total LEU production at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) as of October 31st was reported to be over 3,100 kg of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride, including 380 kg estimated by Iran to have been produced since August 6th.
As of November 5th, Iran was enriching uranium in 29 cascades with over 4,800 P-1 centrifuges, up from under 3,800 centrifuges at the end of the last reporting period.
Separately, the UN Security Council released a report on North Korea on November 10th, detailing North Korean cooperation with Iran on nuclear and ballistic missile activities.
According to the report, quote, “The Panel of Experts has reviewed several government assessments, IAEA reports, research papers and media reports indicating continuing DPRK involvement in nuclear and ballistic missile related activities in certain countries including Iran, Syria and Myanmar.”
The report continues: “Evidence provided in these reports indicates that the DPRK has continued to provide missiles, components, and technology to certain countries including Iran and Syria since the imposition of these measures.”
“The DPRK is also believed to use air cargo to handle high valued and sensitive arms exports. Such cargo can be sent by direct air cargo from the DPRK to the destination country. Some modern cargo planes, for example, can fly non-stop from the DPRK to Iran (when routed directly through neighboring air space).”
Before we ask “where do we go from here,” it’s important to quickly review where we have come from.
In 2005, Congressman Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) and I conducted a careful analysis of Iran’s economy and discovered a surprising weakness. Despite its status as a leading OPEC oil nation, the regime so mishandled its economy that it lacks sufficient refining capacity to turn its own oil into gasoline.
In 2005 and again in 2006, we introduced resolutions calling for a multilateral restriction of gasoline deliveries to Iran as the most effective economic sanction to bring Iran’s leaders into compliance with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Recognizing its exposed weakness, Iran implemented a nationwide gasoline rationing program to reduce its dependence – and hired international firms to help develop domestic refineries. Even with these measures, most experts still put imports at 25-40% of Iran’s total gasoline supply – a critical weakness we must exploit.
In 2007, we authored the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act, which extended current U.S. sanctions to the provision of gasoline to Iran.
Last year, I successfully offered an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act prohibiting U.S. Export-Import Bank financing for any company involved in providing gasoline to Iran – the first gasoline sanction to pass the House of Representatives and become law.
Also last year, I reintroduced the Kirk-Andrews bill with Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) – and a version of our legislation was included in the final comprehensive Iran sanctions bill signed into law on July 1st.
That comprehensive bill went beyond just gasoline sanctions, and included key sanctions targeting banks with corresponding relationships with banks doing business with Iran…and sanctions targeting abusers of human rights.
In addition, the act required the Administration to make a series of reports to Congress on those in violation of the law.
In my view, we should move forward in the weeks ahead with a five-pronged strategy.
First, enforce the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) of 1996, which prohibits investment in Iran’s oil and gas sectors. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) identified a number of companies that may be in violation of ISA. Congressman Ron Klein (D-FL) and I wrote to the Administration repeatedly on this issue.
These companies may include:
Total of France
ENI of Italy
Bow Valley of Canada
Norsk Hydro of Norway
Gazprom of Russia
Lukoil of Russsia
GVA Consultants of Sweden
Sheer Energy of Canada
China National Petroleum Company
GS Engineering and Construction of South Korea
Statoil of Norway
Inpex of Japan
Petrobras of Brazil
Sinopec of China
PTT of Thailand
JGC of Japan
Daelim of South Korea
SKS Ventures of Malaysia
Belneftekhim of Belarus
Edison of Italy
Petro Vietnam Exploration and Production Co.
INA of Croatia
Uhde of Germany; and
Tecnimont of Italy
Other companies identified by CRS, which have pending or preliminary deals to invest in Iran’s energy sector, include:
China National Offshore Oil Company
Repsol of Spain
Turkish Petroleum Company
OMV of Austria; and
Petroleos de Venezuela
But amazingly, the Administration has so far sanctioned only one entity under ISA – the Swiss-based Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) -- despite clear evidence of involvement in the Iranian energy sector of these other firms.
In fact, five companies – ENI of Italy, Total of France, Statoil of Norway, Royal Dutch Shell of Britain and the Netherlands; and INPEX of Japan – were given an official reprieve through a “special rule” under the new Comprehensive Sanctions bill.
This “special rule” allows the Administration to indefinitely delay investigation of companies, as long as the company has “pledged” to stop doing business with Iran.
Under Secretary of State Burns stated before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that he expected companies protected by the Special Rule to be out of Iran “within weeks.” So instead of decisive action, as authorized by U.S. law, we are still taking these companies at their word.
But according to research conducted by this Foundation, there is no evidence these firms will end their existing contracts in Iran.
Moreover, according to the Congressional Research Service as of yesterday, the Administration has not delivered to Congress two key reports that were due by October 1st:
A report on investments in Iran’s energy sector since 2006; and
A report on the activities of export credit agencies of foreign countries in guaranteeing financing for trade with Iran.
These reports would provide impetus to pursue violators, as mandated under the law, and the Administration should immediately provide them to Congress.
Second, we need to enforce the new gasoline sanctions enacted in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions bill. While we have seen reports of several companies ending their business with Iran since enactment, we see others moving in to supply the regime. Sanctions are meaningless if not enforced.
According to research conducted by this Foundation, the following companies provided Iran with gasoline since July 2010:
Golden Crown of the UAE
UNIPEC of China
Tupras of Turkey
Guandong Zhenrong of China; and
Royal Oyster Group of the UAE
We also see the disturbing trend of China – a permanent member of the UN Security Council that sanctions Iran – stepping up to provide energy investments in Iran. As documented in the Foundation’s September 2010 report, Chinese companies including CNOOC, CNPC, Sinopec, and Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, continue to do business in Iran.
In fact, in July 2010, Iran’s deputy oil minister stated that China invested approximately $40 billion in Iran’s energy sector, that “the volume (of Chinese investment) in upstream projects is $29 billion,” and that China had signed roughly $10 billion worth of contracts with Iran for petrochemicals, refineries and pipeline projects.
For all of the companies I’ve named here today – no matter where they are in the world - the Administration should enforce U.S. law and sanctions designed to prevent the emergence of the greater danger.
Third, we need to start enforcing the new banking sanctions enacted in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions bill. Under the new law, banks must stop doing business with banks that do business with Iran. If enforced, the provisions will make it more difficult for Iran to access the dollar and, potentially, other major currencies. Although the Treasury Department issued the relevant regulations on August 16th – laudably, ahead of the mandated deadline – no entities have actually been held accountable under the Act.
Separately, the Administration should move quickly to sanction Iran’s central bank – Bank Merkazi – and prohibit U.S. bank dealings with any financial institution that helps the Central Bank facilitate circumvention of U.N. resolutions on Iran. This was originally authorized by Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act and also called for in the new Comprehensive Sanctions bill.
Fourth, we must continue targeted financial sanctions against individuals and entities that support terrorism and proliferation – especially entities with ties to the IRGC. Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey has done a great job on this front to date and we should support his continued efforts.
Finally, we must do more to help Iran’s “Green Movement” and promote human rights inside the regime.
The United States needs a cohesive and comprehensive strategy to promote human rights and democracy in Iran.
I believe the threat we face in Iran has a parallel to the threat we faced in the Soviet Union: a repressive dictatorship that denies its citizens basic human rights while bullying its neighbors, building nuclear weapons and threatening doom and destruction on American allies.
History teaches us how to win. In the end, we won the Cold War because we never lost the conviction of our own convictions.
It’s time for a new American strategy to promote human rights in Iran.
To start, this Administration should make human rights a central tenant of future negotiations with Iran. No meeting should go by with Iranians without an American diplomat raising the issue of human rights, specifically including the names of prisoners of conscience.
The President should speak directly and publicly to the dissidents of Iran – name their names from the White House podium – make them heroes in homes across America.
He should invite members of the Green Movement to meet with him at the White House – and if any U.S. Government official is invited to visit Iran, they should not accept the invitation unless they are secured meetings with Iranian dissidents.
Overall funding for Iran democracy promotion should be increased in a dedicated appropriations line item called Iran Freedom Support – with control of the funds transferred from the State Department to the National Endowment for Democracy.
The United States should take the lead to facilitate Green Movement conferences outside of Iran – whether in the United States or Europe.
We need an injection of creativity and originality in our international broadcasting programs. While Radio Farda continues the mission of Radio Free Europe, we should work to establish new public/private partnerships to fund independent Iranian filmmakers and producers —a new way to foster more original content. VOA Persian and Radio Farda should set up a “Green Hour” for their broadcasts and expand their interaction with Iranian dissidents.
With the recent prison sentencing of Iran’s Baha’i leadership just for practicing their religion, this mission should be personal for Illinois families.
As Ronald Reagan did during the Cold War, the President should speak out regularly about human rights abuses in Iran and make individual political prisoners household names throughout America.
For the Bahai’s in prison, I for one am not afraid to speak their names out loud:
Raha Sabet;
Sasan Taqva;
Haleh Roohi;
Fariba Kamalabadi;
Jamaloddin Khanjani;
Afif Naeimi;
Saeid Rezaie;
Behrouz Tavakkoli;
Mahvash Sabet; and
Vahid Tizfahm.
To these and all other political prisoners in Iran we say: American families know your struggle and we think about you everyday.
And we know this: An Iranian government that respects the rights of its own citizens will be less likely to sponsor international terrorism or seek the destruction of her neighbors.
Finally, we must continue to increase our military deterrence against Iran’s growing ballistic missile threat – so that if in the end, our diplomatic efforts are unsuccessful, the United States and our allies – especially Israel – have a bottom line.
From 2001 to 2003, I worked to provide Israel with access to “Eyes in the Sky” – real time satellite data to increase Israel’s early warning time to 12 minutes from less than one.
Eyes in the Sky established the precedent of U.S.-Israel cooperation on early warning. But it only solved one challenge: missile launch detection. It did not contribute to intercept capability.
For that, we needed to deploy a forward-based X-Band radar to Israel to maximize our intercept opportunities.
For years, Israel relied on its Green Pine radar that can only acquire missile threats at ranges up to 500 km. With such a short detection range, Israel would be forced to launch its Arrow anti-missiles before the threat missile's trajectory was accurately known.
I proposed we dramatically upgrade Israel's capability with the best the U.S. had – the X-Band (AN/TPY-2) radar. This would give our ally the ability to double the current range of its radar, sending its interceptor missiles in a far more accurate and successful direction.
After months of hard work, we finally got the X-Band delivered – the first permanent deployment of the US military to Israel. And last year, I had the chance to visit the site of the deployment.
Now we must do more.
Complete the Arrow-3 missile system, to give Israel a very long range interceptor to hit the more-advanced Iranian Shahab-3 missile; and
Deploy the Airborne Laser to Israel to show Iran the United States and Israel are collaborating on breakthrough technology to eliminate Iranian missiles over Iran.
Ballistic missiles are most vulnerable in their earliest stage of flight, because they are moving very slowly with a fifty-foot sheet of flame to show their location.
The Airborne Laser (ABL) will provide speed-of-light capability to destroy ballistic missiles quickly, letting the Iranians to deal with their own missile garbage as it falls back on their territory.
The ABL operates at more than 40,000 feet in altitude and can fire beyond 600 km.
On February 11th, the ABL successfully destroyed a ballistic missile over central California.
Given the existential threats posed by Iranian ballistic missiles to Israel, the United States should begin full cooperation with Israel in the Airborne Laser program.
In the end, democracies are best when they stick together. And the United States has no greater ally in the Middle East than the State of Israel. But we know that Iran’s nuclear program does not only threaten Israel – it poses a direct threat to regional stability, to Europe’s security and to the national security of the United States and our interests.
An Iranian bomb will also likely give birth to a Saudi and Egyptian bomb. In Sum, the Middle East of the future could become a chamber of horrors for the coming generation of American admirals and generals.
For too long, Administration after Administration dragged its feet on meaningful, biting sanctions. We have not brought the full weight of economic sanctions to bear to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table in a serious manner.
Time is not on our side. We must act now or suffer in a very, very dangerous brave new Middle East with Iranian nuclear weapons.
Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Mistaken Priorities Court Disaster
By Yisrael Ne'eman
The Carmel fire is out, Israel has been doused with one of the most severe rainstorms in years (only a week late) and blame is being apportioned to this or that minister or ministry as responsible for the lack of preparedness for the worst fire in the history of the state, or any other major emergency. To begin with let's just say that we are lucky in comparison to what might have been despite the 43 deaths incurred. Much of the world came to our aid at the behest of PM Netanyahu, who one must admit, functioned quite well during the crisis.
Imagine for a moment thousands of Hezbollah rockets falling on Israel every day where the fire and police departments throughout the country worked round the clock with army rescue crews to extricate trapped civilians from collapsed buildings while putting out numerous blazes from Metulla to Eilat. And then the Carmel forest went up in flames due to the Hezbollah assaults. There would have been virtually no one to fight the fire and certainly no foreign assistance. The Carmel fire is a drill for what can be a much worse scenario.
With only 1500 firefighters nationwide Israel is ill equipped to deal with a major blaze, nor do we have the equipment to do so. Even our regular everyday fire engines are antiquated, some of them dating to the 1950s and 1960s. Much of the equipment is falling apart. Over the years warnings have been sounded concerning the lack of preparedness of the fire department on a national level. Without getting into all the details, in recent years millions have been allocated for fire fighting but little has trickled down to the local stationhouse. Furthermore the treasury is urging a major reform before releasing the funds, the government has finally realized that the fire fighters are part of the national emergency services like the police, ambulance corps (Magen David Adom), hospital, standing army and reserves. They should not be under the authority of each and every municipality (also granting them the right to strike) but rather they are integral to a state wide reservoir of emergency personnel.
All this being said, so who is responsible for the disaster? Firstly, the ongoing drought and wind conditions made controlling the fire from the outset quite difficult even under greatly improved conditions. The ministry of the interior is responsible for the fire department and therefore much of the blame is being thrown at Minister Eli Yishai. Defense Minister Ehud Barak was expected to reorganize emergency services and in particular the firefighters, this in the event of a future war but he has done nothing. Finance Minister Yuval Steinetz was expected to appropriate funds but did not and PM Netanyahu is responsible for the overall implementation. Previous governments and PMs also share the blame. However if everyone is guilty then in essence no one is responsible or one could just say the present government is unlucky.
But like all sudden crises in this country the problem is political-structural. Coalition governments are patched together and must respond to particular party interests and not national needs. Sectorial interests must be addressed with massive funding and political posts to be agreed upon or one does not have a government. Former PM Yitzchak Shamir (1983-84 and 1986-92) was known to complain that he spent 80% of his time holding his coalition together.
This past decade has seen three major crises. There was and still is the great water disaster which is only being remedied as of 2003 when PM Ariel Sharon forced massive action to build desalination plants. The initial project of 500 million cubic meters per annum is three years behind schedule and should have been finished this month. Signs of an impending water disaster were known in the mid-1980s. Over the years monies that were desperately needed for water infrastructure were constantly handed out to coalition partners to keep them in the government. For decades the farmers' lobby (a Labor operation for the most part) constantly applied pressure, demanding cheap plentiful water which the state lacked. And let's not forget the moshav and Histadrut labor union bailouts of the 1980s. The Likud and right wing and religious parties demanded more settlements regardless of cost while the haredi factions demanded more yeshiva funding and child support while refusing to participate in the economy (some two-thirds of adult men study and do not work but are paid). That is not to say that no appropriations should have been made for all of the above, rather it needed to be logical and proportional. Because the need for water infrastructure was agreed upon by all it was not an issue for negotiations – in other words, no one gained votes by demanding improved water access and the construction of desalination plants. Hence they will only be constructed when we are on the verge of disaster.
The second crisis involved the 2006 War in Lebanon and it was not just the fact that the defense minister and Labor Party leader Amir Peretz was really a union boss and lacked the military experience needed for the job. He wanted an economic post but accepted the defense ministry because the senior coalition partner, Kadima told him "to take it or leave it". For years we had a "policing" army acting against the Palestinian Low Intensity Conflict (Second Intifada). Field commanders were battling (and succeeding) against terrorism, but not particularly training or fighting wars. It was thought the air force and special units would do it all. When called for ground combat in 2006 the lower ranking echelons performed well but decision making at the political and upper military levels was inadequate. Also the Chief of Staff was Dan Halutz, an air force general appointed by PM Ariel Sharon more for his loyalties and willingness to go through with the Gaza Disengagement than for his skills (such as commanding ground forces in a war). Here coalition building and narrowly focused appointments took preference over the needs of the nation.
Now we "discovered" there are serious flaws in the fire department. This is known for quite a while. Understaffed, under equipped and under the auspices of the cities, local councils and the overall umbrella of the interior ministry the fire department is not particularly effective. Furthermore according to Nehemia Strassler, the economic correspondent for Haaretz, many of the well paying administrative positions are filled by Likud central committee members who know little about firefighting and obtained their jobs as political plums by supporting those in office.
There are serious flaws all around because of the way the system works – or malfunctions. State interests or budgets are constructed to serve the ruling coalition and not the people. If the citizens are lucky then in an election year they may get something back, but in general they will be forgotten. The way to get a piece of the state pie is to have your political party in power and then squeeze as much as they can out of the government for specific sectorial interests. The haredi parties are the best example of this nowadays, but they do nothing illegal, playing by the rules which were set with the establishment of the state.
All this leads to the conclusion that the Carmel fire will not bring about the fall of the government or new elections. Coalition politics and interests are much more powerful that anything the people can garnish, and if it is not one party in power it will be another with the same miserable semi-accountable system. An individual can lose his post as a result (like Defense Minister Amir Peretz after the 2006 War in Lebanon) but one can bounce back through the coalition system.
When one's top and very mistaken priority is keeping the coalition together then the people's interests will be sacrificed for political expediency until there is a crisis or emergency so severe that the government is forced to act and they will respond only in their own interests to hold the coalition together and remain in power for as long a possible before the next catastrophe hits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)How America Became a Communist Nation
By Porter Stansberry with Braden Copeland
The Greeks may be the most notorious of the world's profligate nations… but they are not the real problem.
The real problem is much larger and more complex.
The root of the problem the world is facing right now isn't really governments… or banks. The real problem is simply a very bad idea – the idea that the State ought to sit in the center of society. Let me explain…
The last 100 years (since 1914) saw not only the end of the classic gold standard, but also the fantastic ascendancy of the nation-state.
These two trends are inherently and dangerously related.
Until World War I, the central government of the United States, for example, played a small role in the lives of its citizens. Its powers were strictly limited, as were its revenues. It was specifically barred from taxing citizens directly. It was a humble government that interacted with the individual states in the union, but didn't interact much with individual citizens.
The first signs of change came after the Civil War. "Progressive" ideas began to emerge. Most of these ideas came from Germany, from philosophers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The core of these ideas was that the State itself was superior to its citizens. Therefore, the argument went, society ought to be organized to better accomplish the goals of the State.
Today, most Americans have no idea that the foundations of our modern State are based – nearly verbatim – on the demands of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.
In 1848, Marx threatened to organize a worker's revolution unless European governments:
1. Abolished property rights and applied all rents towards public purposes.
[Modern corollary: Don't pay your property taxes, lose your house. So who really owns your house?]
2. Levied a heavy, progressive income tax to equalize wages.
[Modern corollary: Combined federal and state marginal income and payroll taxes approach (or surpass) 50% in many U.S. states.]
3. Abolished all rights of inheritance.
[Modern corollary: The estate tax.]
4. Confiscated the property of all emigrants.
[Modern corollary: The 2008 "Hero's Act," which forces people leaving the U.S. to pay the equivalent of their estate taxes on the global assets before they turn in their passports.]
5. Centralized access to credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank and an exclusive monopoly.
[Modern corollary: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which make more than 90% of all of the mortgages in the U.S. and have dominated the market for mortgages for decades.]
6. Centralized the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
[Modern corollary: AT&T was a legal monopoly for decades. Amtrak is a ward of the states. The government owns all the roads. And the State controls all air traffic.]
7. Provided free education for all children in public schools.
[Note the emphasis on public schools. Paying for education isn't enough. What counts is indoctrinating the kids in glorifying the State.]
8. Produced a common agricultural policy to maximize the productivity of the land.
[Modern corollary: Massive ethanol and agricultural subsidies.]
Most people in democracies like these ideas for one simple reason: They hold the allure of getting something for nothing. They are the siren song of living at the expense of your neighbor.
These ideas became extremely popular over the last 100 years, all around the world. As a result, as democracy spread, so did these ideas. Politicians of each party and persuasion throughout the Western world quickly adopted them as their own (and never mentioned Marx).
As these ideas took hold, one big problem developed… How do you pay for them?
Progressive politicians believed they had the answer. They just took Marx's big innovation: A progressive income tax. Let the rich pay!
It's a popular idea – but it never works because decisions to add more benefits don't take into account the expense of paying for them. It doesn't take long for the budget to get out of control. Or said another way, everyone can't live at the expensive of his neighbor. His neighbor can't afford it… and he moves.
More serious, the flaw in communism is obvious. Communism doesn't account for the fact that people expect to control the fruits of their labor. People don't like their assets being stolen and their wages being heavily taxed by a government that regulates their businesses and sends their children off to war. Incrementally, people stop working. Wealthy people flee… or hide their incomes.
Tax revenues fail to meet projections. Deficits grow. Deficit spending soars. And debts mount.
That's where paper money comes in. Paper money isn't only good for financing a war. It's also perfect for closing the gap between what an economy ought to produce and its paltry real production when it has been beaten into submission by communist ideas. I like to explain it this way…
The central truth of economics is scarcity. There can never be enough of anything to satisfy everyone. The central truth of politics is patronage: promising to give everything to everyone. Paper money is the bridge between economics and politic s.
The unpaid debts of an entire generation of people in Western countries are coming due. The so-called "baby boomers" grew up in a world dominated by Marxism and Keynesian economics. These are bad ideas. They are destined to collapse.
And the collapse is here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
7)Condoleezza Rice Instructs the perky Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq.
On December 3, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave CBS's Katie Couric a much-needed lesson on why America invaded Iraq.
KATIE COURIC: On Iraq, books have been written, as you know, many, many books; documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, wait a second, what?
COURIC: (Chuckles.) There are -- there are some things that seem to suggest that in the buildup to the actual war that there was some doubt about that, wouldn't you say --
RICE: No. (Laughter.)
COURIC: Well --
RICE: Actually, I don't agree with that premise at all.
COURIC: You don't?
RICE: No.
COURIC: Even with -- when Tony Blair met with the president in Washington --
RICE: Well, you always -- are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition.
COURIC: Right. That's correct.
RICE: He'd used them --
COURIC: Against the Kurds.
RICE: Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities.
There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.
So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.
COURIC: Well, if there weren't, ultimately, weapons of mass destruction found, what was then the rationale for war? Without that, is there another rationale other than the world is better off without Saddam Hussein?
RICE: Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.
So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that.
Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on.
This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing.
COURIC: So absent of the presence -- or if you had known at the time that Iraq wasn't as far along with its weapons program as it ultimately turned out to be, would all of those other things you mentioned provide rationale for the war?
RICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not
COURIC: No, but just put yourself back there --
RICE: I did -- I can't -- I can't --
COURIC: I mean, you're saying that that seemed like a good rationale. Do you think it is?
RICE: I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge.
Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.
The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out.
COURIC: Do you --
RICE: So I actually think that might have been where we were.
COURIC: Do you think that democracy will hold in Iraq?
RICE: I do. The Iraqis are a tough people, and they're not easy. But I do think that they've got a chance in these new institutions to find a way to resolve their differences without somebody having to oppress somebody else, which has been the whole history of Iraq and in fact the whole history of the Middle East.
It will take some time. The first couple of outcomes may not, in fact, be very pretty to watch. But history has a long arc, and I think they've got a pretty good chance.
Makes you wonder if liberal media members will ever understand this.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment