Day of Reckoning Ahead?

Is the day of reckoning ahead? (See 1 below.)
---
Tobin writes it is Israel more than its leaders that cause pain and suffering among Western leaders. Why? because Israel remains unwilling to be thrown to the wolves thereby,making it easier for the West to deny the reality of Palestinians role in why there is no peace. (See 2 below.)
---
Response from a dear friend of long standing who fled Communism and knows of what he speaks: "Dick, I do not believe Obama is incompetent, on the contrary, he is extremely astute and since his ultimate goal is the destruction of our (not his) country all he does are objectives to attain his goal.

I believe his mistake (to attain his goal)is that all Communist countries of the past were the result of one man taking power by force or revolution, Lenin, Castro, Chavez, and he thought he could do the same here. But here he was elected. Big difference!

Obama and his Communist Czars are the worst traitors this country has ever had.

He should be judged as that. His attempts against and disrespect of the Constitution should be cause enough for his impeachment. This man is laughing at the constitution after having sworn to defend it at his installation."

My response: "I tend to agree but try to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is as smart as others claim then his actions have to be deemed purposeful. Me"
---
Some economic thoughts regarding a strong and weak currency. (See 3 below.)

Then Victor Davis Hanson on our nation's current pathology. (See 3a below.)
--
Tom Sowell has it about right when it comes to legal extortion.

HERMAN CAIN THREATENS THE LIBERAL'S 'BIG LIE' THEY HAVE PERPETUATED FOR YEARS. BECAUSE HE HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ELECTED, AS OPPOSED TO BEING APPOINTED, CAIN'S POPULARITY AMONG MIDDLE ROAD REPUBLICANS THREATENS LIBERAL MYTHOLOGY. (See 4 below.)
----
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)UK expects Israeli attack on Iran next month with US logistical support


A senior Foreign Office official says British government ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action in the wake of the UN watchdog report "as early as Christmas or very early in the new year," the London Daily Mail reported Thursday, Nov. 10. The ministers were told that Israel would strike Iran's nuclear sites "sooner rather than later" – with "logistical support" from the US.

According to the British paper, which has good military and intelligence ties in London, President Barack Obama would "have to support the Israelis or risk losing Jewish-American support in the next presidential election." The bigger concern is that once Iran is nuclear-armed, it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons to even out the balance of nuclear terror in the Middle East.

Military sources add that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has told Obama more than once this year, "If Iran gets nuclear arms, Turkey will get nuclear arms."

The Daily Mail goes on to report that in recent weeks, British Ministry of Defense sources confirmed that contingency plans had been drawn up in the event that the UK decided to support military action.

British chief of staff, Gen. Sir David Richards, paid a secret visit to Israel on Nov. 2, followed the next day by the arrival in London of the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak for talks with British defense and military heads.

The reference to US logistical support is explained by our military sources as pointing to the Libyan model of military intervention whereby France, Britain and Italy spearheaded the action against the Qaddafi regime while the United States from "a back seat" laid on satellite and aerial intelligence and placed at their disposal its logistical supply network, including the in-flight refueling of bombers and ordnance.

Transposing this model to an offensive against Iran, Israel's air and naval forces would front the attack on Iran with logistical and intelligence backup from the United States, while leading NATO powers France, Britain, Germany, Holland and Italy would participate directly or indirectly in the Israeli operation.

Since this attack would almost certainly bring forth reprisals from Tehran and its allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami, it would almost certainly expand into a wider Middle East conflict, thus also broadening US and West
European military intervention.

Prospects are fading for the alternative to military action - tough new sanctions able to choke Iran's financial operations and oil exports after the nuclear agency confirmed its surreptitious attainment of a nuclear weapon capability.

Wednesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov promised visiting Iranian official Ali Baqeri that "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen… as an instrument for regime change in Tehran. That approach is unacceptable to us and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals."

China will certainly go along with Russia on this.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first response to the IAEA report was to attack its credibility and declare that Iran would continue its nuclear program regardless of its findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Resenting Israel, Not Netanyahu
By Jonathan Tobin


Barack Obama's dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu was not a state secret prior to the publication of his candid exchange about the Israeli prime minister with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. So the fact the two have a low opinion of Netanyahu and consider dealing with him to be a burden isn't exactly news. But while much of the commentary about this kerfuffle has centered on the question of who should be most embarrassed by the revelation — Netanyahu or his two highly placed critics — there is a more important point here.

Netanyahu has a well-earned reputation as a prickly and somewhat unpleasant fellow to deal with-in Israeli political circles as well as the world of international diplomacy. But when Sarkozy and Obama grouse about him, the resentment they are giving voice to hasn't all that much to do with whether or not Netanyahu is a charm school dropout. What really annoys them is his inherent skepticism about the peace process.

Despite his reputation as a hard-liner (a phrase treated in many press accounts as if it were part of his name), Netanyahu has a long record of attempts to conciliate the Palestinians in order to make peace. During his first term as prime minister in the 1990's he signed two agreements conceding parts of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. He enacted a settlement-building freeze in the West Bank during his current administration and formally endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state. But despite all of this, Netanyahu has never consented to playing the familiar game in which the onus for peace is placed only on Israel to make concessions and not the Palestinians.

Throughout both of his terms as Israel's leader, Netanyahu has insisted on pointing out the failures of the Palestinians to abide by their Oslo commitments. Rather than meekly nod along when Obama or Sarkozy speak of the need for Israel to relinquish territory, Netanyahu has had the chutzpah to publicly talk back to them about Israel's rights and not just its immediate security needs. Though he has sometimes given in to their demands if he thought it was in his country's interests, he has also made it clear that doing so is a grave concession that could bring deadly consequences. Any Israeli who speaks in this manner, which necessarily complicates the efforts of the peace processers to ignore the Palestinians' reluctance to make peace, is not going to be liked.

Much like Menachem Begin, the first member of his party to serve as Israel's prime minister, Netanyahu cannot play the unctuous diplomat. Though he has made concessions and sought to reach out to other countries as well as ably making his country's case before the American people, he does so as a proud, stiff-necked Jew, not a supplicant or a starry-eyed dreamer who is beguiled by an unrealistic vision about the intentions of his Palestinian negotiating partners.

Netanyahu has more than his share of personal flaws. But what Sarkozy and Obama are telling us is that the Israeli won't play by their rules and knuckle under when his country's rights are imperiled. Though he values Israel's alliance with the United States, Netanyahu's idea of his responsibilities is one in which he prioritizes defending his country's interests over making nice with heads of state.

It should be conceded that his tactics don't always work well, and he won't win any foreign popularity contests. But the issue here isn't Netanyahu. An Israeli leader who won't acquiesce to the lies other leaders tell about the Palestinians' peaceful intentions will never be loved. Sarkozy and Obama don't resent Netanyahu as much as they do Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Drachma is Dead: So Is the Welfare State
By Brian S. Wesbury

There is a simple rule in monetary economics, which many
seem to have forgotten. A weak currency cannot replace a
strong currency. In other words, the existence of the euro
will force the countries of Europe to confront budgetary
problems fiscally, not monetarily. No wonder governments
are collapsing across the continent.

The Greek government, and some misguided economists,
think the failure of the welfare state could be averted if
Greece would only devalue its currency. This is a sad
statement. A de-valuation is just a default by another name.
It puts most of the burden on creditors, savers, and income
earners, who face the pain and loss of reduced purchasing
power.

Without the ability to devalue, the pain of restructuring falls
on those who benefit from the largesse of government
spending. Government jobs, pension payments, subsidies,
and services will all need to be cut. The pain will fall
inordinately on those who count on government for some
form of support.

No wonder governments often choose devaluation instead
of austerity. Devaluations can be blamed on the markets
and Wall Street. But spending cuts hit constituents – those
who voted for politicians who promised that government
would never run out of money. This is why governments
are collapsing, and will continue to collapse. Voters are
completely disillusioned and they are facing a great deal of
pain as they get a very expensive education in basic
economics.

These countries cannot devalue their currency because they
gave up the management of money to the European Central
Bank. One benefit (or curse) of giving up sovereignty over
money was that these countries were able to continue
borrowing (in euros) well beyond what they could have
borrowed in their local currency. Meanwhile, regulators let
banks treat government debt as risk-free, creating artificial
demand for this debt. (Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac created artificial demand for subprime debt in the US.)
As a result, Greece and other nations are more deeply
indebted than they would, or could, have been if they had
kept their own currency in the first place. And this is
key…the markets will never allow these old currencies to
come back again. At least not in the foreseeable future.

The drachma is dead.

The reason is simple. Consumers and creditors would not
accept the drachma today because it would not be a viable
store of value. It would be a useless currency that hardly
anyone, outside of government, would choose to accept.
Imagine if you were a Greek citizen and the government
said, “please give us your euros in exchange for these
drachma.” You would say “get out of here, go pick some
olives.” No one in their right mind would trade a stronger
currency, like the euro, for a weak currency that the
authorities want to devalue.
Moreover, because Greek debt was issued in euros it cannot
be repaid in drachma. Creditors would not want to accept it
because it would be a weaker currency than their debt is
already denominated in. In other words, devaluing into the
drachma would lead to explicit debt defaults anyhow.
If for some reason property rights were violated and
government used force, even guns, to implement a change
to the drachma, Greek society would collapse. The
underground economy would explode using other currencies
and barter, creditors would not lend to Greece again for a
very long time. The markets would stop working.
The simple rule of money – a weak currency cannot replace
a strong currency – suggests that only the British pound, the
dollar, gold, or possibly the German mark could replace the
euro. This is true for Greece, or for any other non-German
European nation. No other revived currency, except for the
German mark, could compete against the euro.
As a result, Greek fiscal problems must be solved by a shift
away from the welfare state. This is true for Italy, Spain,
Portugal, and for every other nation in Europe which will
eventually face the reality that the experiment with the
welfare state has failed.

This is the real lesson of European budget problems.
Government spending does not create wealth. It never has,
it never will, and monetary shenanigans cannot change that
fact. Free markets are the only way to create wealth.



3a)Unbound
By Victor Davis Hanson


First lady Michelle Obama the other day railed at "the few at the top," who do all sorts of bad things. A few months ago, we began hearing of the "1 percent" who are responsible for the current economic mess. "They" apparently make all their money at the expense of the other 99 percent. Are they the same as last year's villains, who had not paid "their fair share" in making over $200,000 in annual income?

Do they include the greedy doctors, who, the president once asserted, recklessly lop off limbs and yank tonsils for profits? Is my urologist a dreaded one-percenter? He found out what was causing my kidney stones but probably makes good money. Was a nearby farmer one, too? I bet he makes over $200,000 but, like many other growers in this area, has found a way to produce beef and cotton more cheaply and efficiently than farmers in almost any other part of the world, thereby enriching his county, state and nation.

I am writing this essay on a MacBook Pro laptop. So I wonder, was the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs a suspect billionaire? Should I be mad or grateful that he made billions by permanently replacing my old scissors, paste, and bottle of liquid paper of the 1970s?

Did Johnny Depp really have to earn $50 million last year alone -- or Leonardo DiCaprio $77 million? Couldn't they have settled for $2 million in salary in 2010, and thereby passed on a little bit of the savings to their ticket-buying fans? What kind of system would allow Oprah Winfrey or the late Michael Jackson each to accumulate nearly $1 billion? Is left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore -- reportedly worth $50 million -- a one-percenter? Why does such an enemy of capitalism need so much capitalist largesse?

Do this administration and its supporters really wish to separate millions of diverse Americans by a moral divide of the "few at the top"? Are liberals like Sens. John Kerry or Dianne Feinstein -- among the richest in the U.S. Senate -- in that elite group?

How about Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, together worth over $100 billion? They are certainly philanthropists. But their charities are predicated on two assumptions: They both apparently trust the private sector more than government to administer their vast estates, and neither sees much of a problem in avoiding billions in inheritance taxes that would one day be due to a now-broke federal treasury.
Is George Soros a "corporate jet owner"? He nearly broke the Bank of England by shorting the British pound and was convicted in France of insider training. Rather than comply with new federal financial-disclosure regulations, he told some of his outside investors just to keep their money. Is Obama's former director of the budget, Peter Orszag, a "fat-cat banker"? He left the administration to enter the "revolving door" of Wall Street, where he is now a rich banker for Citigroup.
So do we really want to go down this them/us road? Using a new financial redline crudely to divide us is a tricky business. Those most likely to fly corporate jets are precisely the elite who show up at the president's mega-fundraisers and play golf with him on the world's most exclusive courses -- or visit Martha's Vineyard and Vail, where the first family sometimes vacations. They don't all wear pinstripes and Guccis, but can hang out at Occupy Wall Street rallies as actors, rappers and filmmakers in jeans and baseball caps.

In a larger sense, we should remember a few things about the new orchestrated envy of, and animosity toward, the better-off. Most Americans each day depend on our medical care, our retirement packages, our food, our gas and our computers from exactly these "few at the top" who seem to enrich rather than prey on society.
The BMWs or Porsches of the one-percenters aren't that much faster, quieter or safer than our Chevys and Hondas. Damning the wealthy nonstop is often an embarrassing symptom of one's own longing, even obsession, for the perks and attention that wealth brings. And if we really want more tax revenue, there is far more to be had from the nearly 50 percent of American households that pay no federal income tax than from the one percent that now pays 37 percent of all the collected revenue.

In short, a confident, successful society neither idolizes nor demonizes its rich, but instead believes that wealth can be created rather than taken from others. And it simply judges the better-off by the content of their characters, not the size of their wallets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The real scandal
bY Thomas Sowell

The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media and politics.

Let's start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Mr. Cain is incriminating.

Most of us are not going to part with 45 grand without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.

The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife -- who is an attorney -- was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay "only" $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding a million dollars, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.

The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff's deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff's department was glad it had to pay "only" $45,000.

The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.

The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.

The fact that neither judges nor juries always stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.

As for a $45,000 settlement, that is what an organization would pay to settle a nuisance lawsuit -- if they are lucky.

If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.

If those who bring charges that do not stand up in court had to pay the other party for their legal fees -- and should have to pay for their time as well -- these games could not go on.

It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have past histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.

Another woman who has come forward tells of Herman Cain asking her, at some conference, to see if she could locate some woman in the audience who had asked him a question, so that he could take her to dinner. This apparently struck her as suspicious.

This too reminded me of something I knew about personally. Many years ago, I was at a conference where a woman made some very insightful comments, and I took her to lunch to continue the discussion.

It so happens she was a nun. Contrary to cynics, there is more than one reason for a man to take a woman to lunch or dinner.

The same mainstream media whose responses to proven charges against Bill Clinton was, "Let's move on," is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.

What role does race play in all this?

It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.

The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on Election Day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.

In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future -- and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------