----
It's that time of the year and the PC police are out and about 'fast and furious.'
Sent to me by my English friends who just returned from a vacation in Kenya. (See 2 below.)
---
Andrew Klavan offers his solution to The Middle East. Go to PJTV.Com and click on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU (Give The Middle East To The Jews.)
---
We have heard this before but this time maybe it is going to prove true. Will Netanyahu also join the ranks of the West's mothers of all duckers? Time will tell. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
The whooosh you have been hearing for the last several decades is the sound of Progressives, and more recently Obama, sucking the air out of America's private sector. (See 4 below.)
---
A former federal judge explains why Justices Kagan and Thomas need not recuse themselves. (See 5 below.)
---
Melanie Phillips travels to Hebron. (See 6 below.)
---
More regarding Panetta and Clinton on their advice to Israel and views regarding the execution of Obama's traitorous Middle East policies. (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Enforce Existing Laws against Iran
Obama's new get-tough policy is weaker than current measures
By Avi Jorisch
In recent years, the United States has imposed punishing sanctions on Iran's financial sector. Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new measures intended to hamper Iran's ability to raise and move funds internationally. Several Western allies have followed suit in an attempt to tighten the noose around the Islamic Republic and curb its ability to achieve nuclearization. Yet a close analysis of Treasury's action demonstrates that the new sanctions regime is far weaker than existing laws and falls short of the moves that members of Congress are demanding. What is needed is not new measures, but better implementation of existing statues.
Despite four rounds of sanctions by the United Nations and a concerted effort by many Western allies, a large number of banks around the world continue to do business with Iranian financial institutions that are complicit in supporting terrorist groups and spreading nuclear weapons. The Central Bank of Iran (CBI), for example, still has unfettered access to the international financial sector, even though it has been accused of helping fund Iran's nuclear weapons program, facilitating money transfers to terrorist organizations, and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
On November 21, the Obama administration implemented section 311 of the PATRIOT Act, blacklisting Iran and all of its financial institutions. A 311 empowers the government to designate a foreign jurisdiction or institution, a class of foreign transactions, or a foreign account if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that they are of "primary money laundering concern." To date, the U.S. government has used this provision to designate seventeen jurisdictions and banks.
Yet most lawmakers and policymakers seem unaware that the U.S. Treasury has already blacklisted all of Iran's financial institutions under similar authorities. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) effectively took this action in March 2008 when it issued a banking advisory that fingered all Iranian banks and their branches abroad for the "money laundering threat involving illicit Iranian activity."
According to government insiders, one reason that Treasury implemented section 311 was its past success against North Korea. In September 2005, Macau-based Banco Delta Asia was designated under this section for helping North Korean officials collect surreptitious multimillion-dollar cash deposits and for distributing counterfeit U.S. currency, among other offenses. Since then, North Korea has not found a replacement international banker. But another reason for Treasury's implementation of 311 was to stave off Congressional calls for stricter enforcement of existing authorities, since in Treasury's view, such enforcement might harm the U.S. economy
In fact, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act (CISADA), which was signed into law in July 2010, is much stronger than the 311. CISADA specifies that all international banks must choose between the American and the Iranian financial market. Under the act, banks that do business with sanctioned Iranian institutions face serious punishment: the Justice Department can close down any branches they maintain on American soil or force a sale of all their U.S. assets. Congress has called on Treasury to fully implement CISADA, and some members have also asked the administration to officially designate Iran's CBI for its involvement in terrorism and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. In recent weeks, Treasury has made a less-than-compelling case that if CISADA is fully implemented, or the CBI designated, international financial institutions will pull their assets from the United States.
The financial industry will quickly discover that under section 311, it is not required to do too much. Treasury "does not expect the burden associated with these requirements to be significant." Domestic financial institutions will simply need to inform any banks to which they provide financial services that U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from doing business with Iran. However, as long as a foreign bank has a firewall policy in place that ensures that U.S. banks are not tainted with Iranian activity, the foreign bank is in the clear. Foreign banks can continue to do business with Iran with impunity; they will not be designated by the U.S. Treasury as institutions doing business with a blacklisted bank.
The announcement concerning section 311 has had some positive effects and spurred selected international action. The UK declared that it was cutting all ties with Iranian banks; Canada is banning exports for the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries; and France is calling for unprecedented sanctions, including freezing the assets of Iran's central bank and suspending the purchase of Iranian oil.
But rather than enacting a new measure unlikely to have a significant impact on Iran, the Obama administration should fully implement CISADA as quickly as possible. At a minimum, Treasury should start by designating some of the biggest offenders, companies and banks that are doing business with blacklisted Iranian banks, or on their behalf. This would likely cause many of them to cut their ties.
Exerting real economic pressure on Iran's banking sector is one of the few tools at the West's disposal, short of the military option. Implementing CISADA, rather than section 311, should be the focus of Congress and the administration. Passing measures that are weaker than existing laws is not only counter-productive, but will be ineffective in hampering Iran's march towards nuclearization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Twas the Month before Christmas
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday'.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Target's were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
not Happy Holiday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Israel and Syria brace for regional war between mid-Dec. 2011 and mid-Jan 2012
Multiple Launch Rocket System in action
The actions and words of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Syrian ruler Bashar Assad in the last 72 hours indicate they are poised for a regional war, including an attack on Iran, for some time between December 2011 and January 2012.
In their different ways, both have posted road signs to the fast-approaching conflict.
1. Saturday, Dec. 3, Syria staged a large-scale military exercise in the eastern town of Palmyra, which was interpreted by Western and Israeli pundits as notice to its neighbors, primarily Turkey and Israel, that the uprising against the Assad regime had not fractured its sophisticated missile capabilities.
Military sources advise attaching more credibility to the official Damascus statement of Sunday, Dec. 4: "The Syrian army has staged a live-fire drill in the eastern part of the country under war-like circumstances with the aim of testing its missile weaponry in confronting any attack."
Videotapes of the exercise, briefly carried on the Internet early Monday before they were removed by an unseen hand, support this statement. They showed a four-stage exercise, in which missile fire was a minor feature. Its focus was on the massive firing of self-propelled 120mm cannon, brigade-strength practice of 600mm and 300mm multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), offensive movements of Syrian armored brigades backed by ground-to-ground missiles with short 150-200 kilometer ranges. They drilled tactics for repelling enemy reinforcements rushed to combat arenas.
All this added up to is an impressive Syrian demonstration of its ability to ward off an attack on Syrian soil by turning a defensive array into an offensive push for taking the battle over into the aggressor's territory, whether the Turkish or Israeli armies or a combined Arab League force backed by NATO.
2. Israel made its rejoinder to the Syrian war message 24 hours later.
Addressing a ceremony honoring the memory of for Israel's founding father David Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu recalled how 63 years ago, Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the State of Israel in defiance of pressures from most of Western leaders and a majority of his own party. They warned him that he would trigger a combined Arab attack to destroy the fledgling state just three years after the end of World War II.
But fortunately for us, said the prime minister, Ben-Gurion stood up to the pressure and went through with his decision, otherwise Israel would not be here today.
"There are times," said Netanyahu, "when a decision may carry a heavy price, but the price for not deciding would be heavier."
"I want to believe," he said, "we will always have the courage and resolve for the right decisions to safeguard our future and security."
Although he did not mention Iran, it was not hard to infer that the prime minister was referring to a decision to exercise Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program in the face of crushing pressure from Washington and insistent advice of certain Israeli security veterans.
Defense minister Ehud Barak, who was standing behind the prime minister's shoulder, was as tense as a coiled spring.
3. Six hours later, Netanyahu dropped a bombshell on the domestic political scene: He announced his Likud party would hold elections, including primaries, before January 31, 2012 - two years before schedule and a year before Israel's next general election. As head of one of the most stable and long-lived coalition governments ever to have ruled Israel, he is under no pressing domestic need of a demonstration of leadership at this time.
4. In the last two weeks, the Netanyahu government has been subjected to acerbic criticism on the part of one Obama administration official after another. They have presented Israel as having fallen into the hands of right-wing extremists who are engaged in a mad race to suppress the judiciary and diminish the civil rights of women and children – not to mention Palestinians.
Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton went to unimaginable lengths when she likened Israel to Iran because fringe ultraorthodox group's in a couple of suburbs in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak were fighting for gender segregation on public transport against the government and the courts.
She was clearly aiming to undermine the Netanyahu government's democratic credentials - and therefore his moral legitimacy - for going to war to halt Iran's attainment of a nuclear weapon.
4. The unusually powerful US and Russian naval buildups in the waters around Syria and Iran.
Washington sought in late November to give the impression that the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group was anchored off Marseilles, when it was spotted in the eastern Mediterranean opposite Syria.
Moscow then rushed to Syria's defense by airlifting 72 anti-ship Yakhont missiles (Western-coded SSN-26) to Damascus. These water-skimming weapons can hit naval targets at a distance of 300 kilometers.
After that the Bush, whose freedom to approach Syrian or Lebanese shores, had been curtailed by the new weapon reaching Syria, departed to an unknown destination, while the USS Carl Vinson strike group took up position opposite Iran.
Moscow is also playing hide and seek with its only air carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. It was announced that the vessel would set sail for the Mediterranean on Dec. 6. But on Nov. 25, it was sighted passing Malta and chugging past Cyprus four days later on its way to join the flotilla of three Russian guided missile destroyers already anchored off Syria.
Neither the United States nor Russia would have concentrated two powerful fleets in the proximity of Syria and Iran unless they were certain a military conflagration was imminent. While any of the prime movers, Washington, Moscow, Tehran, Israel or Bashar Assad, may at the last moment step back from the brink of a regional war, at the moment, there is no sign of this happening.
3a)'Iran's missile program suffered serious setback'
Recent blast at major missile-testing site was major blow to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, intelligence experts tell New York Times
The explosion that destroyed a major missile-testing site near Tehran in early November was a "major setback" for Iran’s long-range missile program, the New York Times reported on Monday.
Quoting American and Israeli intelligence officials, as well as technology experts, the report said that satellite images of the site post-explosion show that the base – which served as Iran's central testing facility for advanced solid-fuel missiles – was nearly completely leveled by the blast.
The exact circumstances of the explosion remain unclear, but US intelligence experts believe it was probably accidental, perhaps because of Iran’s inexperience with a volatile materials and dangerous technology.
The Islamic Republic itself declared the blast an accident, as well.
According to the NYT, while some Iranian officials have hedged sabotage may be involved, it is unclear whether their assumptions are based on evidence or guesses.
Iran's nuclear program has been hit by a highly sophisticated computer worm in the past, which nearly crippled its main uranium production facility.
In recent years, several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated on Tehran’s streets, under mysterious circumstances, as well.
The cause, according to the report, is of little interest to both American and Israeli officials: "Anything that buys us time and delays the day when the Iranians might be able to mount a nuclear weapon on an accurate missile is a small victory," one Western intelligence official told the newspaper.
"At this point, we'll take whatever we can get, however it happens," he added.
As the West's concerns about the nature and magnitude of the Iranian nuclear program grow, especially in light of the recent IAEA report which suggested Tehran is already experimenting with nuclear warheads, intense surveillance efforts have been turned on suspected Iranian weapons sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Vampire Government: How the Left is Sucking the Life out of the Private Economy
By Steve McCann
The current financial debacle in Europe and the near-bankrupt status of the United Sates have been brought about by an obsessive loyalty to statist doctrine and an inability to admit failure -- traits common to the left on both sides of the Atlantic. The current dilemma is the end-product of decades of uncontrolled spending and economic policies promoted not to benefit the people in the long term, but to maintain the power base of the dominant governing class. The path to insolvency taken by the countries of Europe and the United States has been on a parallel track.
Facts and reality matter little to the insufferable American left and are generally ignored if they do not support the left's contentions. At that point, "creative" interpretation or outright denial takes over. Economic statistics and discussions can often cause the eye of the average reader to glaze over or the listener to become confused by the terminology and incomprehensible numbers involved. The so-called progressives rely on their ability to obfuscate and to mobilize greed and envy in order to justify and maintain their deceptions.
However, the average person can and does understand that the standard of living has deteriorated over the past 15-plus years, well-paying jobs are impossible to find, and the country is in dire financial shape. But how and why did this come to pass? The fault lies at the feet of solely the left and its control of the Democratic Party, as well as its enablers in the Republican Party. The nation's Gross Domestic Product has been so ravaged by government's demands that it cannot sustain long-term economic growth and a concurrent increase in the standard of living for all Americans.
The U.S. government began keeping comprehensive income statistics in 1947. Among the most vital of these measurements is the "the median household income." This is the income point which divides the income distribution into two equal groups -- half having income above that amount and half having income below that amount. (Note: all financial statistics in this article are inflation-adjusted to 2011 dollars.)
In 1947, the median household income was $29,769.00; 25 years later, in 1972, it had substantially increased to $45,196.00 (+52%, or 2.1% per year). Further, all income groups saw a rise led by the lowest fifth of 117%.
However, in 2010, the median household income was only $49,445.00, as compared to $45,196.00 in 1972. This represents an increase of just 9.4% over 38 years, or 0.2% per year.
In the mid-1970s, the era of big government and accelerated social spending to fulfill unsustainable promises had begun in earnest. From 1947 to 1972, total government (federal, state, and local) spending averaged 26.7% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. In 2011, it has hit nearly 41%. Considering the present course of the GDP and with programs such as ObamaCare, spending will exceed 46% of GDP by 2016. For comparison, some nations recently in the news: Greece is at 51% of its GDP, Spain 49%, Italy 51%, and Portugal 50.2%.
The following chart brings the numbers into focus (source). (In 1947, the population of the country was 148 million. Today, it's 312 million -- an increase of 111%.)
1947
1972
2011
Growth 1947-2011
Gross Domestic Product
$ 2,700 billion
$ 7,520 billion
$ 15,100 billion
459%
Government Spending-Total
560 "
2,200 "
6,100 "
989%
Spending as % of GDP
20.7%
29.3%
40.5%
Government Social Spending*
$ 136 billion
$ 1,070 billion
$ 3,670 billion
2,598%
Social Spending as % of Total
24.3%
48.6%
60.2%
(*Pensions, Health Care, Education, and Welfare)
While the GDP has increased by a factor of 5.5, spending has increased by 10.5, or nearly double the GDP growth rate. This means that there is much less money available in the economy for job-creation, business-expansion and wealth-formation. If in 2011 total government spending had been at 33% of GDP, an additional $1,132 billion, or $1.13 trillion, would have remained in the private economy.
It is not just the astronomical increase in government spending that has impacted incomes and the standard of living. The American left was determined also to rein in and control the private sector -- the left's designated villain.
To that end, the regulatory regime and the tax code have become a tool to bludgeon business and transform the economy. In 1947, the tax code was less than 9,000 pages; today, it is over 72,000 pages. In 1960, the Code of Federal Regulations totaled 22,800 pages; today, it is over 160,000 and expanding rapidly under the Obama regime.
It is estimated that the cost of compliance relative to the tax code and other regulations (which do not include state and local) exceeds $1,750 billion ($1.75 trillion), which further drains capital for the formation of jobs and businesses.
As also happened in most countries in Western Europe, business-formation stagnated and declined, resulting in more goods and raw materials being imported. In the United States, manufacturing saw a precipitous deterioration due primarily to government policies, taxes, and regulations. In the period 1947-72, 28% of the labor force was employed in the manufacturing sector; today, that number has shrunk to 8.9%.
The nation has lost not only the jobs, but also the overwhelming value-added benefit of developing, manufacturing, and marketing a product. The jobs that have been created are in the service sector, which not only pays at a lower scale, but also does not have any intrinsic uniqueness or value-added component and is very susceptible to improvements in technology and outsourcing.
Goods-producing jobs pay $5.75 more per hour than the weighted average of the hourly rate for jobs created in the service sector over the past 11 years. While 7.7 million jobs in the goods-producing sector have been lost since 2000, there have been 7.5 million jobs created elsewhere; however, 5.6 million were in low-paying service jobs such as retail, hospitality, and health care. This has been a major factor in the decline of income for the middle class and the widening gap between income groups.
If the country had maintained a 20% level of manufacturing employment, today, an additional 14.5 million people would be employed in that sector, and $173 billion in additional personal income would be realized as compared to employment in the service sector. There would also be a significant boost in the overall GDP from the value of the goods produced.
Concurrent with the deliberate and successful effort to curtail manufacturing and ratchet up central government control of the economy has been the overwhelming increase in the trade imbalance with the rest of the world. In the 25-year period from 1947 to 1972, the United States realized a trade surplus of $88 billion. In the 25 years prior to 2011, the country has experienced a trade deficit of $10,700 billion ($10.7 trillion). Of that amount, $3.1 trillion was for the purchase of oil and a $3.0-trillion imbalance with China.
In 2011, it is expected that the trade deficit will hit $800 billion, thereby further reducing the effective net GDP available for investment, job-creation, and personal wealth.
The left will, besides denying any responsibility for this devastation to the American economy, claim that their policies have helped the poor and downtrodden. However, in 1965, the poverty rate in America was 15.4% (today it is 15.1%). Not only has the income of Americans stagnated, but the disparity has widened -- not because of the so-called greed of the rich, but because there is now minimal upward income mobility compared to the past, as high-paying jobs are no longer being created. The U.S. is not competitive in the world market, as the manufacturing sector has been forced to wither on the vine. And America has joined the list of countries facing insolvency due to out-of-control spending and borrowing.
The solution offered by Obama and his fellow travelers on the left: not only more of the same, but an acceleration of the process, as they cannot get past their own narcissism and ignorance enough to ever admit failure. They would rather see the United States collapse and its people in poverty and despair as long as they are safely ensconced within the ruling class along with their crony capitalist and union allies. To that end, they are counting on manipulating the ignorance and emotions of the American people. The future of the country depends on whether that tactic continues to be successful
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)The ObamaCare Recusal Nonsense
The left doesn't want Justice Thomas to hear the case. The right says Justice Kagan is too biased. The full court should decide the case.
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
No sooner had the Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge to the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul than chatter began about whether either Justice Elena Kagan or Justice Clarence Thomas, or both, should be disqualified—"recused," in the argot of the law—from considering the case.
But upon even a cursory examination of the facts it is clear that neither justice should step aside. The court we have should decide the case.
Justice Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama Justice Department before she was nominated to the bench. The solicitor general heads the small team of lawyers who represent the federal government before the Supreme Court, and coordinates and controls the government's litigation positions in the various federal courts of appeal and occasionally even in district courts.
Although critics have portrayed Justice Kagan during her tenure as a "cheerleader" for the health-care bill, and although she did send an email to a former faculty colleague that applauded the legislation, the solicitor general ordinarily is not called on to advise on issues of constitutionality of proposed legislation; that task usually falls to the Office of Legal Counsel. There has been no evidence that she acted personally in her official capacity as solicitor general in connection with any issue in the case.
As to Justice Thomas, the facts said to bear on recusal stem not from his own acts and statements, but solely from those of his wife, who has been described as a conservative activist affiliated with groups that have a position decidedly opposed to the health-care legislation and its individual mandate. But here, too, the case for recusal is flimsy at best.
The law on disqualification of judges is based in a statute and the cases that interpret it. The statute sets out one general and several specific conditions that warrant recusal. But whether the issue is raised by a party or by the judge himself, it is always the judge who decides. A judge is just as obligated not to recuse himself when recusal is unnecessary as he is to step aside when it is. That's how it works in lower federal courts as well. True, in those courts there is always a higher court to review the determination. But surely a more detailed congeries of rules at the Supreme Court level will not assure greater clarity, nor would public confidence be improved by making justices review one another's recusal decisions—deciding, in effect, whether to vote one another off the island.
Of the specific standards, only two—one as to each justice—could conceivably be relevant. The one that potentially relates to Justice Kagan requires disqualification "[w]here [the Justice] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy." "Proceeding" is defined to include all stages of the relevant litigation.
In order to run afoul of that provision, Justice Kagan herself would have had to participate in her official capacity as counsel or adviser in the case at any stage, or expressed an opinion in her official capacity about the merits. Asked during her confirmation proceedings whether she had done so, she said no. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no reason not to credit that denial. Statements of opinion to friends or former colleagues do not count here.
The one provision that could apply to Justice Thomas requires recusal if the spouse of the Justice is known by him "to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." Under the applicable law, the "interest that could be substantially affected" does not include a rooting interest, which is the only interest hypothesized even by the justice's critics.
Which brings us to the general provision, directing that "Any justice . . . of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned"—words of such sprawling generality that they seem at first glance to open both justices to attack; after all, what is fatal is not necessarily actual partiality, but even the appearance of partiality.
First glance, however, does not decide the outcome. The standard for determining when impartiality might "reasonably" be questioned has been held to be an objective one. It is not one based on an imagined straw poll of the partially informed hypothetical man on the street, but based on how a person of reasonable judgment, aware of all the facts, as well as how courts function, would decide.
That person would—or should—be aware, for example, that race and religious discrimination cases are decided every day by judges of all races and creeds, that sex discrimination cases are decided by both male and female judges, disability cases by judges with and without disabilities. Challenges based on such factors, which engage biases far deeper than any purported rooting interest in a case, have been swatted down so often that a law clerk of even middling competence could prepare an opinion in less than half a day for a judge facing such a challenge.
The persistence of recusal issues appears to have little to do with the legal merits—there aren't any—but a great deal to do with the process of how we have selected and rejected candidates for judicial office in the past few decades, certainly since the superbly qualified Robert Bork was turned down for a seat on the Supreme Court. The selection of judges has become a high stakes exercise for agenda-driven politics, with nominees often selected with at least one eye focused on their expected tilt on the issues of the day.
Those nominees then are expected to bob and weave their way through hearings, proclaiming solemnly—sometimes even accurately—that their minds are as straight as the edge of the Judiciary Committee witness table, as open as their upturned palms. When contentious cases then come before them, the agenda-driven politics that helped seat the judges does not disappear, nor do the stakes diminish; they rise—along with incentives to disqualify judges.
It will take a long period of concentrated effort to reverse the process of off-loading political issues onto the courts, selecting judges based on their perceived proclivities in deciding political issues, and seeking political advantage from and reading political motive into every court decision with a political consequence.
But ancient Chinese wisdom teaches that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps the way to start this particular journey is to pull our collective socks up, stop the chatter about recusal, and let the court we have—for better or worse—decide the case.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Melanie Phillips
Until recently, I had never been to Hebron. In the past three months, however, I have twice boarded an armoured bus to make the journey.
The first time was with a private, non-political group to visit Hebron's Jewish area and the Cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and the patriarchs and matriarchs are said to be buried.
It was a shock. If ever there was a illustration of the attempt by Islam to supersede Judaism, this was surely it. This holy Jewish shrine was to all intents a mosque. Islamic prayer mats were piled high, and there seemed to be not one Jewish artefact in the place. Even the catafalques sporting labels claiming them as the tombs of the founders of Judaism were topped by Islamic crescents.
Those labels are hung only on the handful of days per year the Jews are allowed to visit. Hebron has become a synonym in the west for oppression of the Palestinians by 'crazed settlers' but it is in fact those Jewish residents who are hanging on by their fingernails to a minimal right of access to one of Judaism's holiest sites.
Their presence requires the IDF to ensure that access. Without the soldiers, does anyone seriously imagine Machpelah would not suffer the same fate as Joseph's Tomb in Nablus which, after the Israelis were forced to abandon it, was burned to the ground?
It is also grotesque to call them 'settlers' as if they are colonising land with which they have no connection. Jews have lived in Hebron for thousands of years but have been repeatedly driven out, as in the 1929 pogrom when Arabs slaughtered 67 adults and children.
The restored Jewish presence in a town of 130,000 Arabs is a mere 90 Jewish families, restricted to an area comprising some five per cent of the town. Far from the impression that Arab Hebron is wretched and impoverished, it is highly prosperous, delivering around one third of the West Bank's entire GDP.
By contrast, the main street in the Jewish area is like a ghost town. Every Arab shop there is closed, because the IDF decided that the shops pose a mortal threat since, in the crowds of shoppers, Jews were repeatedly attacked with knives, acid, and once in a suicide-bombing resulting in the murder of at least two people.
The Jews are sitting ducks for snipers in the Arab houses on the hill towering above - from where the bullet was fired that murdered 10-month old Shalhevet Pass in her buggy in a playground in 2001.
Real aggression towards Arabs in Hebron should be unreservedly condemned. But any fair-minded person would surely conclude that, in general, it is the Jews who are under siege from a racist and murderous aggression. Is it not perverse to say that because Jews are living in Hebron once again (where, after all, they were given the right to settle under the Mandate) that is an act of aggression?
My second trip was for a barmitzvah in Machpelah. Afterwards, we walked through the 'ghost town' with Israeli flags flying, to the sound of trumpet, shofar and drum.
Triumphalist? Aggressive? It felt instead like an expression of innocence and joy in the face of evil and hatred. Yet that hatred is not universal. Friendly relations have been established between local rabbis and the remarkable Sheikh Jabari, leader of Hebron's largest clan, who some years ago prevented the planned torching of a nearby synagogue.
Sheikh Jabari has publicly acknowledged the right of Jews to live in Hebron. Recently, he welcomed and blessed a group of Jewish visitors and declared that Machpelah should unite Jews and Arabs. Alas, Sheikh Jabari does not speak for the Palestinian Authority, which is intent on using its new membership of UNESCO to stop what it calls the 'Judaisation of the city'.
UNESCO has recognised Hebron as a 'Palestinian heritage site', demanding it be removed from Israel's own list of national heritage sites. Hebron's mayor has said that if the PA controlled the whole town, Jews would again be barred from Machpelah. UNESCO is merely the latest weapon the PA is deploying to erase the Jews from their own history.
In one corner, the PA is trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews again from Hebron; in the other, Sheikh Jabari is supporting the rights of the Jewish people to their own heritage. So which side are you on?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Secretary of Defense Panetta Shows How the Obama Administration Is Selling Out Israel…and US Interest
By Barry Rubin
In a major address on U.S. Middle East policy to the Brookings Institution U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave us a clear picture of the Obama administration’s view of the region. When taken along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent speech on the same subject, we now know the following regarding Obama’s policy:
It is dangerously and absurdly wrong. This administration totally and completely, dangerously and disastrously for U.S. interests misunderstands the Middle East. They are 180 degrees off course, that is heading in the opposite direction of safety.
Despite the satisfactory state of relations on a purely military level, the Obama administration is not a friend of Israel, even to the extent that it was arguably so in the first two years of this presidency.
It is now an enemy; it is on the other side. Again, the issue is not mainly bilateral relations but the administration’s help and encouragement to those forces that are Israel’s biggest enemies, that want to rekindle war, and that are 100 percent against a two-state solution. And I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority, I mean the Islamists.
And the Obama administration is also a strategic enemy of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan. It is also a strategic enemy to the democratic opposition forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt.
Having analyzed and studied the Middle East for almost four decades I say none of this lightly. And these conclusions arise simply from watching what the administration says and does.
In his speech, Panetta has bashed Israel based on a ridiculously false premise. Here it is:
“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”
First, there is a peculiar phrase that I have not seen used even once to describe the Middle East events of 2011, “Arab awakening” instead of “Arab Spring.” This apparently comes from the title of anew book about these events.
But what is the origin of this phrase? The Arab Awakening was the famous book written by George Antonius (subsidized by a U.S foundation to do so, by the way) advocating Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism in 1938. The Arab Awakening began a half-century pan-Arab struggle against Israel’s creation or existence. Might this not give us a hint of what the new “Arab Awakening” is going to do? Oh, and 1938 marks the year when Great Britain desperately tried to sell out the Jews in order to gain Arab support (for the coming war with Germany and Italy). Within two years of Antonius’s book the form the Arab Awakening took was an alliance with Nazi Germany. One of the main allies of Berlin was the Muslim Brotherhood, now coming into power in Tunisia and Egypt.
Interesting parallels.
But there are three other major questions raised in Panetta’s statement.
First, does the current “Arab Awakening” imperil Israel? Yes, of course it does. By changing a reasonably friendly Egyptian government into a totally hostile Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi dominated political system closely allied with Hamas, the Gaza Strip’s ruler, and by helping establish Islamist regimes in Tunisia and Libya allied with this Muslim Brotherhood International; the changes create a four-member alliance intent on wiping Israel off the map.
Add to that Islamist domination of Lebanon by Hizballah, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the continuing threat from Iran and you’ve got quite a regional situation.
Second, and more interestingly, why is the above true?
The answer is as follows:
Democracy in theory is admirable but when you have masses imbued with very radical views, strong Islamist movements, and weak moderate ones, the election winners will be extremely radical Islamists. By winning massive victories, facing a weak (even sympathetic) United States, and seeing even more extreme forces becoming so popular (the Salafists in Egypt), the Islamists are emboldened to be even more radical in their behavior. Who’s going to stop them?
We are thus not facing a springtime of democracy but a springtime of extremism.
The Islamists don’t want peace with Israel on any terms. They want its destruction. They will not be dissuaded by a peace agreement. They will do anything possible — starting with demagoguery and ending with terrorism or even war — to block such a diplomatic solution. How can Israeli action reconcile those who don’t want peace?
As of now, the following are governed or will soon be governed by Islamists who want Israel’s destruction and genocide against the Jews there: Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.
The following are governed by those who want peace with Israel: Jordan.
Not only is the United States not opposing this development; it is supporting it. In other words, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Third, why are there no negotiations? As the history of the issue since January 2009 shows, it is the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Israel. If Panetta and the Obama administration were either wise or honest they would acknowledge this fact. Instead, they blame Israel. Once again, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Consequently, Panetta’s statement that Israel has a responsibility to build regional support for Israeli and United States’ security objectives is nonsense. Let me put it in the form of a lesson in logic:
Israeli security objectives and the U.S. national interest are consistent.
But Israeli security objectives and Obama administration objectives are not consistent.
And Obama administration objectives and the U.S. national interest are not consistent.
Consider Panetta’s statement:
I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.
But why has it grown? Because of the advance of Islamist radical regimes and movements which are not tolerant of Israel’s security needs or in fact of Israel’s existence.
This is the equivalent of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain making the same statement in 1938: “I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Czechoslovakia’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.”
Panetta’s suggestion, like that of Chamberlain in 1938, is that Israel should mend relations with such “traditional security partners.” Specifically, he stated, “Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan,”
That statement is false. Israel can’t reach out and mend fences with Turkey and Egypt because they do not share an interest in regional stability. They are no longer status quo powers; they are countries that want revolutionary change in the Middle East. And this claim takes on special irony since Israel must now not just mend the fence but build an entirely new fence to protect itself from cross-border attacks from Egypt.
Turkey today is not the Turkey of the past. Israel had good relations with Turkey when it was governed by center-right or social democratic parties. Today Turkey is governed by Islamists who hate Israel. Doesn’t Panetta understand the difference? No! Now that’s scary.
Here’s the truth: Under the Obama administration, the Islamist regime in Turkey has replaced Israel as America’s number-one Middle East friend and advisor. And this is a government about which a half-dozen years ago Israel’s ambassador told an American counterpart (as we see on Wikileaks) that this regime hates Israel and hates Jews. That message is in a State Department cable.
What about Egypt? Well, the Obama administration helped get rid of that security partner. And as for Jordan, it is understandably scared stiff. In the environment of Islamist advance it is trying to appease its own Islamists and is moving closer to Hamas as a way of surviving. And last month the king of Jordan said in a Washington Post interview that nobody could depend on America any more.
Panetta said, “It is in Israel’s interest, Turkey’s interest, and US interest for Israel to reconcile with Turkey, and both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on track,” But it is not—repeat not—in the interest of the current government of Turkey to reconcile with Israel. We saw this in the Israel-Turkey negotiations over the flotilla in which the Turkish prime minister wanted to ensure there would be no deal.
There are two more shockingly absurd pieces of advice Panetta has for Israel.
“This is not impossible [for Israel to try to mend fences]. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them.”
What does an Israeli audience think of when it reads this? Of the same old message from the West to Israel: make gestures, give concessions, take risks, and when they are rebuked “the world will see.” This is precisely the same advice given regarding the 1990s’ peace process, the freeze of construction on settlements, and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. And every time the world doesn’t see. After the risk is taken (and Israel’s security suffers), and the concessions are made (and Israelis die), the world is even more critical of Israel and repeats, as Panetta does, that Israel has done nothing for peace.
These are harsh words about the Obama administration and for those who don’t understand the current situation in the Middle East they will no doubt seem partisan, extreme, and alarmist.
This is the worst tragedy of all: sadly and regrettably they are quite true.
Normal president reality check: Imagine a normal president of either party. Wouldn’t that person, or the secretary of state, say something like this: We are aware that Israel now has to deal with an increased number of hostile governments in the region and we will do our best to help it meet this challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Enforce Existing Laws against Iran
Obama's new get-tough policy is weaker than current measures
By Avi Jorisch
In recent years, the United States has imposed punishing sanctions on Iran's financial sector. Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new measures intended to hamper Iran's ability to raise and move funds internationally. Several Western allies have followed suit in an attempt to tighten the noose around the Islamic Republic and curb its ability to achieve nuclearization. Yet a close analysis of Treasury's action demonstrates that the new sanctions regime is far weaker than existing laws and falls short of the moves that members of Congress are demanding. What is needed is not new measures, but better implementation of existing statues.
Despite four rounds of sanctions by the United Nations and a concerted effort by many Western allies, a large number of banks around the world continue to do business with Iranian financial institutions that are complicit in supporting terrorist groups and spreading nuclear weapons. The Central Bank of Iran (CBI), for example, still has unfettered access to the international financial sector, even though it has been accused of helping fund Iran's nuclear weapons program, facilitating money transfers to terrorist organizations, and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
On November 21, the Obama administration implemented section 311 of the PATRIOT Act, blacklisting Iran and all of its financial institutions. A 311 empowers the government to designate a foreign jurisdiction or institution, a class of foreign transactions, or a foreign account if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that they are of "primary money laundering concern." To date, the U.S. government has used this provision to designate seventeen jurisdictions and banks.
Yet most lawmakers and policymakers seem unaware that the U.S. Treasury has already blacklisted all of Iran's financial institutions under similar authorities. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) effectively took this action in March 2008 when it issued a banking advisory that fingered all Iranian banks and their branches abroad for the "money laundering threat involving illicit Iranian activity."
According to government insiders, one reason that Treasury implemented section 311 was its past success against North Korea. In September 2005, Macau-based Banco Delta Asia was designated under this section for helping North Korean officials collect surreptitious multimillion-dollar cash deposits and for distributing counterfeit U.S. currency, among other offenses. Since then, North Korea has not found a replacement international banker. But another reason for Treasury's implementation of 311 was to stave off Congressional calls for stricter enforcement of existing authorities, since in Treasury's view, such enforcement might harm the U.S. economy
In fact, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act (CISADA), which was signed into law in July 2010, is much stronger than the 311. CISADA specifies that all international banks must choose between the American and the Iranian financial market. Under the act, banks that do business with sanctioned Iranian institutions face serious punishment: the Justice Department can close down any branches they maintain on American soil or force a sale of all their U.S. assets. Congress has called on Treasury to fully implement CISADA, and some members have also asked the administration to officially designate Iran's CBI for its involvement in terrorism and proliferating weapons of mass destruction. In recent weeks, Treasury has made a less-than-compelling case that if CISADA is fully implemented, or the CBI designated, international financial institutions will pull their assets from the United States.
The financial industry will quickly discover that under section 311, it is not required to do too much. Treasury "does not expect the burden associated with these requirements to be significant." Domestic financial institutions will simply need to inform any banks to which they provide financial services that U.S. financial institutions are prohibited from doing business with Iran. However, as long as a foreign bank has a firewall policy in place that ensures that U.S. banks are not tainted with Iranian activity, the foreign bank is in the clear. Foreign banks can continue to do business with Iran with impunity; they will not be designated by the U.S. Treasury as institutions doing business with a blacklisted bank.
The announcement concerning section 311 has had some positive effects and spurred selected international action. The UK declared that it was cutting all ties with Iranian banks; Canada is banning exports for the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries; and France is calling for unprecedented sanctions, including freezing the assets of Iran's central bank and suspending the purchase of Iranian oil.
But rather than enacting a new measure unlikely to have a significant impact on Iran, the Obama administration should fully implement CISADA as quickly as possible. At a minimum, Treasury should start by designating some of the biggest offenders, companies and banks that are doing business with blacklisted Iranian banks, or on their behalf. This would likely cause many of them to cut their ties.
Exerting real economic pressure on Iran's banking sector is one of the few tools at the West's disposal, short of the military option. Implementing CISADA, rather than section 311, should be the focus of Congress and the administration. Passing measures that are weaker than existing laws is not only counter-productive, but will be ineffective in hampering Iran's march towards nuclearization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Twas the Month before Christmas
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday'.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Target's were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
not Happy Holiday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Israel and Syria brace for regional war between mid-Dec. 2011 and mid-Jan 2012
Multiple Launch Rocket System in action
The actions and words of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Syrian ruler Bashar Assad in the last 72 hours indicate they are poised for a regional war, including an attack on Iran, for some time between December 2011 and January 2012.
In their different ways, both have posted road signs to the fast-approaching conflict.
1. Saturday, Dec. 3, Syria staged a large-scale military exercise in the eastern town of Palmyra, which was interpreted by Western and Israeli pundits as notice to its neighbors, primarily Turkey and Israel, that the uprising against the Assad regime had not fractured its sophisticated missile capabilities.
Military sources advise attaching more credibility to the official Damascus statement of Sunday, Dec. 4: "The Syrian army has staged a live-fire drill in the eastern part of the country under war-like circumstances with the aim of testing its missile weaponry in confronting any attack."
Videotapes of the exercise, briefly carried on the Internet early Monday before they were removed by an unseen hand, support this statement. They showed a four-stage exercise, in which missile fire was a minor feature. Its focus was on the massive firing of self-propelled 120mm cannon, brigade-strength practice of 600mm and 300mm multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), offensive movements of Syrian armored brigades backed by ground-to-ground missiles with short 150-200 kilometer ranges. They drilled tactics for repelling enemy reinforcements rushed to combat arenas.
All this added up to is an impressive Syrian demonstration of its ability to ward off an attack on Syrian soil by turning a defensive array into an offensive push for taking the battle over into the aggressor's territory, whether the Turkish or Israeli armies or a combined Arab League force backed by NATO.
2. Israel made its rejoinder to the Syrian war message 24 hours later.
Addressing a ceremony honoring the memory of for Israel's founding father David Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu recalled how 63 years ago, Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the State of Israel in defiance of pressures from most of Western leaders and a majority of his own party. They warned him that he would trigger a combined Arab attack to destroy the fledgling state just three years after the end of World War II.
But fortunately for us, said the prime minister, Ben-Gurion stood up to the pressure and went through with his decision, otherwise Israel would not be here today.
"There are times," said Netanyahu, "when a decision may carry a heavy price, but the price for not deciding would be heavier."
"I want to believe," he said, "we will always have the courage and resolve for the right decisions to safeguard our future and security."
Although he did not mention Iran, it was not hard to infer that the prime minister was referring to a decision to exercise Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program in the face of crushing pressure from Washington and insistent advice of certain Israeli security veterans.
Defense minister Ehud Barak, who was standing behind the prime minister's shoulder, was as tense as a coiled spring.
3. Six hours later, Netanyahu dropped a bombshell on the domestic political scene: He announced his Likud party would hold elections, including primaries, before January 31, 2012 - two years before schedule and a year before Israel's next general election. As head of one of the most stable and long-lived coalition governments ever to have ruled Israel, he is under no pressing domestic need of a demonstration of leadership at this time.
4. In the last two weeks, the Netanyahu government has been subjected to acerbic criticism on the part of one Obama administration official after another. They have presented Israel as having fallen into the hands of right-wing extremists who are engaged in a mad race to suppress the judiciary and diminish the civil rights of women and children – not to mention Palestinians.
Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton went to unimaginable lengths when she likened Israel to Iran because fringe ultraorthodox group's in a couple of suburbs in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak were fighting for gender segregation on public transport against the government and the courts.
She was clearly aiming to undermine the Netanyahu government's democratic credentials - and therefore his moral legitimacy - for going to war to halt Iran's attainment of a nuclear weapon.
4. The unusually powerful US and Russian naval buildups in the waters around Syria and Iran.
Washington sought in late November to give the impression that the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group was anchored off Marseilles, when it was spotted in the eastern Mediterranean opposite Syria.
Moscow then rushed to Syria's defense by airlifting 72 anti-ship Yakhont missiles (Western-coded SSN-26) to Damascus. These water-skimming weapons can hit naval targets at a distance of 300 kilometers.
After that the Bush, whose freedom to approach Syrian or Lebanese shores, had been curtailed by the new weapon reaching Syria, departed to an unknown destination, while the USS Carl Vinson strike group took up position opposite Iran.
Moscow is also playing hide and seek with its only air carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. It was announced that the vessel would set sail for the Mediterranean on Dec. 6. But on Nov. 25, it was sighted passing Malta and chugging past Cyprus four days later on its way to join the flotilla of three Russian guided missile destroyers already anchored off Syria.
Neither the United States nor Russia would have concentrated two powerful fleets in the proximity of Syria and Iran unless they were certain a military conflagration was imminent. While any of the prime movers, Washington, Moscow, Tehran, Israel or Bashar Assad, may at the last moment step back from the brink of a regional war, at the moment, there is no sign of this happening.
3a)'Iran's missile program suffered serious setback'
Recent blast at major missile-testing site was major blow to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, intelligence experts tell New York Times
The explosion that destroyed a major missile-testing site near Tehran in early November was a "major setback" for Iran’s long-range missile program, the New York Times reported on Monday.
Quoting American and Israeli intelligence officials, as well as technology experts, the report said that satellite images of the site post-explosion show that the base – which served as Iran's central testing facility for advanced solid-fuel missiles – was nearly completely leveled by the blast.
The exact circumstances of the explosion remain unclear, but US intelligence experts believe it was probably accidental, perhaps because of Iran’s inexperience with a volatile materials and dangerous technology.
The Islamic Republic itself declared the blast an accident, as well.
According to the NYT, while some Iranian officials have hedged sabotage may be involved, it is unclear whether their assumptions are based on evidence or guesses.
Iran's nuclear program has been hit by a highly sophisticated computer worm in the past, which nearly crippled its main uranium production facility.
In recent years, several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated on Tehran’s streets, under mysterious circumstances, as well.
The cause, according to the report, is of little interest to both American and Israeli officials: "Anything that buys us time and delays the day when the Iranians might be able to mount a nuclear weapon on an accurate missile is a small victory," one Western intelligence official told the newspaper.
"At this point, we'll take whatever we can get, however it happens," he added.
As the West's concerns about the nature and magnitude of the Iranian nuclear program grow, especially in light of the recent IAEA report which suggested Tehran is already experimenting with nuclear warheads, intense surveillance efforts have been turned on suspected Iranian weapons sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Vampire Government: How the Left is Sucking the Life out of the Private Economy
By Steve McCann
The current financial debacle in Europe and the near-bankrupt status of the United Sates have been brought about by an obsessive loyalty to statist doctrine and an inability to admit failure -- traits common to the left on both sides of the Atlantic. The current dilemma is the end-product of decades of uncontrolled spending and economic policies promoted not to benefit the people in the long term, but to maintain the power base of the dominant governing class. The path to insolvency taken by the countries of Europe and the United States has been on a parallel track.
Facts and reality matter little to the insufferable American left and are generally ignored if they do not support the left's contentions. At that point, "creative" interpretation or outright denial takes over. Economic statistics and discussions can often cause the eye of the average reader to glaze over or the listener to become confused by the terminology and incomprehensible numbers involved. The so-called progressives rely on their ability to obfuscate and to mobilize greed and envy in order to justify and maintain their deceptions.
However, the average person can and does understand that the standard of living has deteriorated over the past 15-plus years, well-paying jobs are impossible to find, and the country is in dire financial shape. But how and why did this come to pass? The fault lies at the feet of solely the left and its control of the Democratic Party, as well as its enablers in the Republican Party. The nation's Gross Domestic Product has been so ravaged by government's demands that it cannot sustain long-term economic growth and a concurrent increase in the standard of living for all Americans.
The U.S. government began keeping comprehensive income statistics in 1947. Among the most vital of these measurements is the "the median household income." This is the income point which divides the income distribution into two equal groups -- half having income above that amount and half having income below that amount. (Note: all financial statistics in this article are inflation-adjusted to 2011 dollars.)
In 1947, the median household income was $29,769.00; 25 years later, in 1972, it had substantially increased to $45,196.00 (+52%, or 2.1% per year). Further, all income groups saw a rise led by the lowest fifth of 117%.
However, in 2010, the median household income was only $49,445.00, as compared to $45,196.00 in 1972. This represents an increase of just 9.4% over 38 years, or 0.2% per year.
In the mid-1970s, the era of big government and accelerated social spending to fulfill unsustainable promises had begun in earnest. From 1947 to 1972, total government (federal, state, and local) spending averaged 26.7% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. In 2011, it has hit nearly 41%. Considering the present course of the GDP and with programs such as ObamaCare, spending will exceed 46% of GDP by 2016. For comparison, some nations recently in the news: Greece is at 51% of its GDP, Spain 49%, Italy 51%, and Portugal 50.2%.
The following chart brings the numbers into focus (source). (In 1947, the population of the country was 148 million. Today, it's 312 million -- an increase of 111%.)
1947
1972
2011
Growth 1947-2011
Gross Domestic Product
$ 2,700 billion
$ 7,520 billion
$ 15,100 billion
459%
Government Spending-Total
560 "
2,200 "
6,100 "
989%
Spending as % of GDP
20.7%
29.3%
40.5%
Government Social Spending*
$ 136 billion
$ 1,070 billion
$ 3,670 billion
2,598%
Social Spending as % of Total
24.3%
48.6%
60.2%
(*Pensions, Health Care, Education, and Welfare)
While the GDP has increased by a factor of 5.5, spending has increased by 10.5, or nearly double the GDP growth rate. This means that there is much less money available in the economy for job-creation, business-expansion and wealth-formation. If in 2011 total government spending had been at 33% of GDP, an additional $1,132 billion, or $1.13 trillion, would have remained in the private economy.
It is not just the astronomical increase in government spending that has impacted incomes and the standard of living. The American left was determined also to rein in and control the private sector -- the left's designated villain.
To that end, the regulatory regime and the tax code have become a tool to bludgeon business and transform the economy. In 1947, the tax code was less than 9,000 pages; today, it is over 72,000 pages. In 1960, the Code of Federal Regulations totaled 22,800 pages; today, it is over 160,000 and expanding rapidly under the Obama regime.
It is estimated that the cost of compliance relative to the tax code and other regulations (which do not include state and local) exceeds $1,750 billion ($1.75 trillion), which further drains capital for the formation of jobs and businesses.
As also happened in most countries in Western Europe, business-formation stagnated and declined, resulting in more goods and raw materials being imported. In the United States, manufacturing saw a precipitous deterioration due primarily to government policies, taxes, and regulations. In the period 1947-72, 28% of the labor force was employed in the manufacturing sector; today, that number has shrunk to 8.9%.
The nation has lost not only the jobs, but also the overwhelming value-added benefit of developing, manufacturing, and marketing a product. The jobs that have been created are in the service sector, which not only pays at a lower scale, but also does not have any intrinsic uniqueness or value-added component and is very susceptible to improvements in technology and outsourcing.
Goods-producing jobs pay $5.75 more per hour than the weighted average of the hourly rate for jobs created in the service sector over the past 11 years. While 7.7 million jobs in the goods-producing sector have been lost since 2000, there have been 7.5 million jobs created elsewhere; however, 5.6 million were in low-paying service jobs such as retail, hospitality, and health care. This has been a major factor in the decline of income for the middle class and the widening gap between income groups.
If the country had maintained a 20% level of manufacturing employment, today, an additional 14.5 million people would be employed in that sector, and $173 billion in additional personal income would be realized as compared to employment in the service sector. There would also be a significant boost in the overall GDP from the value of the goods produced.
Concurrent with the deliberate and successful effort to curtail manufacturing and ratchet up central government control of the economy has been the overwhelming increase in the trade imbalance with the rest of the world. In the 25-year period from 1947 to 1972, the United States realized a trade surplus of $88 billion. In the 25 years prior to 2011, the country has experienced a trade deficit of $10,700 billion ($10.7 trillion). Of that amount, $3.1 trillion was for the purchase of oil and a $3.0-trillion imbalance with China.
In 2011, it is expected that the trade deficit will hit $800 billion, thereby further reducing the effective net GDP available for investment, job-creation, and personal wealth.
The left will, besides denying any responsibility for this devastation to the American economy, claim that their policies have helped the poor and downtrodden. However, in 1965, the poverty rate in America was 15.4% (today it is 15.1%). Not only has the income of Americans stagnated, but the disparity has widened -- not because of the so-called greed of the rich, but because there is now minimal upward income mobility compared to the past, as high-paying jobs are no longer being created. The U.S. is not competitive in the world market, as the manufacturing sector has been forced to wither on the vine. And America has joined the list of countries facing insolvency due to out-of-control spending and borrowing.
The solution offered by Obama and his fellow travelers on the left: not only more of the same, but an acceleration of the process, as they cannot get past their own narcissism and ignorance enough to ever admit failure. They would rather see the United States collapse and its people in poverty and despair as long as they are safely ensconced within the ruling class along with their crony capitalist and union allies. To that end, they are counting on manipulating the ignorance and emotions of the American people. The future of the country depends on whether that tactic continues to be successful
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)The ObamaCare Recusal Nonsense
The left doesn't want Justice Thomas to hear the case. The right says Justice Kagan is too biased. The full court should decide the case.
By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
No sooner had the Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge to the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul than chatter began about whether either Justice Elena Kagan or Justice Clarence Thomas, or both, should be disqualified—"recused," in the argot of the law—from considering the case.
But upon even a cursory examination of the facts it is clear that neither justice should step aside. The court we have should decide the case.
Justice Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama Justice Department before she was nominated to the bench. The solicitor general heads the small team of lawyers who represent the federal government before the Supreme Court, and coordinates and controls the government's litigation positions in the various federal courts of appeal and occasionally even in district courts.
Although critics have portrayed Justice Kagan during her tenure as a "cheerleader" for the health-care bill, and although she did send an email to a former faculty colleague that applauded the legislation, the solicitor general ordinarily is not called on to advise on issues of constitutionality of proposed legislation; that task usually falls to the Office of Legal Counsel. There has been no evidence that she acted personally in her official capacity as solicitor general in connection with any issue in the case.
As to Justice Thomas, the facts said to bear on recusal stem not from his own acts and statements, but solely from those of his wife, who has been described as a conservative activist affiliated with groups that have a position decidedly opposed to the health-care legislation and its individual mandate. But here, too, the case for recusal is flimsy at best.
The law on disqualification of judges is based in a statute and the cases that interpret it. The statute sets out one general and several specific conditions that warrant recusal. But whether the issue is raised by a party or by the judge himself, it is always the judge who decides. A judge is just as obligated not to recuse himself when recusal is unnecessary as he is to step aside when it is. That's how it works in lower federal courts as well. True, in those courts there is always a higher court to review the determination. But surely a more detailed congeries of rules at the Supreme Court level will not assure greater clarity, nor would public confidence be improved by making justices review one another's recusal decisions—deciding, in effect, whether to vote one another off the island.
Of the specific standards, only two—one as to each justice—could conceivably be relevant. The one that potentially relates to Justice Kagan requires disqualification "[w]here [the Justice] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy." "Proceeding" is defined to include all stages of the relevant litigation.
In order to run afoul of that provision, Justice Kagan herself would have had to participate in her official capacity as counsel or adviser in the case at any stage, or expressed an opinion in her official capacity about the merits. Asked during her confirmation proceedings whether she had done so, she said no. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no reason not to credit that denial. Statements of opinion to friends or former colleagues do not count here.
The one provision that could apply to Justice Thomas requires recusal if the spouse of the Justice is known by him "to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." Under the applicable law, the "interest that could be substantially affected" does not include a rooting interest, which is the only interest hypothesized even by the justice's critics.
Which brings us to the general provision, directing that "Any justice . . . of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned"—words of such sprawling generality that they seem at first glance to open both justices to attack; after all, what is fatal is not necessarily actual partiality, but even the appearance of partiality.
First glance, however, does not decide the outcome. The standard for determining when impartiality might "reasonably" be questioned has been held to be an objective one. It is not one based on an imagined straw poll of the partially informed hypothetical man on the street, but based on how a person of reasonable judgment, aware of all the facts, as well as how courts function, would decide.
That person would—or should—be aware, for example, that race and religious discrimination cases are decided every day by judges of all races and creeds, that sex discrimination cases are decided by both male and female judges, disability cases by judges with and without disabilities. Challenges based on such factors, which engage biases far deeper than any purported rooting interest in a case, have been swatted down so often that a law clerk of even middling competence could prepare an opinion in less than half a day for a judge facing such a challenge.
The persistence of recusal issues appears to have little to do with the legal merits—there aren't any—but a great deal to do with the process of how we have selected and rejected candidates for judicial office in the past few decades, certainly since the superbly qualified Robert Bork was turned down for a seat on the Supreme Court. The selection of judges has become a high stakes exercise for agenda-driven politics, with nominees often selected with at least one eye focused on their expected tilt on the issues of the day.
Those nominees then are expected to bob and weave their way through hearings, proclaiming solemnly—sometimes even accurately—that their minds are as straight as the edge of the Judiciary Committee witness table, as open as their upturned palms. When contentious cases then come before them, the agenda-driven politics that helped seat the judges does not disappear, nor do the stakes diminish; they rise—along with incentives to disqualify judges.
It will take a long period of concentrated effort to reverse the process of off-loading political issues onto the courts, selecting judges based on their perceived proclivities in deciding political issues, and seeking political advantage from and reading political motive into every court decision with a political consequence.
But ancient Chinese wisdom teaches that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps the way to start this particular journey is to pull our collective socks up, stop the chatter about recusal, and let the court we have—for better or worse—decide the case.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Melanie Phillips
Until recently, I had never been to Hebron. In the past three months, however, I have twice boarded an armoured bus to make the journey.
The first time was with a private, non-political group to visit Hebron's Jewish area and the Cave of Machpelah, where Abraham and the patriarchs and matriarchs are said to be buried.
It was a shock. If ever there was a illustration of the attempt by Islam to supersede Judaism, this was surely it. This holy Jewish shrine was to all intents a mosque. Islamic prayer mats were piled high, and there seemed to be not one Jewish artefact in the place. Even the catafalques sporting labels claiming them as the tombs of the founders of Judaism were topped by Islamic crescents.
Those labels are hung only on the handful of days per year the Jews are allowed to visit. Hebron has become a synonym in the west for oppression of the Palestinians by 'crazed settlers' but it is in fact those Jewish residents who are hanging on by their fingernails to a minimal right of access to one of Judaism's holiest sites.
Their presence requires the IDF to ensure that access. Without the soldiers, does anyone seriously imagine Machpelah would not suffer the same fate as Joseph's Tomb in Nablus which, after the Israelis were forced to abandon it, was burned to the ground?
It is also grotesque to call them 'settlers' as if they are colonising land with which they have no connection. Jews have lived in Hebron for thousands of years but have been repeatedly driven out, as in the 1929 pogrom when Arabs slaughtered 67 adults and children.
The restored Jewish presence in a town of 130,000 Arabs is a mere 90 Jewish families, restricted to an area comprising some five per cent of the town. Far from the impression that Arab Hebron is wretched and impoverished, it is highly prosperous, delivering around one third of the West Bank's entire GDP.
By contrast, the main street in the Jewish area is like a ghost town. Every Arab shop there is closed, because the IDF decided that the shops pose a mortal threat since, in the crowds of shoppers, Jews were repeatedly attacked with knives, acid, and once in a suicide-bombing resulting in the murder of at least two people.
The Jews are sitting ducks for snipers in the Arab houses on the hill towering above - from where the bullet was fired that murdered 10-month old Shalhevet Pass in her buggy in a playground in 2001.
Real aggression towards Arabs in Hebron should be unreservedly condemned. But any fair-minded person would surely conclude that, in general, it is the Jews who are under siege from a racist and murderous aggression. Is it not perverse to say that because Jews are living in Hebron once again (where, after all, they were given the right to settle under the Mandate) that is an act of aggression?
My second trip was for a barmitzvah in Machpelah. Afterwards, we walked through the 'ghost town' with Israeli flags flying, to the sound of trumpet, shofar and drum.
Triumphalist? Aggressive? It felt instead like an expression of innocence and joy in the face of evil and hatred. Yet that hatred is not universal. Friendly relations have been established between local rabbis and the remarkable Sheikh Jabari, leader of Hebron's largest clan, who some years ago prevented the planned torching of a nearby synagogue.
Sheikh Jabari has publicly acknowledged the right of Jews to live in Hebron. Recently, he welcomed and blessed a group of Jewish visitors and declared that Machpelah should unite Jews and Arabs. Alas, Sheikh Jabari does not speak for the Palestinian Authority, which is intent on using its new membership of UNESCO to stop what it calls the 'Judaisation of the city'.
UNESCO has recognised Hebron as a 'Palestinian heritage site', demanding it be removed from Israel's own list of national heritage sites. Hebron's mayor has said that if the PA controlled the whole town, Jews would again be barred from Machpelah. UNESCO is merely the latest weapon the PA is deploying to erase the Jews from their own history.
In one corner, the PA is trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews again from Hebron; in the other, Sheikh Jabari is supporting the rights of the Jewish people to their own heritage. So which side are you on?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Secretary of Defense Panetta Shows How the Obama Administration Is Selling Out Israel…and US Interest
By Barry Rubin
In a major address on U.S. Middle East policy to the Brookings Institution U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave us a clear picture of the Obama administration’s view of the region. When taken along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent speech on the same subject, we now know the following regarding Obama’s policy:
It is dangerously and absurdly wrong. This administration totally and completely, dangerously and disastrously for U.S. interests misunderstands the Middle East. They are 180 degrees off course, that is heading in the opposite direction of safety.
Despite the satisfactory state of relations on a purely military level, the Obama administration is not a friend of Israel, even to the extent that it was arguably so in the first two years of this presidency.
It is now an enemy; it is on the other side. Again, the issue is not mainly bilateral relations but the administration’s help and encouragement to those forces that are Israel’s biggest enemies, that want to rekindle war, and that are 100 percent against a two-state solution. And I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority, I mean the Islamists.
And the Obama administration is also a strategic enemy of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan. It is also a strategic enemy to the democratic opposition forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, and Egypt.
Having analyzed and studied the Middle East for almost four decades I say none of this lightly. And these conclusions arise simply from watching what the administration says and does.
In his speech, Panetta has bashed Israel based on a ridiculously false premise. Here it is:
“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”
First, there is a peculiar phrase that I have not seen used even once to describe the Middle East events of 2011, “Arab awakening” instead of “Arab Spring.” This apparently comes from the title of anew book about these events.
But what is the origin of this phrase? The Arab Awakening was the famous book written by George Antonius (subsidized by a U.S foundation to do so, by the way) advocating Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism in 1938. The Arab Awakening began a half-century pan-Arab struggle against Israel’s creation or existence. Might this not give us a hint of what the new “Arab Awakening” is going to do? Oh, and 1938 marks the year when Great Britain desperately tried to sell out the Jews in order to gain Arab support (for the coming war with Germany and Italy). Within two years of Antonius’s book the form the Arab Awakening took was an alliance with Nazi Germany. One of the main allies of Berlin was the Muslim Brotherhood, now coming into power in Tunisia and Egypt.
Interesting parallels.
But there are three other major questions raised in Panetta’s statement.
First, does the current “Arab Awakening” imperil Israel? Yes, of course it does. By changing a reasonably friendly Egyptian government into a totally hostile Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi dominated political system closely allied with Hamas, the Gaza Strip’s ruler, and by helping establish Islamist regimes in Tunisia and Libya allied with this Muslim Brotherhood International; the changes create a four-member alliance intent on wiping Israel off the map.
Add to that Islamist domination of Lebanon by Hizballah, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the continuing threat from Iran and you’ve got quite a regional situation.
Second, and more interestingly, why is the above true?
The answer is as follows:
Democracy in theory is admirable but when you have masses imbued with very radical views, strong Islamist movements, and weak moderate ones, the election winners will be extremely radical Islamists. By winning massive victories, facing a weak (even sympathetic) United States, and seeing even more extreme forces becoming so popular (the Salafists in Egypt), the Islamists are emboldened to be even more radical in their behavior. Who’s going to stop them?
We are thus not facing a springtime of democracy but a springtime of extremism.
The Islamists don’t want peace with Israel on any terms. They want its destruction. They will not be dissuaded by a peace agreement. They will do anything possible — starting with demagoguery and ending with terrorism or even war — to block such a diplomatic solution. How can Israeli action reconcile those who don’t want peace?
As of now, the following are governed or will soon be governed by Islamists who want Israel’s destruction and genocide against the Jews there: Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.
The following are governed by those who want peace with Israel: Jordan.
Not only is the United States not opposing this development; it is supporting it. In other words, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Third, why are there no negotiations? As the history of the issue since January 2009 shows, it is the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Israel. If Panetta and the Obama administration were either wise or honest they would acknowledge this fact. Instead, they blame Israel. Once again, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Consequently, Panetta’s statement that Israel has a responsibility to build regional support for Israeli and United States’ security objectives is nonsense. Let me put it in the form of a lesson in logic:
Israeli security objectives and the U.S. national interest are consistent.
But Israeli security objectives and Obama administration objectives are not consistent.
And Obama administration objectives and the U.S. national interest are not consistent.
Consider Panetta’s statement:
I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.
But why has it grown? Because of the advance of Islamist radical regimes and movements which are not tolerant of Israel’s security needs or in fact of Israel’s existence.
This is the equivalent of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain making the same statement in 1938: “I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Czechoslovakia’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.”
Panetta’s suggestion, like that of Chamberlain in 1938, is that Israel should mend relations with such “traditional security partners.” Specifically, he stated, “Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan,”
That statement is false. Israel can’t reach out and mend fences with Turkey and Egypt because they do not share an interest in regional stability. They are no longer status quo powers; they are countries that want revolutionary change in the Middle East. And this claim takes on special irony since Israel must now not just mend the fence but build an entirely new fence to protect itself from cross-border attacks from Egypt.
Turkey today is not the Turkey of the past. Israel had good relations with Turkey when it was governed by center-right or social democratic parties. Today Turkey is governed by Islamists who hate Israel. Doesn’t Panetta understand the difference? No! Now that’s scary.
Here’s the truth: Under the Obama administration, the Islamist regime in Turkey has replaced Israel as America’s number-one Middle East friend and advisor. And this is a government about which a half-dozen years ago Israel’s ambassador told an American counterpart (as we see on Wikileaks) that this regime hates Israel and hates Jews. That message is in a State Department cable.
What about Egypt? Well, the Obama administration helped get rid of that security partner. And as for Jordan, it is understandably scared stiff. In the environment of Islamist advance it is trying to appease its own Islamists and is moving closer to Hamas as a way of surviving. And last month the king of Jordan said in a Washington Post interview that nobody could depend on America any more.
Panetta said, “It is in Israel’s interest, Turkey’s interest, and US interest for Israel to reconcile with Turkey, and both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on track,” But it is not—repeat not—in the interest of the current government of Turkey to reconcile with Israel. We saw this in the Israel-Turkey negotiations over the flotilla in which the Turkish prime minister wanted to ensure there would be no deal.
There are two more shockingly absurd pieces of advice Panetta has for Israel.
“This is not impossible [for Israel to try to mend fences]. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them.”
What does an Israeli audience think of when it reads this? Of the same old message from the West to Israel: make gestures, give concessions, take risks, and when they are rebuked “the world will see.” This is precisely the same advice given regarding the 1990s’ peace process, the freeze of construction on settlements, and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. And every time the world doesn’t see. After the risk is taken (and Israel’s security suffers), and the concessions are made (and Israelis die), the world is even more critical of Israel and repeats, as Panetta does, that Israel has done nothing for peace.
These are harsh words about the Obama administration and for those who don’t understand the current situation in the Middle East they will no doubt seem partisan, extreme, and alarmist.
This is the worst tragedy of all: sadly and regrettably they are quite true.
Normal president reality check: Imagine a normal president of either party. Wouldn’t that person, or the secretary of state, say something like this: We are aware that Israel now has to deal with an increased number of hostile governments in the region and we will do our best to help it meet this challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment