Yesterday my car needed four new tires so I purchased the same tires from the same tire company I purchased them from on 8/15/'09, for which I paid $643.96. To have them mounted, including alignment cost $199.52. Total cost came to $836.48.
The same tires I purchased yesterday from the same tire company now cost $835.96. To have them mounted and aligned $226.85. Total cost came to $1,062.81.
These same tires now cost $192 or 29% more in a period covering just shy of 21 months. Forgetting the compounding factor the increase comes to 1%/month or 12%/year.
The total cost increased by $226.33. Therefore the mounting and alignment, ie labor, increased $27.33 or 13.70% more over about 21 months.
The gas cost more to drive there and when I got home I had lunch which also costs more but the Obama government and Bernanke tell me the cost of living is rising modestly. They are correct if you do not drive and eat. If you own a home and stocks the decline you have no doubt experienced offsets the cost of living increases you no doubt have experienced so why are you not whistling Dixie?
Yesterday, I posted an article suggesting that when taxes go up next year on dividends and capital gains it is highly likely stocks will adjust downward accordingly. The author demonstrated, statistically, the decline could be in the neighborhood of 30%. This means the potential reduction in wealth effect for stock investors could be substantial. This wealth reduction would occur in order to provide the Obama Administration more money which he can spend pandering to voters so he can be re-elected and on his inane social policies in keeping with his plan to redistribute wealth, make more Americans dependent upon our out of control government as he destroys the purchasing power of American citizens .
As you know, we just returned from Pittsburgh and while there we visited the Carnegie Mellon Museum Complex. These magnificent buildings, which house so much of the city's culture, natural history, art, music etc., were built through the generosity of wealthy capitalists who gave back to society. These were the same industrialists and financiers who built steel plants and other businesses, hired people to make products and engage in services which built and financed this great nation. These edifices continue to be maintained through the munificence of current contributors who also, apparently, feel it is their obligation to give back to society. Their names are on the donor wall.
In fact, most of Pittsburgh's parks and recreation facilities were given by the likes of the Schenley's, Mellon's, Frick's, Hillman' etc. and the foundations they created to maintain them relieve the citizens of Pittsburgh of that cost.
Obama wants to tax the wealthy because they are not doing their fair share and he has anointed himself and his self appointed overpaid and useless bureaucrats to be the arbiter of what fair means.
I ask you to define fair and then apply it to yourself? Are you willing to subject yourself to some idiot bureaucrat and re-elect a far our dangerous Liberal president, who are incapable of controlling their appetite for spending your money, in order to make you feel fair?
Think about all of this when you vote next November because this is what the election is mostly about, ie. the destruction of this nation in pursuit of 'fairness.'!
But why stop there when Obama and his Czars can keep on controlling and destroying just about everything. (See 1 and 1a below.)
This is for those chartists who might be interested in what this analyst has to say about the dollar's direction. (See 1b below.)
Finally, if you do not already have heart burn then click on this: "Very annoying! Makes one wonder, doesn't it? IRS knows about these fraudulent Federal returns. Congress knows. What are the IRS and Congress doing about it? NOT ONE DAMNED THING!
---
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader who was just trying to be a good citizen and neighbor: "Today I had to run to Whole Foods - our local hippie, tree-hugger food store. As I approached the entrance, I
noticed a driver looking for a parking space. I flagged the driver and pointed out a parking space in the handicap area.
The driver looked puzzled. ''I'm not handicapped'' she said.
Well, was my face red. ''Oh, sorry about that, I saw your Obama sticker and just presumed ...''
Well, was my face red. ''Oh, sorry about that, I saw your Obama sticker and just presumed ...''
She gave me the finger and called me some nasty names.
Sheesh! Some people... and you're just trying to help them."
---
Like the old 'Baptismal' joke. Yes, I believe! I believe you are trying to drown me! (See 2 below.)
---
Another e mail from a dear friend and fellow memo reader who is interested in putting matters in perspective:
Like the old 'Baptismal' joke. Yes, I believe! I believe you are trying to drown me! (See 2 below.)
---
Another e mail from a dear friend and fellow memo reader who is interested in putting matters in perspective:
"Who killed Bin Laden? Here's a Marine's answer.
America is not at war, the US Marines are at war;
America is at the malls.
Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks before, was debating on whether or not to PAY, did! In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial three Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured, complained they had punched him during the take-down and bloodied his nose. Obama's administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazi's and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden, the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the Ed Schreiber Col. US MC (Ret.) "Semper Fi" OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM: 2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team." 2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden." 2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be
captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden." 2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated." 2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
---
Is a blind Chinaman and his family worth caring about? Probably not if they do not have high cheek bones!(See 3 below.)
---
And down goes Sarkozy! An omen for Obama? Let's hope so! (See 4 below.)
|
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it ever was a secret, it’s not a secret any longer: The Obama Administration is on a vindictive campaign to injure America’s oil and gas industry. The proof materialized last week when video of an Environmental Protection Agency official revealed the White House’s vicious attitude toward the very industries that supply the American people a reliable, affordable energy source. Yesterday, that official fell on his sword and resigned to spare the president any further embarrassment from the truth he disclosed.
Last week, Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency’s “philosophy of enforcement” with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies — likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
Lest there be any doubt, it’s worth reiterating the point — according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn’t apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.
None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, “Big Oil” is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.
Exhibit A: The president’s unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.
When President Obama lashes out at “Big Oil,” guess who’s going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you’re tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.
Second, when the president talks about “Big Oil,” keep in mind who “Big Oil” is — it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent — comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there’s a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there’s a good chance that you suffer, too.
That doesn’t matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular “green” agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president’s Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an “A” for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying “NO” to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
So when Armendariz spoke of “crucifying” oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration — including the president — have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments ”an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws.” In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn’t comport with its green agenda — even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day.
President Obama has said he favors an “all of the above” strategy when it comes to energy policy. “All of the above” apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a “greener” future, regardless of what it costs the American people.
1a)
- George F. Will
- Opinion Writer
Taking a scythe to the Bill of Rights
Controversies can be wonderfully clarified when people follow the logic of illogical premises to perverse conclusions. For example, two academics recently wrote in the British Journal of Medical Ethics that “after-birth abortions” — killing newborn babies — are matters of moral indifference because newborns, like fetuses, “do not have the same moral status as actual persons” and “the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant.” So killing them “should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” This helpfully validates the right-to-life contention that the pro-abortion argument, which already defends third-trimester abortions, contains no standard for why the killing should be stopped by arbitrarily assigning moral significance to the moment of birth.
Now comes Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) with a comparable contribution to another debate, the one concerning government regulation of political speech. Joined by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 26 other Democrats and one Republican, he proposes a constitutional amendment to radically contract First Amendment protections. His purpose is to vastly expand government’s power — i.e., the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government. McGovern’s proposal vindicates those who say that most campaign-finance “reforms” are incompatible with the First Amendment.
His “People’s Rights Amendment” declares that the Constitution protects only the rights of “natural persons,” not such persons organized in corporations, and that Congress can impose on corporations whatever restrictions Congress deems “reasonable.” His amendment says that it shall not be construed “to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.” But the amendment is explicitly designed to deny such rights to natural persons who, exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of association, come together in corporate entities to speak in concert.
McGovern stresses that his amendment decrees that “all corporate entities — for-profit and nonprofit alike” — have no constitutional rights. So Congress — and state legislatures and local governments — could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit corporate advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees.
Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities. McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights. By doing so, the amendment would empower the government to do much more than proscribe speech. Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, notes that government, unleashed by McGovern’s amendment, could regulate religious practices at most houses of worship, conduct whatever searches it wants, reasonable or not, of corporate entities, and seize corporate-owned property for whatever it deems public uses — without paying compensation. Yes, McGovern’s scythe would mow down the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the First.
The proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns. The court’s decision was foreshadowed when, in oral argument, the government’s lawyer insisted that the government could ban a 500-page book that contained one sentence that said “vote for” a particular candidate. McGovern’s amendment would confer upon Congress the power to ban publishing corporations from producing books containing political advocacy, when Congress considers a ban reasonable — never mind the amendment’s rhetoric about the “inalienable” rights people enjoy until they band together to act in corporate entities.
A decade ago, then-Rep. Dick Gephardt said of George Soros’s spending in support of liberal causes: “It is not consistent with campaign reform, but it is consistent with what the Constitution says about freedom of speech.”
As the editors of National Review note, liberals control unions and most of academia and the media. Yet such is their evident lack of confidence in their powers of persuasion they are desperate to control the speech of others.
By proposing his amendment, McGovern helpfully illuminates the lengths to which some liberals want to go. So when next you hear histrionic warnings about tea party or other conservative “extremism,” try to think of anything on the right comparable to McGovern’s proposed vandalism of the Bill of Rights.
1b)
| This is a terrible sign for the U.S. dollar From Gold Scents By Toby Connor |
THE INFLATION TRADE IS ON: BERNANKE HAS BROKEN THE DOLLAR RALLY
It may not seem like much happened yesterday, but a very important event occurred. Yesterday the dollar index breached 78.65. The reason that is significant is because 78.65 marked the intraday low of the prior daily cycle. A penetration of that level indicates that the current daily cycle has now topped in a left translated manner and a new pattern of lower lows and lower highs has begun. Any time a daily cycle tops in a left translated manner it almost always indicates that the intermediate cycle has also topped.
In this case it would indicate that the intermediate dollar cycle topped on week two and should now move generally lower for the next 10-12 weeks, bottoming sometime in late June or early July, about the time Operation Twist ends.
Now that we have confirmation that Bernanke has broken the dollar rally I'm confident in calling April 4th an intermediate bottom (B-Wave bottom) in the gold market. Gold should now be entering the consolidation phase of the next C-Wave. I expect a test of the all-time highs sometime this summer as the dollar moves down into its intermediate bottom.
That being said I have no interest in a 15% rally in gold. The real money will be made as the mining stocks exit their bear market, re-enter the consolidation zone between 500 and 600, and move up to retest the old highs. It's not inconceivable that we could see a 30-45% gain in mining stocks over the next 2 1/2 months.
Sentiment in the mining index has reached the same levels of bearishness that were seen in the fall of 2008. That black pessimism drove a 300+ percent rally over the next two years. I have little doubt this time will be any different.
Now what we need to see is a change in character. We need the mining stocks to stop generating these sharp bear market rallies and transition into the wall of worry type rally that characterizes a bull market. So far that is exactly what is happening. The miners are rallying very hesitantly, and as long as this continues it will camouflage the move and keep sentiment depressed. That's exactly what we need to happen to drive a long sustained rally back up to the old highs.
The problem with the rocket launch type rallies we've seen over the last year and a half is that they swing sentiment very quickly to the bullish side and we run out of buyers.
As long as the bottoming process proceeds gradually I think there's a very good chance the HUI could break back above the 200 day moving average, and possibly test the 600 level by mid-July.
So far all of the pieces are starting to fall in place to initiate the very early stages of what I think will eventually become another huge momentum move similar to what happened in silver and gold last year. This scenario may well culminate in a parabolic blow-off top sometime in late 2014 as the dollar moves down into its next three year cycle low.
Now is the time to invest in this sector as it struggles to transition from a bear market back to the secular bull trend. The time to enter is at the very beginning when no one believes. This is when the really big money is made. If you wait till your emotions give you the all clear, half the move will be over.
Most traders are going to jump back into the general stock market, or tech stocks. You have to be smarter than that. The stock market, including tech, have already generated a massive move out of the October bottom. That kind of move usually leads to a multiweek, or month, consolidation. The odds of another 20 to 30% rally in the stock market are very slim.
The odds of a 20 to 30% rally as the mining stocks resume the secular bull trend are extremely high.
The combination of extreme downside momentum and irrational human nature has created the kind of oversold conditions and extreme undervaluation that generates an opportunity that only comes around once or twice a decade.
In this case it would indicate that the intermediate dollar cycle topped on week two and should now move generally lower for the next 10-12 weeks, bottoming sometime in late June or early July, about the time Operation Twist ends.
Now that we have confirmation that Bernanke has broken the dollar rally I'm confident in calling April 4th an intermediate bottom (B-Wave bottom) in the gold market. Gold should now be entering the consolidation phase of the next C-Wave. I expect a test of the all-time highs sometime this summer as the dollar moves down into its intermediate bottom.
That being said I have no interest in a 15% rally in gold. The real money will be made as the mining stocks exit their bear market, re-enter the consolidation zone between 500 and 600, and move up to retest the old highs. It's not inconceivable that we could see a 30-45% gain in mining stocks over the next 2 1/2 months.
Sentiment in the mining index has reached the same levels of bearishness that were seen in the fall of 2008. That black pessimism drove a 300+ percent rally over the next two years. I have little doubt this time will be any different.
Now what we need to see is a change in character. We need the mining stocks to stop generating these sharp bear market rallies and transition into the wall of worry type rally that characterizes a bull market. So far that is exactly what is happening. The miners are rallying very hesitantly, and as long as this continues it will camouflage the move and keep sentiment depressed. That's exactly what we need to happen to drive a long sustained rally back up to the old highs.
The problem with the rocket launch type rallies we've seen over the last year and a half is that they swing sentiment very quickly to the bullish side and we run out of buyers.
As long as the bottoming process proceeds gradually I think there's a very good chance the HUI could break back above the 200 day moving average, and possibly test the 600 level by mid-July.
So far all of the pieces are starting to fall in place to initiate the very early stages of what I think will eventually become another huge momentum move similar to what happened in silver and gold last year. This scenario may well culminate in a parabolic blow-off top sometime in late 2014 as the dollar moves down into its next three year cycle low.
Now is the time to invest in this sector as it struggles to transition from a bear market back to the secular bull trend. The time to enter is at the very beginning when no one believes. This is when the really big money is made. If you wait till your emotions give you the all clear, half the move will be over.
Most traders are going to jump back into the general stock market, or tech stocks. You have to be smarter than that. The stock market, including tech, have already generated a massive move out of the October bottom. That kind of move usually leads to a multiweek, or month, consolidation. The odds of another 20 to 30% rally in the stock market are very slim.
The odds of a 20 to 30% rally as the mining stocks resume the secular bull trend are extremely high.
The combination of extreme downside momentum and irrational human nature has created the kind of oversold conditions and extreme undervaluation that generates an opportunity that only comes around once or twice a decade.
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama pleads at rally: ‘I’m asking you to keep believing in me’
"If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them 'it's still about hope.' You tell them 'it's still about change,'" he told a cheering mass of supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, six months and one day before the election. "I still believe in you. And I'm asking you to keep believing in me."
Obama, his hopes for a second term weighed down by the stubbornly sluggish economic recovery, worked to convince Americans to view the vote not as a referendum on his record but as a choice between two very different candidates. He painted himself as the champion of the middle class and Romney as eager to "rubber stamp" House Republicans' goal "that we go right back to the policies that created this mess."
"We want businesses to succeed, we want entrepreneurs and investors rewarded when they take risks, when they create jobs and grow our economy. But the true measure of our prosperity is more than just a running tally of every balance sheet and quarterly profit report. I don't care how many ways you try to explain it: Corporations aren't people. People are people," Obama said, mocking a legally accurate but politically problematic comment from Romney early in the campaign.
He also referred to Romney's opposition to the automobile bailout, citing his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed, a potentially shrewd move in Ohio, a major auto-parts manufacturing state that has benefited from the rescue of the industry. And he highlighted Romney's warning that setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq was "tragic."
The embattled Democratic incumbent also laid out his answer to the question Ronald Reagan posed to devastating effect in the 1980 election: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
"The real question, the question that will actually make a difference in your life, in the lives of your children, is not just about how we're doing today. It's about how we'll be doing tomorrow," Obama said. "Will we be better off if more Americans get a better eduation? That's the question. Will be be better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity?That's the question. Will we be better off if we start doing some nation building right here at home? That's the question. Will we be better off if we bring down our deficit without gutting the very things we need to grow?"
(A Republican official quickly noted that Obama, at a 2008 rally in Florida, had told voters: "The question in this election is not 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' We know the answer to that. The real question is, 'Will this country be better off four years from now?'")
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus hit back after the president's speech: "Three and a half years after running on hope and change, Barack Obama kicked off his campaign with more divisive rhetoric and showed us he really is running on hype and blame."
"Obama talks a lot about moving forward but has he forgotten he's been president for the past three years?" Priebus said in a statement. "He failed to change Washington as he promised and unlike 2008, he will have to answer for his record. Barack Obama is right, American's aren't satisfied and that's why we can't afford a second term."
The president routinely tells Democratic audiences that he knows it will be difficult to recapture the energy that powered him to the White House. He got a reminder of that struggle in Columbus: His rally drew 14,000 people to an arena that holds 18,300. And before he spoke, the Ohio State University newspaper The Lantern tweeted that ushers were asking people at the rally to move "in order for seats to look full for TV."
The Obama campaign billed the event as the president's first rally, but he has spent months criss-crossing the country scooping up reelection dollars and giving speeches to crowds of supporters. And Republicans have complained that he has been campaigning in all but name at "official" events characterized by highly charged political rhetoric.
After Ohio, Obama was on his way to Virginia. Both states are crucial battlegrounds in November: No Republican has reached the White House without carrying the Buckeye State. Ohio's unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in March sits below the national rate of 8.1 percent. Yet Obama and Romney are statistically tied, according to a recent poll by Quinnipiac University. In Virginia, Obama enjoys a comfortable seven-point lead, according to a Washington Post poll. Obama's 2008 victory in Virginia was the first by a Democratic presidential candidate since the 1960s.
First Lady Michelle Obama introduced the president, calling him the standard-bearer for the "fundamental promise" that hard work yields a better life and praising him for tackling "the impossible choices" a president must make.
"Barack cannot do this alone," she said. "Barack needs your help."
Obama's official campaign web site live-streamed the rally, which was also promoted on his Twitter feed. One introductory online video showed former Republican vice presidential Sarah Palin criticizing Obama, and recalled a Fox News Channel anchor's description of a fist bump between the president and the first lady as "a terrorist fist jab."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)U.S. Leaves Chen in Limbo
By Janice Shaw CrouseChen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese human rights activist and self-taught lawyer, is in limbo as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama continue their malfeasance of human rights in the drama unfolding in China.
In 2005, Mr. Chen was arrested for exposing the brutal truth behind China's one-child policy. He carefully documented the evidence of forced abortion policies by local family planning officials desperate to meet birth control quotas through late-term abortions and sterilizations. Since his arrest, he was imprisoned for four years, and he has endured beatings, intimidation, and illegal house arrest.
Then, on April 22, 2012, Mr. Chen escaped his captors and fled. He released a videotape on YouTube on April 26, revealing details of his illegal house detention, which included brutal beatings of family members -- beatings which resulted in broken bones -- and harassment of his children. In the video, he expressed fears of retribution against his family because he had escaped.
It was confirmed on April 27 that Mr. Chen was under the protection of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. He remained in the embassy until May 2, when it was reported that he left "of his own volition" and indicated that he wanted to stay in China. That's when the story becomes muddled.
He was taken to a hospital to have his foot treated for injuries he sustained during his escape and thought a U.S. representative would remain with him at the hospital, but none did. The State Department said the Chinese government had given assurances that it would treat Mr. Chen and his family humanely and that they would be allowed to move to another city, where Mr. Chen would go to law school.
Secretary Clinton said, "I am pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng's stay and departure from the U.S. Embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values."
After being deserted by the U.S. embassy staff at the hospital, Mr. Chen changed his mind about staying in China. The Chinese government placed dozens of security officers outside his hospital room and prevented journalists and visitors from entering. In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Mr. Chen said he agreed to the deal to leave the embassy only after threats to his family were relayed to him. He was told that if he didn't leave the embassy, the Chinese government would send his wife and children back to their home in Shandong -- the home where they were held under illegal house arrest for 19 months.
It appears that the assurances of Mr. Chen's safety and that of his family are questionable.
During her opening address at talks with the Chinese leaders, Secretary Clinton did not mention Mr. Chen, but merely mentioned tersely that the "importance of human rights" would be part of the talks.
Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up to China, defend the rule of law, and denounce the myriad human rights abuses China perpetrates on its citizens, not the least of whom are the victims of their one-child policy. Forced abortions and sterilizations constitute monstrous violence against the human rights of women. Illegal house arrest and beatings of citizen activists are an affront to the rule of law and barbaric violation of basic civil liberties.
Will Secretary Clinton, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, stand up for individual freedom and human dignity? After Obama's history of abandoning Iranian and Syrian protesters, human rights activists around the world can only hold their breath and hope for change. This challenge will provide the administration an opportunity to redress -- at least partially -- its previous nonfeasance and give the American electorate a clear test case of its fitness to be the steward of the American ideal of "liberty and justice for all."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. is author of Children at Risk (2010) and Marriage Matters (2012). She is a columnist and political commentator who heads the think-tank for Concerned Women for America.
4)France's Sarkozy concedes defeat to Hollande
0
PARIS - Socialist Francois Hollande swept to victory in France's presidential election on Sunday in a swing to the left at the heart of Europe that could start a pushback against German-led austerity.
Hollande was set to beat conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by a decisive 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent margin, the TNS-Sofres polling agency said in a projection based on a partial vote count.
The president conceded defeat within 20 minutes of the last polls closing at 8 p.m. (1800 GMT), telling supporters he had telephoned Hollande to wish him good luck.
"I bear the full responsibility for this defeat," he said.
Sarkozy, punished for his failure to rein in record 10 percent unemployment and for his brash personal style, is the 11th successive leader in the euro zone to be swept from power since the currency bloc's debt crisis began in 2009.
Jubilant left-wingers celebrated outside Socialist Party headquarters and in Paris' Bastille square, where revelers danced in 1981 when Francois Mitterrand became France's only other Socialist president.
But the celebrations may be overshadowed by a political bombshell in Greece, where mainstream parties were hammered in a parliamentary election that exit polls suggested may leave supporters of Athens' IMF/EU bailout without a majority, raising doubts about its future in the euro zone.
Hollande's clear win should give the self-styled "Mr Normal" the authority to press German Chancellor Angela Merkel to accept a policy shift towards fostering growth in Europe to balance the austerity that has fueled anger across southern Europe.
His margin also positions the Socialists strongly to win a left-wing majority in parliamentary elections next month, vital to implement his plans for a swift tax reform.
If it wins that two-round election on June 10 and 17, the Socialist Party would hold more levers of power than ever in its 43-year history, with the presidency, both houses of parliament, nearly all regions, and two-thirds of French towns in its hands.
Even before the results were declared, cheering crowds gathered at Socialist headquarters to acclaim the party's first presidential victory since Mitterrand's re-election in 1988. Many waved red flags and some carried roses, the party emblem.
In Bastille square, flashpoint of the 1789 French Revolution and the left's traditional rallying point for protests and celebration, activists began partying two hours before the polls closed and a swelling crowd cheered as giant TV screens relayed the results.
Hollande, a mild-mannered career politician, had held a steady lead for weeks after outlining a comprehensive program in January based on raising taxes, especially on high earners, to finance spending and keep the public deficit capped.
As much as his own program, he is benefiting from an anti-Sarkozy mood due to the incumbent's abrasive personal style and to anger about the same economic gloom that has swept aside leaders from Dublin to Lisbon and Athens.
"If Hollande is elected, we will have eliminated for personal reasons someone remarkably competence, not just in France but in Europe," said Christian Fabry, 72, who was among Sarkozy supporters waiting dejectedly in a Paris hall for the result.
Hollande will join a minority of left-wing governments in Europe and has vowed to renegotiate a budget discipline treaty signed by 25 EU leaders in March, to add growth measures. Berlin has made the pact a pre-condition of aid for struggling states.
Hollande plans to visit the center-right Merkel in Berlin within days of the election to discuss his ideas and planned to speak to her by telephone on Sunday evening, said Jean-Marc Ayrault, tipped as a likely Socialist prime minister.
While financial markets are warming to Hollande's growth agenda, given growing support elsewhere in Europe, analysts say he would need to reassure investors quickly about his economic plans as fears resurface over the euro zone's debt woes.
France is grappling with feeble growth and 10 percent unemployment, a gaping trade deficit and high state spending that is straining public finances and was a factor in Standard & Poor's removing its triple-A credit rating.
French 10-year bond yields fell to 2.87 percent on Friday, a level not seen since early October. Yet French debt could remain vulnerable to selling pressure, as markets and credit rating agencies wait to be convinced of his fiscal credentials.
Economists want Hollande to trim over-optimistic growth forecasts and impose spending cuts, but political analysts say this would be difficult with left-wing voters hoping he will raise the minimum wage and reverse a recent sales-tax rise.
Little known outside France, Hollande will soon have his diplomatic skills tested at a Chicago NATO summit in late May and a Group of 20 summit in Mexico in late June. The former Socialist Party chief has never held a ministerial post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment