I just do not believe you can outlaw morals. However, you can teach better morals and you can alter the behaviour of a culture. For whatever reason, we are a society that came here , moved West and, in the process, established a nation on the land of others. This is why Jane Fonda would never do the 'chop' at Braves ball games I guess when she was married to Ted Turner.
I suspect, if we showed less violence on TV and in our movies that would help but then Procter and Gamble etc. would sell less soap because less would watch or go to the movies.
In Russia they silence you by placing you in Gulag's, in Cuba you simply disappear possibly to be eaten by sharks and the same for those in the Middle East who espouse differing views etc.
Shakespeare wrote about man's inhumanity to man and the bible is replete with stories of a similar bent.
I wish I had an answer and perhaps there is no definitive one. I am convinced we cannot outlaw guns, lunacy and solve the problem. What we can do is maybe go back to a somewhat more moral society, elevate charitableness and restore respect for religious principles. That might help.
I believe we went off track when we thought we could make equality and fairness the ultimate goal of our society and by doing so denigrate the successful and build on envy and entitlement. (See 1a below.)
If you read the satirical piece in 2 below, it is evident the entire world borders on being insane.and gutless.
Delightful piece of satire. Israel families living in a home are a threat to world peace.(See 2 below.)
---
Speak out if you believe catching wild pigs is symbolic of what is happening in America. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
As discussed and predicted - only a matter of time before China became concerned about shrinking value of their dollar holdings and our ability to repay. (See 4 below.)
---
Now for a little humor: "
ACTUAL AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCKET 12659 --- A lady about 8 months pregnant got on a bus. She noticed the man opposite her was smiling at her. She immediately moved to another seat. This time the smile turned into a grin, so she moved again. The man seemed more amused. When on the fourth move, the man burst out laughing, She complained to the driver and he had the man arrested. The case came up in court. The judge asked the man (about 20 years old) What he had to say for himself. The man replied, 'Well your Honour, it was like this: When the lady got on the bus, I couldn't help but notice her condition. She sat down under a sign that said, 'The Double Mint Twins are coming' and I grinned. Then she moved and sat under a sign that said, 'Logan's Liniment will reduce the swelling,' and I had to smile. Then she placed herself under a deodorant sign that said, 'William's Big Stick Did the Trick,' and I could hardly contain myself. But, Your Honour, when she moved the fourth time And sat under a sign that said, 'Goodyear Rubber could have prevented this Accident!' ... I just lost it.'"
---
Now back to serious stuff - CBA is the key to Benghazi. (See 5 below.)
---
My friend, Don Kole, graciously consented to having some of his finest pieces shown at the
opening show at GMOA, January 2013. Don has collected over 800 African artifacts and I have taken of many of my friends to see his entire collection.
I urge you to drive to Athens to see the State of Georgia's show place museum and view Don's
exhibit as well as the other fine art on display. You will not regret it.
From Savanna to Savannah At GA Art MuseumATHENS, Ga. —
The Georgia Museum of Art at the University of Georgia plans to present an exhibition of traditional African art. "From Savanna to Savannah: African Art from the Collection of Don Kole" is set to run from Jan. 19 to April 14. It features more than 40 works of traditional art from the early to mid-20th century. It includes works in various media, including wood, bronze, terracotta, sandstone and cloth. They come from parts of sub-Saharan Africa and exemplify the visual and material culture of Africa that demonstrate cultural concepts and religious beliefs. The works come from the collection of Don Kole, a Savannah-based real estate investor. Kole and his wife have made numerous trips to the continent to build their collection and educate themselves about traditional arts.
"From Savanna to Savannah: African Art from the Collection of Don Kole" is set to run from Jan. 19 to April 14. It features more than 40 works of traditional art from the early to mid-20th century. (Photo courtesy: TimoOK via flickr)
---
Others seem to be picking up where I left off. (See 6, 6a and 6b below.)
---
Is Obama beginning to see the light vis a vis Iran's nuclear ambitions and how he treats and
or relates to Netanyahu? (See 7 below.)
---
Something to think about: As we reap, so shall we sow...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
Dick-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Re: the article on rampage shootings I humbly disagree.
I read enough of the post-modem to understand that automatic weaponry played a significant role in this shooting (specifically a Bushmaster automatic rifle). In summary: not one of the 20 six and seven year-olds that were slain were shot only one time. And today we learn that the shooter took his own life when emergency responders closed in. He had more ammo and, arguably would have done more damage with more time. One could also argue he would have done less damage with less rapid fire.
I will not argue that gun control alone can stop this madness. There are numerous issues that must be addressed if we are to reverse the trend of mass shootings in our nation. However, while I believe in the 2nd amendment I cannot support the legalization of assault weaponry for domestic use.
When the 2nd amendment was passed the most technologically advanced gun was capable of shooting one round per minute when operated by the most skilled hand. The Bushmaster used Friday shoots that per second. We must change our laws for our changing times. I believe a citizen should be allowed a handgun. A citizen should be allowed a rifle. A citizen should be allowed a shotgun. But what purpose does a citizen have with a gun that can shoot 60 rounds in a minute? Well, we witnessed one such purpose on Sunday.
Sadly, our nation is devoid of the pragmatic thinking necessary to deal with these thorny, complex issues. Our leaders no longer govern. They take money from a PAC and do what they are told to do. They are reflections of we the people who have become a society in which our personal identity is tied to a hardline point-of-view that subsequently views any compromise as personal failure.
Can we not have gun rights without assault rifles?
Can we not raise revenue through lower deductions and not through higher tax rates?
Can we not cut spending and save entitlements by raising qualifying ages by 2 years?
Can we not agree to let our fellow man live his life the way he chooses without encumbrance?
Can we not stop legislating from a theological perspective when there is no theological majority?
Our nation needs pragmatic thinkers. Sadly, anyone running on a platform of compromise and team work would likely be painted as weak. I would argue the opposite is true. It is easy to emphatically tell a man that you believe in what he believes in. In this divided country it is also a successful strategy…50% of the people will agree with you. What is hard is to tell everyone they aren’t 100 right. To tell everyone that while their thinking has merit, it is no more meritorious than the man who disagrees. In the middle there is compromise. In the middle there is a future. Somewhere out there is a person that can lead this country to that place….I hope. Though I doubt we would elect him.
P------
1a)Should We End the Tax Deduction for Charitable Donations?
Washington is desperate for new revenue. And the charity deduction looks like a very tempting target these days.
Politicians and pundits across the political spectrum have been calling for cutting back the tax break that people get for making donations to charities. With the country's finances in such a mess, they say, we simply can't afford to be so generous about rewarding charitable giving—especially when it's mostly the very rich who claim the deduction. Even though trimming or eliminating the deduction won't solve our fiscal problems, they say, the contribution will certainly help get us closer to making ends meet.
Opponents of cutting back argue that things aren't that simple. The deduction, they say, is a critical incentive that keeps much-needed cash flowing to charities. And donations have already fallen in recent years—at a time when the need for services is soaring.
Yes: It Doesn't Increase Giving
By Daniel J. Mitchell
The charitable deduction can go.
For all the praise it gets, there's just no evidence that the tax break leads people to increase their giving—but it does lead them to make bad choices about giving. What's more, it favors a segment of the public, the very wealthy, that can afford to give without a break. And cutting the deduction does a lot less economic harm than other ways of raising tax revenue.
To be clear, I feel strongly that the best way to help charities is to boost economic growth, which leaves people with more money to donate. And I think the best way to do that is to replace our current system with a simple and fair flat tax. But even without that radical change, I don't think there's a compelling argument for the charitable deduction.
No Big Incentive
Let's start with the most basic point: It doesn't do what it promises—that is, to boost charitable giving.
Over the decades, there have been major changes in tax rates and thus major changes in the tax treatment of charitable contributions. At some points, there has been a big tax advantage to giving, at others much less. Yet charitable giving tends to hover around 2% of U.S. gross domestic product, no matter what the incentive.
So, trying to influence people's decisions by giving them a tax break is pointless. Efforts to spur more giving—such as extending the deadline to claim deductions, so people can help out victims of a tragedy—may be well intentioned but amounts to little more than grandstanding. Year in and year out, that 2% stays roughly the same. At most, it affects when people give, not the amount.
Another reason to drop the deduction is that it's exclusive—and it gives a break to people who really don't need one. Upper-income households are the biggest beneficiaries of the deduction, with those making more than $100,000 per year taking 81% of the deduction even though they account for just 13.5% of all U.S. tax returns.
The data are even more skewed for households with more than $200,000 of income. They account for fewer than 3% of all tax returns, yet they take 55% of all charitable deductions.
Pressure to Write Checks
These are people who can not only afford to give up the tax break, they would very likely give to charity without the deduction. They would still face tremendous cultural pressure to write charitable checks, as well as the prompting of their own conscience. Besides, many of them would still get nice perks for doing good—like seats at the opera or buildings named after them.
Sure, there are surveys that say wealthy people will cut back on giving if the deduction is limited or eliminated. But, again, history shows that whatever the incentives, total giving has stayed about the same, year in and year out. Why would the wealthy stop writing checks now?
Cutting Corners
What's more, the case for the deduction is weak even if you look at those people who do write their checks with tax in mind.
By focusing on getting a break, donors get sloppy, and they don't carefully monitor nonprofits to make sure their money is being used wisely. If it costs you just 65 cents to give a dollar to charity after taxes are figured in, you're less likely to pay attention to where you put that dollar, or how every cent is being used. The deduction becomes the tail that wags the charitable dog.
Charities, meanwhile, get fatter and lazier because of that dynamic. Think of all the exposés in recent years about charities that devote an overwhelming share of their budgets to administrative costs and marketing expenses. No system will create perfect nonprofit groups, but cutting back or cutting out the deduction would break the cycle of inefficiency that now exists.
Finally, ditching the deduction is one of the better options for raising tax revenue here and now. To be clear, I don't want to give more revenue to Washington. That's like putting blood in the water with hungry sharks around.
But if politicians are going to extract more money from the private sector anyway, reducing or eliminating the deduction is much less damaging to growth than imposing higher marginal tax rates.
Mr. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
No: Nonprofits Are in Dire Need of Funds
By Diana Aviv
Limiting the charitable deduction would be a tremendous mistake with potentially catastrophic consequences for groups that do good.
This bit of tax law is a crucial incentive that gets people to give, and give deeper than they otherwise would. Limiting it—or worse yet ending it—would rob funds from nonprofits at a time when charities are already struggling to meet increased demand for programs and services. It would also curtail one of the few government policies that encourages people to be generous with their money instead of using it for their own gain.
A Vital Motive
Proponents of limiting the charitable deduction—which I call the charitable incentive, since it does so much to spur giving—argue the tax break does little to encourage giving.
I couldn't disagree more. It's true that Americans give to charitable causes for many reasons. It's also true that millions of taxpayers who do not itemize their returns give without the benefit of receiving a deduction. Yet more than 80% of those who itemized their tax returns in 2009 claimed the charitable deduction and were responsible for more than 76% of all individual contributions to charitable organizations.
Donors have also said it's a vital incentive. According to a 2010 Indiana University survey, more than two-thirds of high-net-worth donors said they would decrease their giving if they did not receive a deduction for donations. In fact, experts estimate that limiting the deduction could reduce available funding by as much as $7 billion next year. If there were no deduction at all, some experts predict giving would decrease by as much as $78 billion per year. For comparison, individual charitable giving was about $218 billion last year.
The power of the incentive can also be seen in the timing of charitable giving. More than 22% of online charitable donations are made on Dec. 30 and 31 each year, underscoring the extent to which tax considerations influence behavior. Congress clearly thinks the deduction has an impact, since it has at times adjusted the deduction to boost giving. After the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, for example, taxpayers could claim a 2009 deduction for donations to Haiti-relief efforts through March 1, 2010.
Critics of the deduction also note that donation levels have been steady over time, even as incentives have changed. Therefore, they argue, it won't change if the deduction is pulled back. But since the 1970s, when charitable giving was first tracked, the value of the deduction has always been equal to a taxpayer's marginal tax rate. Now there are proposals to decouple the deduction from a donor's tax rate. Experts contend this will reduce the incentive effect and cause a decline in giving.
Another common argument in favor of limiting the deduction is that it asks a sacrifice from those who can most easily afford it. Again, wrong. The sacrifice will come from those with the greatest need for a helping hand. The deduction is not about who benefits from giving, it is about who benefits from support—charities and people who rely on their services.
To those who claim that a charitable deduction makes donors lazy about monitoring charities: There is no evidence that correlates responsible giving practices with having an incentive to give more money.
Then there's the claim that cutting back the deduction will make charities operate more efficiently. That suggests that charities are bloated. But the Nonprofit Finance Fund, a community development financial agency, found that in 2011, 56% of organizations either operated in a deficit or at break-even.
Charities are among the most effective institutions in the country and are getting better. They operate lean and mean because they have to. They are monitored by bureaucracies, donors, their own volunteers and the communities they serve.
Finally, there's another important consideration. The charitable deduction is unique in that it's a government incentive to sacrifice on behalf of the commonweal. Unlike incentives to save for retirement or buy a home, it encourages behavior for which a taxpayer gets no direct, personal, tangible benefit.
It's this kind of behavior that we should encourage and reward. Rather than limiting that incentive, Congress and the president should explore opportunities to expand the giving that allows charitable organizations to improve lives every day.
Ms. Aviv is president and CEO of Independent Sector in Washington, D.C. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Readers Weigh In on the Charitable Deduction
Should we end the tax deduction for charitable donations?
Here's a sampling of reader comments from an online poll.
I am in favor of getting rid of everything but the standard deduction, but if we're talking piecemeal then this is one of the deductions that actually deserves to stay.
— Randy Ribarchak
The Democrats will push the removal of this "loophole." They want to replace God, community, religion, freedom and liberty with government/state control.
The Democratic party is morphing into the Communist party.
— Frank Mostek
Lower tax rates and get rid of the mortgage deduction and the charitable deduction, get rid of farm subsidies while they are at it and all the other giveaways to various interests.
This has to be done in conjunction with lowering rates, not raising them like the left-wing ideologues would like.
— Daniel Rittereiser
I do not believe that doing away with the deduction would significantly impact charitable contributions.
People give for all sorts of reasons—a tax deduction is way down the list.
— Norman Blanton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When its bricks and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one-story hilltop affairs, or a five-floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian Uranium centrifuges.Forget the cluster bomb and the mine, the poison gas shell and even tailored viruses. Iran can keep its nuclear bombs. They don’t impress anyone in Europe or in Washington, DC. Genocide is equally not worthy of attention when in the presence of the fearsome weapon of terror that is 'an Israeli family of four moving into a new apartment downwind from Jerusalem'.Sudan may have built a small mountain of African corpses, but it can’t expect to command the full and undivided attention of the world until it does something truly outrageous like building a house and filling it with Jews. Since the Sudanese Jews are as gone as the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, Syria and good old Afghanistan, the chances of Bashir the Butcher pulling off that trick are also rather slim.Due to the Muslim world’s shortsightedness in driving out its Jews in 1948 from Cairo, Aleppo and Baghdad to Jerusalem, the ultimate weapon in international affairs is now entirely controlled by the Jewish State. Israel’s stockpile of Jews should worry the international community far more than its hypothetical stockpiles of nuclear weapons.No one besides Israel cares much about the Iranian bomb.But when Israel builds a house..., then the international community tears its clothes, wails, threatens to recall its ambassadors and boycott Israeli peaches.You can spit on the White House carpets and steal all the gold in Greece. You can blow up anything you like and threaten anyone you will, but you had better not lift a drill near Gilgal, where Joshua and a few thousand escaped Hebrew slaves pitched their camp.Obama has yet to respond to the Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt. The gangs of paid rapists assaulting women in Tahrir Square on behalf of the Shari'a state are nothing for the White House to worry about. Everyone has their standards and the President and the international community have theirs. There are things that we all cannot abide. And for all the Miss America contestant answers about ending war, hunger and people who wear plaid in public, the one thing that everyone will stand up against or sit down in opposition to -- is the Israeli house.White House officials are already insisting that Netanyahu “humiliated” Obama by authorizing the building of houses. This is the worst Israeli building crime since two years ago when the city of Jerusalem passed some houses through one stage of a multi-stage approval process while VP Biden was visiting the country.Hillary called it an insult and spent two hours yelling at Netanyahu over the phone. Axelrod declared it an affront. Biden was so furious that he refused to come down for dinner until an hour later. For weeks the media howled that Netanyahu had humiliated Obama through the dastardly act of allowing one of the country’s ministers to approve housing, while the sacred presence of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Was intersecting with Israeli airspace.Now that Netanyahu has gone to the mattresses, literally, by authorizing new housing in the E-1 Corridor, the media has begun braying that Israel has humiliated Obama all over again. They say that every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings. But every time an Israeli jackhammer roars, Obama stands, like that famous trash-mourning fake Indian, off Highway 1 between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with a tear slowly making its way down one glistening cheek at the sight of another 'humiliating' Israeli house.According to the New York Times, -- which is never wrong,-- building more houses makes peace impossible. Peace, which is not in any way obstructed by rockets, suicide bombers, unilateral statehood bids and declarations of war, comes up against only one obstacle. The stout unyielding wall of the Israeli house. You can shell Israeli houses, bomb them and break in to them to massacre the people living inside, but then after all that, Israel goes and builds more of those damn things.Hamas launches thousands of rockets and Israel builds thousands of houses. But Israeli houses generally stay where they’re built, while Hamas rockets are as likely to kill Gazans as they are to put holes in the roofs of those dastardly houses. And in the arms race between houses and rockets, the Israelis appear to be winning. And that’s not good for peace. If Israelis get the dangerous idea that they can just keep building houses and outlast all the talented rocketeers who spend their time with the Koran in front of one eye and the Anarchist’s Cookbook in front of the other, then what hope is there for peace?That is why no one cares much about Hamas rockets, which only kill Israelis, who most reasonable people in London, Paris and Brussels think have it coming anyway, but get into a foaming lather about an Israeli house. Killing Israelis has never been any obstacle to peace. Twenty years of killing Israelis has not dissuaded a single Israeli government from sitting down at the table to dicker with the terrorists. But an Israeli family living in a house is holding down territory that it will be harder to then cede to terrorists.This peace plan, which has worked as well as fighting fire with gasoline, has not in any way been endangered by two decades of terror, but trembles down to its toes every time an Israeli hammer falls on an Israeli nail in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Because that land must go back, so that rockets can be shot from it into Israel, so that Israel can invade it and reclaim it, and then sit down for another peace process to return the land from which the rockets will be fired, which will be invaded, which will be given back…all for peace.And Israeli houses endanger this cycle of peace and violence. They endanger it by creating “facts on the ground,” a piquant phrase that only seems to apply to Jewish houses. Illegaly-built Muslim houses in no way create facts on the ground, even though they are built out of the same material and also filled with people. Or perhaps they create the good kind of facts on the ground. The kind of preemption of negotiations that the professional peacemakers approve of.UN Chief Ban Ki-moon has declared Israeli houses to be an “almost fatal blow” to the ' peace process'.It is, of course, only an “almost fatal blow” because the peace process, like Dracula, cannot be killed.Israeli houses, fearsome as they may be, with their balconies and poor heating in winter, are never quite enough to kill this process.Like the monster of a horror movie, the 'peace process' always comes back and no matter how many blows the Israeli house delivers to it, a year later there’s a sequel, where the Israeli house is being stalked by the peace process monster all over again.The latest army of lethal Israeli houses, which may not be built for another five years, if ever, seem formidable in the black newsprint of the New York Times, in the fulminations of Guardian columnists and the shrill talkingpointation(sic) of CNN talking heads, but its actual potency is limited to housing Jewish families and infuriating international diplomats and their media coat hangers.Europe is furious, Obama is seething, the UN is energized, and somewhere in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wipes the grease out of his mustache and wonders what he could do to get this much attention. He briefly scribbles down some thoughts on a napkin but then dismisses it as being too implausible.As much as it might get the world’s attention, there is just no way Iran can put up apartment buildings in Jerusalem.
3)
| CATCHING PIGS: THOUGHT PROVOKING
“Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
Is that happening in America? The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
If you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America then speak out!
3a)They Never Say "Tax the Successful"
Comedian Adam Carolla has never been one to censor what comes out of his mouth. The gift of gab took him from humble beginnings in economically destitute North Hollywood to dizzying heights inthe entertainment industry, where he could afford to move a few miles away.
It's a story of hard work and success that comes through in his recent book Not Taco Bell Material, a chaotic tour that takes readers from Carolla's early years to how he finally found his calling - and his success.
Carolla's disdain for the politically-correct culture of sensitivity has made him an unlikely but powerful critic of the progressive watering-down of American culture. His first book, In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks, was an ode to an era of manliness lost to decades of gender-neutral education. And in recent years, he's lamented the loss of a society that takes responsibility for its actions.
"I made my own luck," Carolla tells Townhall. "I'm the guy who was rejected from Taco Bell," he says, referring his failed application to the fast-food restaurant in his youth that inspired the book's title. "Would you think that guy was born with a four-leaf clover or a rabbit's foot up his butt?"
Thematically, Not Taco Bell Material could be summed up in four words: hard work pays off. It's a mantra espoused by Carolla, from his well-publicized criticisms of the Occupy Wall Street movement to recent comments about the deplorable class warfare deployed by Democrats. "They always say tax 'the rich.'" Carolla says. "Who's 'the rich'? I'm not rich. I'm successful. They never say 'tax the hard-working' or 'tax the successful.' They say 'the rich' because it's easier to deal with their inability to be successful by attributing others' success to luck."
Despite his criticism of the mentality of big-government progressives, Carolla insists his fellow entertainment-industry workers mean well. "Others in Hollywood are very humble. And they say, you know 'I'm very lucky and there are a lot of good actors out of work.' They all know, however, that they worked their tail off to get where they are."
Disdain for the entitlement society has become one of Carolla's distinctions after a rant about Occupy Wall Street went viral last year. "Self-entitled monsters," he called some of the protesters, who "think the world owes them a living."
"It's this envy and shame, and there's gonna be a lot more of it," he said. "Everybody's a winner, there are no losers."
Carolla's own humility comes from his connection with his roots. His retelling of the life story - crazy stories and all - is aided by the fact that he's constantly reminded of it.
"I never left Los Angeles... I probably live three miles from where all those antics took place. I drive past them on an almost-daily basis, which is sort of weird." And despite the adolescent ballbusting and trouble he and his friends got up to, he's stayed true. "I'm happy to say that most all those guys I'm still on great terms with."
___________________________________________________
4)China's Share of Treasurys Quietly Fall
By SPENCER JAKAB
"Hu's your daddy."
We have Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota to thank for that bon mot—a play on the name of outgoing Chinese President Hu Jintao—about the country's massive holdings of U.S. Treasury debt. But, while America's dependence on the largess of foreigners is greater than ever, China's role is quietly receding.
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BT054_AOT_NS_20121216123903.jpg)
Monday's Treasury International Capital System data for October may show Japan, once the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, retaking the top spot. The country was just $25 billion behind China in September and had been closing the gap at an average pace of $22 billion a month in the past year. Relative to the size of the U.S. economy, China's Treasury holdings have dropped from 8.4% in mid-2011, when Ms. Bachmann made her comments, to 7.3% recently.
It isn't for lack of cash. China still has plenty to recycle and a burning need to invest its roughly $3.3 trillion in foreign-currency reserves. Instead, it is likely prudent diversification. One recent example: state-controlled oil company Cnooc Ltd.'s 0883.HK -1.78% $15.1 billion bid for Canada'sNexen Inc. NXY.T -0.04% at what industry insiders considered a rich price.
China's desire for long-lived assets like mineral rights probably isn't just a mark of its energy appetite, but also fear that America's uncertain fiscal trajectory and trillions in bond purchases by the Federal Reserve may dilute the value of China's $1.15 trillion in Treasurys. In all likelihood, this trend of using dollars to buy hard assets will accelerate in coming years.
The anxiety about Treasurys also is evident in which maturities foreigners hold. The longer the maturity of a security, the more sensitive it is to inflation or rising rates. Foreign investors have more than half their holdings in Treasurys maturing in four years or less and around 5% maturing in 10 years or more. The Federal Reserve, by contrast, has 77% of its holdings maturing in more than 10 years.
America's dependence on skittish foreigners is troublesome. Since 2003, their Treasury holdings have risen to 34.5% of gross domestic product from less than 12%. The biggest U.S. investor in Treasurys is the Fed, whose holdings have doubled to 10% of GDP in three years with money created out of thin air. Who wouldn't be worried?
------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.**** Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.**** That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.**** On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.**** How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.**** Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them . but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12. **** Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.**** Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.**** But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.**** The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.**** We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.**** When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.**** Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. **** General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?**** General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.**** We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Obama's Stealth Redistribution Strategy
By Karl Ushanka
Resentment of the rich trumps all else in liberalism, and we are defending against a multi-front class war. President Obama is using a shotgun approach to redistribute your wealth, with multiple attacks on your income, property, savings, and cost of living. These coordinated attacks started after the 2008 election and are now set to hit critical mass in his second term.
You may be hearing about the automatic tax increases in the fiscal cliff, plus additional tax increases President Obama is negotiating with Speaker Boehner. But you won't hear much about liberalism's most powerful, and silent, redistribution tool: inflation.
How is inflation redistributive? While not actually taking from one and giving to another, inflation satisfies the first step of the two-step redistribution process:
Step One: Reduce the wealth of the bourgeoisie.
Step Two: Increase the wealth of the proletariat.
The liberals, progressives, communists (or whatever label you're using these days) never achieve their redistribution goals, as they often fail at or before Step Two. But for them, this is okay. In their zero-sum world, a dollar taken from one must have been given to another. Therefore, the redistribution effort is seen as a success, by them and in hindsight, if only Step One occurred.
We have seen this before. Lenin triggered inflation to eliminate the Tsarist monetary system, which he planned to replace with centrally-managed rationing. He increased the money supply twenty-five fold. Lenin said:
Inflation is triggered when either the money supply increases faster than the economy (quantitative easing), or when the supply of goods is reduced (Corn - biofuel demand plus the 2012 drought). Inflation causes uncertainty about future purchasing power, creates inefficiencies, and stifles productivity. Since the economy is a total of all goods rather than the total of all currency, the real money is not the $3 in your wallet but the gallon of milk in your fridge.
Despite the price increases you've seen in the grocery store, our government's recent Cost Price Index (CPI) is suggesting mild inflation at 2.2%. Do you trust a report from this government more than your grocery receipt? Your dollar buys less today than it did in 2008, and it will continue to lose value. Expect this to get worse in the post-cliff economy, as Ben Bernanke continues his quantitative easing with President Obama's implicit support.
Some say precious metals are a safe haven in an inflationary period. The canaries in the mine include Montana state representative Jerry O'Neil when he recently asked his state to pay him in gold and silver. Here's the preface to his request:
But, are metals really increasing in value? Or are the metals' purchasing power constant and the value of our currency decreasing? The latter is true at our hat store (CommieObama.com). Starting Election Night 2012, we pegged the price of our hat to an ounce of silver. November's hat price was $32.13. December's price is $33.64. Every business is making these adjustments, albeit in a more opaque manner.
Let's assume for a moment that precious metals are a reliable gauge of inflation. Let's calculate the dollar's lost purchasing power to the old money, gold and silver. Since November 3rd, 2008, the last business day before Obama was elected president, the US dollar has lost 58% of its purchasing power (gold), and 70% of its purchasing power (silver). The same date range shows a 41% purchasing power loss to gas, and 11% to milk.
In theory, Bernanke's Fed exists to monitor inflation and adjust the money supply and interest rates accordingly. But the endless quantitative easing and near 0% rates suggests the Fed has lost control. Hyperinflation occurs when this type of mismanagement runs amok.
When hyperinflation dilutes currency beyond usefulness, a currency swap becomes necessary. A currency swap is to a stock split what a bread line is to a line for the next new iphone. In 1922, Lenin exchanged 'new rubles' for old rubles in a 1-for-10,000 swap. In March 1924, two months after Lenin's death, Soviet Russia issued another ruble with the exchange rate of 1-to-50,000. By then, all the banks had closed and any faith in the currency was gone. Stalin did not complain about inheriting a bad economy because the elimination of private wealth (Step one) was always the goal.
At Lenin's death in 1924, the inflation rate was approximately 5,000,000%. By comparison: 1923 Germany: 3.817B% inflation. Zimbabwe, just four years ago: 4.700B%. Despite the warnings, each of these hyperinflation events was triggered by overprinting the nation's currency.
For perspective, today's $3.15 gallon of gas would cost this much next month:
Unfortunately, this assault on our wealth will continue non-stop regardless of who controls Congress. President Obama was smart to take advantage of super majorities to pass the most destructive policies of his administration, Stimulus and ObamaCare. His other attacks on our savings do not require majorities in Congress, nor any more effort. The Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire, as are the rules limiting the Alternative Minimum Tax. The new tax on the sale of a house, another ObamaCare tax, begins in January. Mortgage deductions are also on the chopping block, with significant Republican backing. And the icing on this redistribution cake, Comrades? Inflation.
6a)Can the Republican Party Remain Relevant?
By Steve McCannDoes the Republican Party want to remain relevant? Or are they willing to be cast, by the not so subtle scorched earth tactics of Barack Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media, into permanent second class status, and eventual oblivion?
The only political weapon, but a potentially powerful one, the Republicans have is control of the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House thus becomes, by default, the national spokesman and face of the Party. This person is the one sitting alone across the table from the twin juggernaut of Barack Obama and his celebrity persona and the sycophantic mainstream media, with their predisposition against all things conservative.
It is extraordinarily difficult to hold one's own against this two-headed dragon. However, if the United States is to regain its once lofty economic and societal stature, there is no choice as there must be a guerilla action over the next four years to delay and stop Obama's plans to transform America. This requires a Speaker of the House with a persona that is not overshadowed by the President, who is unafraid to take on the media and is able to coordinate messaging with not only Republican House members but other conservative voices. But above all, a Speaker willing to confront Barack Obama directly and forcefully.
The current Speaker, John Boehner, while a decent man and a hard working representative for his district in Ohio, is not the right person for the job at this critical juncture in American history. In a cogent and insightful analysis of Mr. Boehner, Peter Ferrara writes:
John Boehner must go. Further, there is no one in the Republican House caucus that has the experience, personality and determination to bring the fight to Barack Obama and Harry Reid in the Senate. With two or four more years of this kind of leadership, the Republican Party will become irrelevant, the ultimate goal of Obama, the Democrats and the media -- as their tactics in recent campaign and the so-called fiscal cliff negotiations reveal.
There is an option, (as pointed out by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator) and one the Republican Party must seriously consider if they truly are concerned with the fate of the nation.
The Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected member of the House--per Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution. Anyone duly chosen by a majority vote of the House can be Speaker as long as that person is nominated by a sitting member of the House. Thus anyone could declare themselves as a candidate for the Speakership and actively campaign for the position.
There is only one person in the Republican or conservative political sphere that has national name recognition, experience, stature, as well as the proven ability to deal with the media and a popular Democratic President while coordinating an effective messaging operation-- that is Newt Gingrich. This choice would bring howls of protest from both the Republican establishment and the Democratic Party cabal-- which is among the reasons it would be the ideal option.
In the 1990's, despite the bias of the media and Bill Clinton's ability to win various PR wars, Newt Gingrich was still able to find a way to dominate the narrative and get his message across to the American people. The accomplishments of the Gingrich-led Republican House were impressive. Among them, the first balanced budget in a generation, an actual reduction in total federal government spending, a 30% cut in the capital gains tax rate which helped trigger the biggest run of surpluses in American history and the first meaningful reform in welfare entitlements since the advent of various "Great Society" programs.
There is no question that during this period Newt's forceful and at times abrasive personality grated on many of his fellow Republicans; but in retrospect that is why things got done. However, as with all things, time and circumstance has mellowed Newt's approach but not his ability or determination.
This nation is teetering on the precipice of financial and societal disaster. With an unchecked Barack Obama, a bureaucracy issuing a flood of new edicts and regulations daily, and a spineless Senate and sycophantic media, the United States will follow Europe into chaos and decline. It is up to the members of the House of Representatives, with their power of the purse and to ability to expose corruption and deception, to put the brakes on this headlong dash to oblivion.
If the Republican members of the House take their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and the future of America seriously, they will replace the current speaker with someone who can and will forcefully take on Obama and his ruling cabal despite the slings and arrows sure to come his way. That person is Newt Gingrich.
6b)For once, I am inclined to believe Hillary Clinton. The U.S. Secretary of State, suffering from a sick stomach, has reportedly fainted and bumped her head. As a result, her spokespeople have already announced that she will be unable to testify at the Benghazi hearings, although she was not due to appear until December 20, many days after the vaguely reported fainting spell.
Already, the internet is resounding with a chorus of "How convenient!" (See here and here, for example.) Many, upon hearing this news, are assuming that Clinton, who has been hedging for a month on whether to appear at the congressional hearings, has concocted yet another excuse to avoid facing the music on a scandal which, if pursued with integrity, would likely end her political career, to put it mildly.
I, on the contrary, would like to give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this one. Though I have never participated in a cover-up involving the brutal murder and defilement of people under my direct employ, I can only imagine that if I had, and if I were being called on the carpet to answer questions about my role in events surrounding a seven-hour terrorist assault on my representatives in Libya, and the subsequent disinformation campaign being managed, in part, out of my office, I would be feeling sick to my stomach, too. I imagine I might even faint, as the day of reckoning approached.
The basic question here is whether Hillary Clinton has so completely dissolved her own moral core -- the way her boss and fellow Alinskyite clearly has done -- that she is incapable of feeling even the fear of self-revelation when she is called to account for her words and actions. In other words, is this week's illness and fainting spell just a convenient excuse for avoiding her responsibilities, or might it be the pounding of a tell-tale heart?
Never having sat on my hands for several hours while receiving live reports and images of my employees being attacked by Ansar al-Sharia, I cannot say for certain how I would feel in her situation.
Never having received communications from men in distress pleading for rescue or support, and done nothing to respond to their cries for help, I can only speculate as to how I would feel if a committee -- some of whose members are not my political allies -- wanted to ask me what happened.
Never having offered an initial statement immediately following the murder of my ambassador in which I explicitly blamed his death on "heavily armed militants" and never mentioned any "spontaneous protest" in Libya, only to follow it up with subsequent statements cagily blaming an anti-Muhammad video and fudging on the spontaneous protest story, I have no idea how I would feel if I feared that someone might ask me about the sudden 180-degree turn in my account.
Never having spent three months, in cahoots with my boss and other liars, carefully avoiding, deferring, and obscuring the simplest inquiry of all -- "At what time, exactly, did you first hear of the attack on your Libyan consulate, and by what sequence of reasoning did you all decide that a rescue attempt was uncalled for?" -- how can I know how I would feel if I were concerned that I might finally be asked that question in a Congressional hearing?
Never having spent forty years climbing the political ladder, only to feel that it was about to collapse from under me at the very moment when people were saying that I was "inevitable" for 2016, I cannot deny that I might feel sick to my stomach, standing so close to the peak and yet looking into the abyss as Hillary Clinton must be doing today.
Never having spent decades pushing my leftist agenda from behind the camera while desperately, humiliatingly covering tracks for "the talent," my sociopathic spouse -- and then, having finally burst out from behind that demeaning mask, finding myself reduced to running interference again for yet another sociopath -- I cannot deny that I, too, might be suffering from vertigo.
In sum, it seems entirely believable to me that Hillary Clinton is feeling sick these days. In her situation, who wouldn't feel sick?
My question, however, is why this illness and minor injury, from which she is purported to be recovering happily at home, should be considered an acceptable excuse for not having to testify about a scandal in which she was a major player -- a foreign policy disaster for which she has expressly declared herself the buck's final destination.
Adults get sick. Some of them are prone to feeling nauseous or faint when faced with stressful situations for which they know they are unprepared. But adults typically do not use their personal discomforts as justifications for ducking out on their most important responsibilities and commitments.
Some years ago, my wife was given the unpleasant task of invigilating the final exam of a university freshman who was suffering from a terrible stomach flu, but who, having already purchased a ticket home for the following day, insisted on writing her exam while sitting on the floor of the women's bathroom, resting her head against the cool tiles to calm herself between mad dashes to -- well, you get the point.
Here, on the other hand, is the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on the planet, called to testify before both Houses of Congress regarding a foreign policy debacle which resulted in the deaths of an important State Department official and three other Americans; here is the highest-ranking member of the president's cabinet, the one who stood at his side when he made his September 12 Rose Garden address on Benghazi; here is the woman who, in a supposed act of statesmanship, claimed personal responsibility for the Benghazi security failure (though simultaneously casting off that responsibility by saying "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha") -- here she is, being excused from the most important day of her tenure as Secretary of State, in effect by means of a note from President O-Mama saying "Hillary isn't feeling well today, and she won't be feeling well next week either."
While the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, was only too eager to accept this sick note from Mrs. Clinton, and happy to announce her replacement by two of her deputies, Kerry's counterpart on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, played the role of rational adult:
We have been combing classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself.
Yes, it does "require" such an appearance -- if your interest is in exposing the truth about Benghazi, namely that "failure" is too kind a word for the administration's actions before the attack, and "conscienceless" too kind for their conduct during and after it.
Hillary Clinton has made her reputation on being a tough, resilient woman. If she were really so tough, she would insist on appearing before Ros-Lehtinen's committee, even if she had to testify from the bathroom floor.
The Benghazi scandal, as I have said before, makes Watergate -- during which Clinton suffered her own first scandal, incidentally -- look like cheating at tiddlywinks. Men died after a seven hour battle, and after their repeated pleas to Washington for help were rejected. In the wake of this horror, the Obama administration created a calculated cloud of conflicting half-stories in order to protect Obama's re-election bid. The centerpiece of their cloud of lies was a fabrication about a "spontaneous" or "natural" protest that never occurred -- and that they knew never occurred -- a lie which, by emphasizing and repeatedly blaming a "disgusting" video about Muhammad, actually stoked real and deadly protests throughout the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton is the highest-ranking member of the administration scheduled to testify, and her prospective testimony would be most pertinent -- not because of what she would say, but because of what others would then need to say, or unsay, to remain consistent with her story.
But she isn't feeling well, and wants to stay home this week, so you should just forget the whole thing; goodness knows she'd like to forget it. (By the way, is this not the kind of fragility in the face of duty that ought to disqualify her as a presidential candidate?)
And if you are wise you will follow John Kerry's advice and dismiss any ideas about offering her a rain check. After all, rescheduling her appearance for a future date is only likely to remind her of that urgent meeting she has to attend in Bora Bora, or the hair appointment she promised herself for Christmas, or poker night with the gals at Huma's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)A Second Term Obama Administration and the Middle East
By David Makovsky
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 193, December 16, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The changes in the region will force the Obama
administration to make some difficult decisions on how to act regarding Egypt, Syria, the Palestinians, and Iran. The administration will need to be careful in how it deals with the Egyptian government and how it handles its support for the Syrian opposition. Most importantly, alarmist scenarios that a second term Obama administration will abandon Israel are unwarranted.
This Perspectives Paper is based upon a presentation given at a Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies conference on November 21, 2012.
The new Obama administration is facing some tough choices on how to approach
its Middle East foreign policy in the coming four years. Many are quick to argue that the US will be less focused on the Middle East during the next term. They say that by 2020 the US, thanks to the shale oil revolution, will be the world’s largest oil producer. They add that the US is more concerned with “pivoting” from the Middle East and developing ties in Asia. This does not appear to be the case, however. The US will remain invested in the Middle East. Even if it becomes a net oil exporter, the US will view the free flow of oil from the Middle East as integral to its role as a superpower, and will ensure that there are no disruptions to the world economy that is essential for the US economy as well. The administration will remain committed to Israel, its strongest ally in the region. What is up for debate is how the US will approach the sweeping changes and emerging threats in the region, specifically Egypt, Syria, the Palestinians, and Iran.
Egypt
Egypt is a complicated issue for the Obama administration, mainly because of
the $1.2 billion in annual military aid and $450 million in economic assistance that the US provides for Cairo (the latter is a $200 million increase from last year). Congress is worried about the military aid being sent to Egypt, due to a lack of certainty about its direction. Congress is currently holding up the economic assistance. The recent clashes between supporters and opponents of President Mohamed Morsi over his seizing of additional powers have the US worried even further about the reality of Egypt’s democratic aspirations. Going forward, Congress may be reluctant to transfer military aid to Egypt. It will want a sense of the role of the Egyptian military going forward, given its close ties with the US in the past. It would not be surprising that Congress will seek to earmark some military funds for counter-terrorism efforts in Sinai.
Syria
The Syrian conflict threatens to destabilize the region and could plunge the
Middle East into a Sunni-Shiite war. It is not likely, however, that President Obama will send troops to intervene in Syria. Reports about the atrocities committed by the regime against its own people is bound to guarantee that the Obama administration enhance its support for the Syrian opposition. What he should do is demand a tighter coordination among the leaders of the Syrian opposition who supply weaponry, as well as insist on a clear national, and not just local, hierarchy within the Free Syrian Army.
Palestinians
Concerning the Palestinians, the US policy is likely to be “collision no,
interest yes.” The Israeli left mistakenly believes that a second term US president is limitless in its actions, since he cannot be re-elected. History shows that a second term president is able to enhance his political capital upon his election, but such capital remains defined and is easily depleted, as was the case during the second term of the George W. Bush administration. Obama will choose carefully how he acts. He will not try to take “revenge” on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and he understands that they will need to work together on Iran. The US administration is concerned that the Palestinian Authority (PA) will collapse and trigger more instability in Jordan. It believes Israel has a deep interest that the PA does not collapse, as this will lead to greater radicalization. It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu shares this view. Washington also perceives the “Arab Spring” differently than Israel. While Israel is trying to ride out the storm, the US feels that Israel needs to acknowledge the recent changes and deal with them more head-on. Specifically, the US is concerned that the continued impasse between the Israelis and Palestinians will feed Arab regional radicalization, even if Arabs seek to further their own national interests.
Iran
The big issue, of course, is Iran. The economic sanctions are currently
having an impact, but they are not working to stop the nuclear program. By the end of 2013 the US will no longer be able to say that Iran doesn’t have enough material for the bomb. The US must demand clarity from the Iranians over what they plan to do with their nuclear material. In the first few months of his administration, Obama should seek clarity on this issue and make a last-ditch attempt at diplomacy by putting forward an offer that will be clear to the American people and its allies that the US is making a good faith offer, but will not countenance an Iranian nuclear break-out under any circumstances. Obama will ask Israel not to attack until this clarity is achieved, so that the US can at least claim to have tried all avenues. Therefore, if there is a deterioration, Tehran will be to blame. Iran will most likely reject these overtures, but at least the world will know where all of the actors stand. Obama knows that if Iran gets the bomb it will destroy American credibility in the Middle East, given that so many American administrations have drawn the idea of Iran with a bomb as a red line. This is the last thing he wants. ========================== David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Washington Institute’s Project on the Middle East Peace Process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment