Subject: Gun Free Zone
After being shown how those signs work it is so easy to see why gun control advocates use them to stop crime!
|
David Malpass on why current policies are restricting growth. (See 1a below.)
---
Ignatius: Hagel to revive Eisenhower Doctrine? (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
As I have begun to note, the drumbeat to elect Hillary our first female president by the media and news folks has begun. Their plan is to use the same strategy employed to shove Obama down our throats. Create myths and ignore facts.
In Hillary's case, claim she is America's greatest Secretary of State and pass over her lack of accomplishments. Cite her exhaustive travels and ignore the failure of the Russian Reset Button, the decline of our influence in The Middle East, the rebirth of al Qaeda in Africa, the challenges from N Korea etc.
Perhaps one should not attack Ms. Clinton for executing Obama's flawed and naive foreign policies but certainly one can berate her for defending them with lies and obfuscation.
Yes, I believe a village of emotional women with help from the press and media dolts will elevate her into the Oval Office.
Hillary Clinton , as our first female president, would be synonymous with electing America's consummate bitch. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
I reported on a blast several months ago and now there seems to have been another. The one I reported on was at the same facility and might have leaked deadly gas. (See 4 below.)
---
Yes this is sad. Sad for the children but is it my responsibility and if so where does it end?
---
She feels no responsibility for having 15 kids and not being able to support them. Now she believes someone should be held accountable for all these kids. Apparently she doesn’t look in the mirror.
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) World is right to worry about US debt
America must face up to its responsibilities, writes Kenneth Rogoff
Many foreign observers look at the US budget shenanigans with confusion and dismay, wondering how a country that seems to have it all can manage its fiscal affairs so chaotically. The root problem is not just a hugely elevated level of public debt, or a patently unsustainable trajectory for old age entitlements. It is an electorate deeply divided over the direction of government, with differences compounded by changing demographics and sustained sluggish growth. It is hard to escape the notion that today’s budget battles are but a skirmish in a much longer-term war that won’t be settled soon.
America must shortly answer a series of fundamental questions. For example, as its share of global gross domestic product shrinks from about 20 per cent today to as little as 10 per cent in five decades, should it try to continue to play the role of global policeman? The US spends more than 4 per cent of GDP a year on defence, roughly twice the global average. The Obama administration’s fiscal plans anticipate a peace dividend after withdrawals from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican party has reasonably argued that it is unrealistic to expect this quiet to last. At the very least, if military expenditures continue to fall, it becomes more important to have the fiscal capacity to ramp them up in response to new threats. It is also worth noting that if the US were ever forced to surrender the mantle of world policeman to, say, China, foreigners may no longer have quite the same desire for its debt.
Another huge area of disagreement surrounds the question of what services should be provided by the federal government versus the states or the private sector. There is a lot of “low-hanging fruit” here. Productivity improvements in government services have been glacial compared with many other sectors of the economy. A visit to a primary school classroom in many US cities is the closest thing one can get to time travel. One idea that economists have been enamoured with for years is school vouchers but there is strong resistance from entrenched interests. How long will these same interests forestall online classes and computer-graded feedback, initially as a supplement for traditional education structures but eventually as a significant substitute. The fiscal implications are huge, as are the disagreements.
In contrast, infrastructure should be a place of common ground but again there is paralysis. Aside from funding priorities, there is a wide chasm between those who see union domination of infrastructure as key to ensuring high-paying jobs versus those who want infrastructure built, but at reasonable rates. There is the joke about the visiting Chinese group that asks their New York tour guide how long it will take to finish the Second Avenue subway. On being told two years, the Chinese translator hesitates before conveying the response and asks: “Wait a second, you mean two weeks, right?”
One of the US’s greatest assets is its ability to expand immigration without running into land or resource constraints anytime soon. But US immigration policy has long been dominated by emotion, not the cold-blooded, rational economic calculus many other countries apply. There are rigid visa restrictions aimed at keeping out terrorists, some of which remain incredibly counterproductive. Immigration policy has large implications for US debt and the sustainability of entitlements for the indigent population, yet the link seldom receives serious attention.
And of course, healthcare is the mother of all fiscal challenges, as costs rise and the population ages.
The idea that one should just ignore all these problems and apply crude Keynesian stimulus is a dangerous one. It matters a great deal how the government taxes and spends, not just how much. The US debt level is a constraint. A growing number of empirical studies, including my own joint work with Carmen Reinhart, suggest that the US has already reached a debt level that has been associated with slower growth in advanced countries. The fact interest rates are low today does not necessarily mean the US is an exception to this rule – take one look at stagnant Japan’s rates. The dollar’s reserve currency status buys America more room, but how much and for how long? A high debt burden is a problem precisely because it reduces a country’s capacity to deal with future shocks.
The US remains an incredible franchise with many remarkable strengths. The world’s overwhelming presumption is that Americans will find a path to budget sustainability. Nevertheless, it is hard for many in the US to escape the nagging feeling that just maybe this time we won’t. With more than $5tn of US Treasury debt, and memories of the huge inflation of the 1970s and default on gold clauses in the 1930s, foreigners would be right to worry a little.
The writer is professor of economics at Harvard University and the co-author of ‘This Time Is Different’
1a)The U.S. Needs To Win The Battle To Limit Government Now
By David Malpass
America greeted 2013 numbed to the absurdity of 0% interest rates, endless Federal Reserve bond purchases and $1 trillion deficits. President Obama imposed a January fiscal deal that added $4 trillion to the projected national debt, on the surreal claim that the U.S. government doesn’t have a spending problem. His Cabinet and policy choices show satisfaction with the status quo and a state of denial over the dangers ahead. In December he made the claim of national well-being: “Our economy is really starting to recover, and we’re starting to see optimistic signs.”
However, per the U.S. census, inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen for more than a decade, a stunning national failure. The federal debt has topped $16 trillion, which is more than our entire GDP. Much of the increase is being funded by the Fed’s $1.6 trillion in dangerous overnight debt to the banking system.
Meanwhile, the once staid European Central Bank has propped up Europe by piling increasing amounts of debt on its books from underwater banks and governments. And Japan‘s new govern ment has just launched a new round of deficit spending and is set to order the Bank of Japan to buy more Japanese government debt, despite Japan’s world-record 245% debt-to-GDP ratio.
Central banks have become the world’s biggest speculators. The Fed in 2012 earned $91 billion in profit on its $55 billion in equity capital. That’s more than ten times the normal private-sector profit rate and was achieved by leveraging its liabilities up to nearly $3 trillion, a 50-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio.
The Fed’s interest rate bets are a zero-sum game–the Fed wins, while the losses are borne by underpaid private-sector savers. Worse, the policy of manipulating interest rates to artificially low levels has interrupted the vital market-based connection between interest rates and investment decisions. This creates economic distortions that slow growth and will take years to unwind.
The result hits U.S. living standards. Despite gigantic debt-fueled government transfer payments, Americans are suffering from a five-year stagnation in inflation-adjusted disposable income, which is expected to continue into 2014. The deterioration is due to weak labor markets, bigger government, artificially low interest rates and the policy of weakening the dollar in the hope that it will become so cheap it becomes attractive.
Instead, one industry after another has shifted new investment to non-Japan Asia, where currencies are more dependable, the legacy burden of retirees is lighter and national debts are not at a crisis stage.
Our daily newspapers are filled with the struggle over the debt limit, but it’s written to harm fiscal conservatives, not cut spending. This leaves us with a grim prognosis and no treatment plan.
BATTLE FOR POWER
The battle we now need to wage includes debt but is even bigger: to create an enforceable process for limiting federal power. The Constitution provides a degree of protection through the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of undelegated power to the states and the people, but this hasn’t translated into limits on government spending or debt.
Some focus less on the Constitution, hoping that boundaries will emerge through culture, moral government and political compromise; others argue directly for bigger government. Some expect the bond market and a downgrade in our credit rating to force limits, which seems unlikely given weaker conditions in other countries. They’ll fail first.
These approaches leave a vacuum in restraining government growth and debt. Rather than negotiate in that framework, our government and citizens must overturn the existing rules and create a workable new debt and spending limit, guided by the Constitution and the rule of law.
The President has said he doesn’t want to cut spending. His party should then be held to account–they should prepare to vote for a series of short-term increases in the debt limit with no spending cuts attached. If that becomes politically unpopular, as it probably would, they should offer spending cuts and work out bipartisan amendments to the debt limit so that it forces spending restraint rather than default or government shutdown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)In '56 Crisis, Some Parallels
Chuck Hagel means it when he describes himself as an "Eisenhower Republican." He kept a bust of President Dwight Eisenhower in his Senate office for a dozen years, and has a portrait of Ike on the wall of his current office at Georgetown University.
But the most compelling evidence of Hagel's fascination is that he purchased three-dozen copies of an Eisenhower biography and gave copies to President Obama, Vice President Biden and then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates, according to the book's author, David Nichols.
The book that so interested Hagel, "Eisenhower 1956," examines one of the most delicate and dangerous moments of Ike's presidency. Published in 2011, it's basically the story of how Eisenhower forced Israel, Britain and France to withdraw from their invasion of the Suez Canal -- thereby establishing the United States as the dominant, independent power in the Middle East.
It's impossible to read Nichols' book without thinking of recent tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. Just as Egypt's mercurial leader Gamal Abdel Nasser posed the pre-eminent threat to Israel in the 1950s, so it is today with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Iran. What's interesting about Eisenhower is that, while sympathetic to Israel's defense needs, he was also determined to maintain an independent U.S. policy and avoid a war that might involve the Soviet Union.
"We believe that the power of modern weapons makes war not only perilous -- but preposterous," Eisenhower said on Nov. 1, in his final speech before the 1956 election, which coincided with the Suez crisis and the Soviet invasion of Hungary to put down a revolution there. It truly was the moment that tested the old warrior's belief that there should be no more war.
As the Senate deliberates Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense, it should consider the "Eisenhower 1956" narrative carefully. It's a useful guide to how Hagel thinks about American power in the Middle East -- and it explains ideas he has shared with the top U.S. policymakers, Obama and Biden.
Many themes come together at Suez: the falling empires of Britain and France; the rising global hegemony of the United States; the turmoil of the Arab world; and the assertive, unpredictable role of an Israel that, then as now, saw itself fighting for its life amid hostile Muslim nations.
Eisenhower had been watching the Middle East with foreboding since he became president in 1953. He said in a January 1956 news conference the U.S. should pursue an Arab-Israeli policy that was "above politics" and encouraged "some kind of friendship, at least cooperation between the two sides." This gauzy idea of evenhandedness would be severely tested.
Ike said in a March 29, 1956, letter to Winston Churchill that the Middle East was "the most important and bothersome of the problems that currently confront our nations." His anxiety increased in July, when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
The British, French and Israelis -- unbeknownst to Eisenhower and his advisers -- were secretly plotting to roll back Nasser's control of Suez. Their tripartite alliance, code-named "Operation Musketeer," was formalized in an Oct. 24 secret protocol that specified that Israel would invade the Sinai Peninsula five days later. The three collaborators designed what Nichols calls "smoke screens" to conceal their plans from the U.S.
When the Israeli invasion came on Oct. 29, a week before the U.S. election, Eisenhower was irate. He told Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: "Foster, you tell 'em, God-damn-it, that we're going to apply sanctions, we're going to the United Nations, we're going to do everything that there is so we can stop this thing." The U.S, did, indeed, win a cease-fire resolution at the U.N., despite opposition from Britain, France and Israel.
Eisenhower took a political risk. He was blasted by his Democratic rival, Adlai Stevenson, who charged on Nov. 1 that if the U.S. had acted more forcefully to support Israel, it might have avoided war. But Ike prevailed, winning re-election, forcing the attackers to withdraw from the canal, and enunciating a strategy for U.S.-led security in the region that came to be known as the "Eisenhower Doctrine."
How does this story apply to modern-day Israel and America -- especially for an Obama administration that, while committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, devoutly hopes to avoid military action? The parallels are impossible to draw precisely, but it matters that the cautious and fiercely independent Eisenhower is a role model for the prospective future defense secretary.
2a)Kissinger: US on Brink of Nuclear Crisis with Iran
Former U.S. Secretary of State and Nobel Peace laureate Henry Kissinger is warning that the United States and Israel are very close to facing a crisis with a nuclear-arming Iran.
The 89-year-old Kissinger told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that such a crisis — a full-fledged atomic war — would be "a turning point in human history," the BBC reported.
"There has emerged in the region, the current and most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation. For 15 years, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [UNSC] have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it has been approaching," he said.
"In a few years, people will have to come to a determination of how to react, or the consequences of non-reaction.
"I believe this point will be reached in a very foreseeable future," he added.
Kissinger called for “serious” negotiations on both sides to avert the crisis. The most important thing, Kissinger said, was for the West to prevent letting things get so bad that Israel is forced to act alone.
"Unilateral intervention by Israel would be a desperate last resort, but the Iranians have to understand that if they keep using the negotiations to gain time to complete a nuclear programme then the situation will become extremely dangerous," he said.
If Tehran gets nuclear weapons, regimes across the Middle East and Africa will want them, too, Kissinger said.
"The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history," he said.
"If Iran acts as a nation and not as a revolutionary cause, there is no reason for America or other permanent members of the UNSC [United Nations Security Council] to be in conflict with it, nor any countries in the region. On that basis I would hope that a negotiated solution would be found in a measurable time."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Hillary’s Histrionics Hide Truth
After four months of playing hide and seek with the American people, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honored the Congress with her presence long enough to duck and deceive the American people regarding the worst incident of terrorism against Americans since 9/11.
Those who are fans of Mrs. Clinton must have been delighted with her tap dancing around questions addressed to her by House and Senate Committee members. Those fans consider all this as just stagecraft created by political hacks that have no right to question “his eminence” --the President -- or his esteemed Secretary of State. Yet there are many questions unanswered and new questions that were created by her testimony.
The moment that received the most coverage was Secretary Clinton’s heated response to a question from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI). Johnson queried Clinton as to why her office was not immediately able to determine whether the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were spontaneous or planned by a terrorist group. Clinton responded in an animated and heated manner: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
It makes a lot of difference. Not because of the great point that Charles Krauthammer made after the hearing where he pointed out that telling the truth to the American people is important. The central question has not been laid to rest as to whether the Administration was covering up the fact that Al Qaeda was resurgent despite Obama’s biggest foreign policy coup – killing Bin Laden. Nor is it because of the point others brought out about the fact that Ambassador Stevens had made repeated requests for additional security, but Clinton claims not to be aware of such requests.
It is much simpler than that. That night had started with major protests in Egypt. They had reportedly spread to Libya. It was 9/11, the anniversary of the largest attack on the American homeland in history. It certainly appeared that neither the American Embassy in Egypt nor our consulate in Libya or our Libyan Ambassador properly prepared for the day at hand. The rest of Northern Africa had been a powder keg for over a year. Understanding the nature of the attack in Libya certainly would give guidance to how our State Department staff in a place like Tunisia should prepare themselves in the coming hours. It is that simple, yet our Secretary of State does not think it of significant importance.
Then there is Ms. Clinton’s management of her department. She stated she has concern for all of the 70,000 employees at the State Department. We know we are a big country and we know it is a complicated world, but really -- 70,000 employees? If you take the estimated 195 countries and put 100 staff people in each country that totals 19,500. That would include providing for 100 staff people in countries like Burundi or Macau. If you double that for all the people who might work here in the U.S. and add some vigorish you have 39,000 people. Why in God’s name do we have 70,000 people in that department? No wonder we are broke; and Clinton claims there was not enough security because of insufficient resources and points her finger at Congress?
But more importantly, the question of her management has to be asked. Mrs. Clinton claims that the requests from Ambassador Stevens for more security did not cross her desk. We are big on delegation, but how did she not know? This was Libya, one of the hot button places in the world. A place that was clearly unsettled. This was not additional security requests from Belgium or the Bahamas. Nor was it even security requests from Colombia or Indonesia. This was a request from the Ambassador in Libya. Not only that, there were multiple requests. If the requests did not filter up to Clinton then she is guilty of gross negligence of management. Are you saying your staff does not know what to bring to your attention? Either she has no idea how to train her staff or she wanted institutional ignorance. Either way she is guilty.
Most people think that Clinton’s ducking and obfuscating got her out of any real scrutiny on this issue. With most of the press being in the bag for Obama and Clinton, this issue could go away. It is now in the hands of my friend, Congressman Ed Royce, chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to keep the hope alive that some truth will come out of this murderous mess. Go get then, Congressman. Don’t let Hillary’s lies take the day.
3a)A “Conspiracy Theory” Based at The New York Times
The Obama Administration is facilitating the activities of foreign jihadists and al Qaeda throughout the Middle East, while claiming that it is fighting al Qaeda and that the organization has been “decimated.” This monumental deception is being carried out not only by the administration but its supporters. It is a crime that has cost four American lives in Benghazi and three in the kidnapping and hostage crisis in Algeria.
The George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) is running interference for the Obama Administration by attacking those, like Senator Rand Paul, who are trying to expose the suicidal policy.
In an item headlined, “Senator questions Secretary of State about right-wing conspiracy theory,” CAP says Paul used Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “to advance a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory involving alleged gun-running from Libya to Syria, via Turkey.” The basic facts about the so-called “right-wing conspiracy theory” have been reported by The New York Times, hardly a right-wing propaganda organ. And the “conspiracy” also involves Qatar, the host and sponsor of Osama bin Laden’s favorite television channel, Al Jazeera, now poised to get into 40-50 million American homes through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.
The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar” in 2011 and that “Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants.” These rebels stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans, in a major foreign policy scandal that continues to this day. It was the reason for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton exchange.
It’s true that the paper claimed the U.S. was somewhat caught off-guard by the arms going into the hands of anti-American jihadists. But that is hard to believe, considering that Qatar, the sponsor of “Terror TV” Channel Al Jazeera, is a close ally of the Obama Administration. The administration has approved the entry of “Al Jazeera America” into the U.S. media market, even though Qatar evaded the law requiring federal approval of a foreign acquisition of a U.S. company that has national security implications. Obama’s Department of Justice refuses to enforce the law that requires Al Jazeera programs to be labeled as foreign propaganda when aired in the U.S.
Any notion that all of this is happening by accident has been undermined by an additional report from the Times that the CIA was using Turkey and “a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood” to send weapons to Islamists fighting the regime in Syria. The weapons were being “paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the paper reported.
By ignoring these facts, which have not been disputed, the Center for American Progress (CAP) is playing a role in the current controversy and scandal which is comparable to what the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) did in regard to U.S. policy toward China in the 1940s. The IPR was an unofficial arm of the State Department which facilitated the Communist takeover of China in 1949. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found the IPR to be “an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence.”
CAP can be said to be an unofficial arm of the State Department that is facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of such countries as Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The evidence shows that the administration is working hand-in-glove with avowed enemies of the United States. As bad as this is, the jihadists getting U.S. support through Turkey and Qatar will eventually turn their attention to the U.S. homeland, setting the stage for another 9/11 attack. When they do so, the new “Al Jazeera America” will be their mouthpiece, in the same way that Al Jazeera ran a story describing the Mali terrorists as “gentle.”
In fact, the kidnapping and murder of three Americans by al-Qaeda terrorists in Mali is clearly another manifestation of this policy because the arms the U.S. helped send to the “rebels” in Libya may have been used by these same terrorists to kill the American hostages.
It is in this context that Rand Paul asked Hillary Clinton, “…it’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I’d like to know is, the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton responded, “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And I will see what information is available and…”Paul interjected, “You’re saying you don’t know?”
Clinton: “I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.”This is stonewalling of the worst kind. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and has to be knowledgeable of the policy that she is helping to implement.
There was a time, as noted, when Congress had committees and subcommittees which examined the betrayal of American interests by investigating domestic groups like the IPR. Today, the Center for American Progress openly pushes the same agenda as the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies of the United States and members of Congress have no way to officially question what they are doing and why.
Except for a few members such as Senator Paul, Congress is asleep at the switch, unable or unwilling to even question the ongoing betrayal. Indeed, Rep. Michael McCaul, the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has been silent regarding the illegal Al Jazeera purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Blast hits key Iranian nuclear site?
4)Blast hits key Iranian nuclear site?
WND, an American news website affiliated with the Right, reported Friday that a mysterious explosion has destroyed a significant portion of Iran's Fordo nuclear facility – considered Tehran's most fortified facility.
The website alleged that Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly with the Islamic Republic's Ministry of Intelligence and National Security, confirmed that the facility was hit, but the report has not been corroborated by any Western source.
The website further said that its Iranian source pegged the blast as taking place last Monday at the eve of Israel's general elections.
Tehran believes the blast was the result of sabotage, the report said.
The website further said that its Iranian source pegged the blast as taking place last Monday at the eve of Israel's general elections.
Tehran believes the blast was the result of sabotage, the report said.
Fordo is considered to be Iran's second-largest nuclear facility and the site of the 2,700 centrifuges, all enriching uranium to 20% level – at which it can be weaponized.
Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz has more than 10,000 centrifuges.
Fordo – which has been carved into the belly of a mountain – is considered impregnable to airstrikes and most bunker-buster bombs.
“The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran-Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast,” the report said.
WND stressed that “news of the explosion has not been independently verified,” adding that Iran is “aware” of Israel and the West's desire to incapacitate its nuclear program.
“The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran-Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast,” the report said.
WND stressed that “news of the explosion has not been independently verified,” adding that Iran is “aware” of Israel and the West's desire to incapacitate its nuclear program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment