Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Patsy Finally Awoke! Soros iPredicts Tsuris!

The debate rages on regarding women in combat.  (See 1 and 1a below.)

Hate to say it but there is something about Gen. Dempsey that does not ring true and makes me believe he is willing to cave when it comes to his true feelings.

You decide.
A no brainer to prove.  (See 2 below.)
It is about time Boehner realized he is being played for a patsy by Obama.  (See 3 below.)
Talk about amazing! I was sent this article by his cousin. (See 4 below.)
Soros speaks out about currency problems ahead.  (See 5 below.)
1)Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).
First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy Behar and Lisa Lampanelli as our first offensive. Talk about shock and awe! The enemy would crap their pants (or whatever it is they wear).
Heck, those ladies wouldn’t even need to bring weapons, Leon. Just send this unholy trinity in with matching Frederick’s of Hollywood teddies juiced up on a pot of espresso and then have them confront hajji with their spurious insights, high-pitched, nasally voices and their unfunny comedic screeds, and our foes will shoot themselves in the face. War on Terror over. Boom. It’s that easy. You’re welcome.
If for some reason Barr, Behar and Lampanelli’s sensory assault on our enemies’ sensibilities doesn’t immediately devastate our adversaries then I suggest sending wave after wave of liberal college students, at the height of their PMS rage, into the thick of battle and have them quote Sandra Fluke and Lady Gaga at the top of their lungs. I believe (and I could be wrong) that this would absolutely demolish any forces that survived the initial onslaught of the Tres Amigas.
From a PsyOps standpoint you could work soft targets and wear down our foes and their enablers with Yoko Ono’s latest solo album blaring from trucks with loud speakers. On top of that scary scenario, we could simultaneously have choppers drop leaflets over the various villages warning them that if they don’t surrender now Yoko’s going to show up at their village and do a six-hour concert. They’ll fold up quicker than the Beatles did. Guaranteed. And radical Islam will leave us the heck alone for many, many moons.
With that said, I share the following concerns that my buddy who works with the U.S. Army and special forces has with deploying the ladies to combat positions:
1. One of the most significant issues with women in combat arms (MOS) is the lack of suitable hygiene. In other words, there are times in our military careers where we go through extended periods where we don’t have showers. Women have monthly hygienic concerns that a man doesn’t.
2. When the government mandates acceptance into a job/work force scenario, standards must be lowered to accommodate the numbers. Most females are not as strong as men. This will be a direct issue in combat. If you have a 5’10” male weighing 200 pounds, he will weigh between 250-275 pounds by the time he has donned a full combat load. How many women, after being hit by an IED (improvised explosive device), could drag 275 pounds out of a burning vehicle while drawing fire? Or how about if a unit is assaulting a radical Muslim compound and a soldier weighs 250-275 pounds. Can his female battle buddy pull him out of the room while shooting several muzzies in the face? This goes back to height, weight, psychological and physical exercise standards. If you lower the standards, the mission is compromised. Last year and this year the U.S. Marine Corps tried this by allowing women in their infantry school without lowering standards.Only two signed up, and neither made the grade. None signed up this year.
3. When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?
4. Emotionally women are not made like men. There is nothing like being face to face with your enemy and pulling the trigger again, and again, and again. Women have been in combat zones and have performed excellently, but to put them in combat arms responsible for the killing of others has not happened yet. What is the emotional and psychological effect of this on women (not meant or created for war) versus men (who were created to protect and be warriors)?

5. What happens when the first female is captured in combat and brutally murdered? What about when al-Qaeda rapes a woman on video and uploads it to YouTube for all to see? How will the American public handle that? Will men act more carelessly and recklessly to spare their female counterparts than they would another man?
Look, I’m cool with and appreciate anyone wanting to give and/or receive a bullet on my freedom’s behalf, but I believe putting girls on the front lines of combat is a bad, bad, bad idea.

1a)Joint Chiefs Chairman: ‘We Can Figure Out Privacy’ for Young Ladies in Frontline Combat, Including in Navy SEALS and Delta Force

Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that the U.S. military could figure out ways to preserve the privacy of young ladies serving in frontline combat units, including special forces combat units such as the Navy Seals and the U.S. Army’s Delta Force.

At the Pentagon press briefing on Thursday at which Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed a directive lifting the military’s ban on putting women in frontline ground combat units, a reporter asked Dempsey: “What about privacy?”

“We can figure out privacy. We've figured out privacy right from the start,” said Dempsey. “By the way, Desert Shield, or Desert Storm/Desert Shield, 1991, we did live in that kind of environment where we were essentially somewhat nomadic in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and eventually Iraq. And we figured out privacy. We can figure out privacy.”
Secretary Panetta then pointed out: “The fact is that women are now in submarines. And that was one of the concerns at the time. But the fact is that they have re-jiggered the submarines to be able to adapt to that kind of situation. Women are fighter pilots now. So Air Force, Navy have moved in that direction. The Marines and the Army, obviously, are going to move in the same direction. They're going to be, you know, there will have to be some adjustments in some situations.  But, again, based on the experience that we already have, I think we can meet those challenges.
A short while later, a reporter asked Gen. Dempsey: “What is your personal opinion as to whether women may be able to serve in special operations forces, especially those such as Navy SEALs or Delta Force?”
Gen. Dempsey indicated he believed that women would be able to meet the standards to serve in the SEALs and Delta Force and that privacy would not be an issue there.
“Yeah, when you look back at what I've said since I was the chief staff of the Army, what General Odierno has said, General Amos has said, I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,” said Gen. Dempsey about the SEALs and Delta Force.
“The other part of the equation, of course, is in order to account for their safety and their success in those kinds of units, we got to have enough of them so that they have mentors and leaders above them,” said Gen. Dempsey. “You know, you wouldn't want to take one woman who can meet a standard and put her in a particular unit. You know, the issue there wouldn't be privacy. It would be, you know, where's her ability to have upward mobility and compete for command if she's one of one? So we have to, we do have to work both the standards and the kind of the critical mass, if you will, to make this work. But that's what, that's our commitment.”

2)1. Study Documents NY Times’ Anti-Israel Bias
A new study by a media-monitoring organization exposes the New York Times’ consistent anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias in its coverage of the Middle East conflict.

The study was conducted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA), which claims 65,000 U.S. members across a broad political spectrum.
CAMERA investigated the Times’ coverage between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2011, and says the probe “reveals empirically that there is real cause for concern. The dominant finding of the study is a disproportionate, continuous, embedded indictment of Israel that dominates both news and commentary sections. Israeli views are downplayed while Palestinian perspectives, especially criticism of Israel, are amplified and even promoted.”
Among the findings of the CAMERA study:
  • The Times presents criticism of Israel more than twice as often as it criticizes the Palestinians. Of 275 passages in the news pages classified as criticism, 187 were critical of Israel while 88 criticized the Palestinians.
  • Of 37 articles mentioning Israel’s border policies and naval blockade of Gaza, just six cited Israel’s goal of preventing weapons from entering Gaza and even fewer noted that weapons in Gaza often are fired into Israel.
  • When the Times reported on the Israeli military boarding a Turkish ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists, only eight of 37 articles mentioned the activists’ violence that precipitated the use of firearms by the Israelis.
  • Twelve headlines mentioned Palestinian fatalities in the conflict, while none explicitly mentioned Israeli deaths, even though 14 Israelis were killed during the study period.
  • Israeli actions frequently were cited as obstacles to peace, but the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize a Jewish state was never described as an obstacle.
  • On the paper’s opinion pages, editorials consistently blamed Israel for the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Of 20 editorials, columns, and Op-Eds cited by CAMERA, 15 predominantly criticized Israel and none predominantly criticized the Palestinians.
CAMERA concludes: “Although the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict is a matter of great controversy, with loud voices on all sides seeking to make their case, only one side’s concerns are promoted in The Times, while the opposing side is marginalized.”
PJ Media states: “CAMERA’s study provides objective documentation that demonstrates exactly how The New York Times abandoned journalistic standards to turn coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into the supposedly ‘progressive’ cause of indicting Israel.”
3)-Boehner full of regret over 'cliff' moves
By Russell Berman

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is sharing his regrets about his "fiscal-cliff" strategy, less than a month after the House bitterly swallowed a last-minute deal hatched in the Senate.

In a private speech to the Ripon Society on Tuesday, Boehner said that he should have taken a different course after the November election by immediately demanding that the Senate produce a bill to avert the worst parts of a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that were due to hit on Jan. 1.

Instead, Boehner delivered a formal speech at the Capitol on the day after President Obama won a second term, in which he offered a major Republican concession – new tax revenue as part of a broader fiscal deal.

“Looking back, what I should have done the day after the election was to make it clear the House has passed a bill to extend all of the current tax rates, the House has passed a bill to replace the sequester with cuts in mandatory spending, and the Senate ought to do its work,” Boehner said. “We’re ready, able and willing to work with the Senate as soon as they produce a bill. It should have been what I said. You know, again, hindsight is 20-20.”

The Speaker addressed the Ripon Society, a 50-year-old GOP advocacy group, for about 20 minutes on Tuesday in an appearance that was closed to the press. The group sent out a video and excerpts of his speech on Wednesday, but the Speaker’s more extensive comments in the speech and a question-and-answer session that followed have not been widely reported.

The House passed legislation earlier in 2012 extending the full slate of George W. Bush-era tax rates and replacing the $109 billion in automatic spending cuts through sequestration. But it was dead on arrival with both the Democratic-led Senate and the newly reelected president, leading Boehner to try to restart talks with Obama on the so-called grand bargain the two had sought in 2011.

Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.

That has begun with the House GOP’s move to approve a short-term increase in the debt limit in exchange for a commitment from Senate Democrats to pass a budget resolution for the first time in four years.

After the Speaker’s talks with Obama failed, the House was forced to accept a Senate fiscal-cliff deal brokered by Vice President Biden and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), which raised tax rates without reforming entitlement programs, something Boehner had wanted to avoid.

Boehner has spoken only sparingly with the press in the last month, but during his Ripon 
Society appearance he was remarkably candid about the problems that his approach caused with members of his conference. More than half of the conference voted against both the fiscal-cliff deal and a subsequent bill providing aid to states affected by Hurricane Sandy. Boehner suffered 12 Republican defections during his reelection vote as Speaker early in January.

“You have no idea the suspicions and the undercurrents that it caused, frankly, a lot of my members,” Boehner said of his negotiations with Obama. “It really has, in fact, caused somewhat of a breach that I’ve been in the middle of trying to repair.”
Boehner attributed the suspicions to the younger members in the Republican ranks who are not familiar with his voting record in the years before he took the Speaker’s gavel.
“Some of our members don’t realize that while I may be a nice enough guy, and I get along with people, when I was voting I had the 8th most conservative voting record in the House,” he said. “But a lot of our newer members – they don’t know that. And so, you know, they think I’m some squish, that I’m ready to sell them out in a heartbeat, when obviously, most of you in this room know that that ain’t quite who I am.”
4)'Significant activity' in Israel ex-PM Sharon's brain

Israeli and US scientists said on Sunday that comatose ex-premier Ariel Sharon showed "significant brain activity" in an MRI scan, responding to pictures of his family seven years after a stroke left him unconscious.
Ben Gurion University, in the southern Israeli town of Beersheva, said its neuroscientists, an expert from the city's Soroka hospital and Professor Martin Monti from the University of California, Los Angeles ran two hours of pioneering tests on the former prime minister.
"Ariel Sharon, presumed to be in a vegetative state since 2006 due to brain haemorrhage, was scanned to assess the extent and quality of his brain processing using methods recently developed by Professor Monti and collaborators," it said.
"Scientists showed Mr Sharon pictures of his family, made him listen to his son's voice, and used tactile stimulation to assess to what extent his brain responded to external stimuli," it said in a statement.
"To their surprise, significant brain activity was observed in each test in specific brain regions, indicating appropriate processing of these (stimuli)."
Sharon, 84, was taken from Tel Aviv's Tel Hashomer hospital, where he has lain since 2006 to Soroka for MRI scans on Thursday and returned to Tel Aviv later the same day, Soroka said.
He was admitted to the world-renowned Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem after suffering a massive stroke on January 4, 2006. Four months later, he was moved to Tel Hashomer, where he has remained in serious but stable condition.
The Ben Gurion statement said that results of tests to assess his level of consciousness were "subtle and not as strong."
"Information from the external world is being transferred to the appropriate parts of Mr Sharon's brain," it quoted Monti as saying. "However, the evidence does not as clearly indicate whether Mr Sharon is consciously perceiving this information."
5)Soros Warns of Currency War: 'More Fireworks, More Volatility'

George Soros, one of the most outspoken critics of Germany’s proposed austerity policies to solve the European debt crisis, said the euro is here to stay and will gain as other nations seek to devalue their currencies.
Soros, who made $1 billion shorting the British pound in 1992, said that while the causes of the euro crisis haven’t been solved, the acute phase of the turmoil is over.

Germany will always do “the minimum” to preserve the currency, Soros said Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He forecast a “tense” two years for the euro region.

Yields on sovereign debt of countries from Spain to Greece have fallen since European Central Bank President Mario Draghi announced an as-yet-untapped bond-purchase plan in September last year.

Soros, reiterating his view that austerity is the wrong policy at this time, said the German insistence on tight fiscal and monetary policies means the euro will appreciate as other countries pursue more expansive policies, a situation that may lead to a currency war.

“Currencies have been remarkably stable in the last few years,” Soros said. “Now there is the making of more fireworks, more volatility.”

"I think the biggest danger is actually, potentially, a currency war," Soros said. "The rest of the world follows a different recipe from the Germans. Germans believe in austerity, and the rest of the world believes in quantitative easing," Soros added.

Soros said at the same event last year that the German-led policies risked creating tensions that could destroy the European Union. In a speech in April, he said the Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, was taking steps to limit potential losses if the euro splintered, creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Japan’s Moves

Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann has denied taking such steps, calling the allegations “ridiculous.”

Weidmann this week criticized moves by Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to devalue the yen, saying such measures risked “politicizing” the yen’s exchange rate. Soros said the extent to which Japan can push its currency lower will be limited by what the U.S. is willing to tolerate.

The momentum is for the “euro to rise and yen to fall,” Soros said. “I generally don’t know how far things go but I can see which way they are going.”
Soros said countries can only grow their way out of excessive debt and should avoid policies that lead to contractions. The U.S., the world’s largest economy, has “pretty good underlying dynamics,” he said.
Soros Fortune

“If the fiscal cliff and those issues are resolved, and the U.S. economy picks up, I think interest rates are likely to rise,” he said.

Soros, who has a $21.2 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, said there is “definitely” no near-term risk of credit bubbles, a topic that several delegates at the conference discussed yesterday.

“There is an asset bubble in China in real estate, sustained by lending in the quasi-banking system,” he said. “The real estate market in China is rising again. That, I think, is a potential bubble because of the source of financing.”


No comments: