After a tiring day, a commuter settled down in his seat and closed his eyes.
As the train rolled out of the station, the young woman sitting next to him pulled out her cell phone and started talking in a loud voice: "Hi sweetheart.
It's Sue. I'm on the train". "Yes, I know it's the six thirty and not the four thirty, but I had a long meeting".
"No, honey, not with that Kevin from the accounting office. It was with the boss".
"No sweetheart, you're the only one in my life".
"Yes, I'm sure, cross my heart!"
Fifteen minutes later, she was still talking loudly.
When the man sitting next to her had enough, he leaned over and said into the phone, "Sue, hang up the phone and come back to bed."
Sue doesn't use her cell phone in public any longer.
---
The average cost of rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Alaska was $80,000.00. At a special ceremony, two of the most expensively saved animals were being released back into the wild amid cheers and applause from onlookers.. A minute later, in full view, a killer whale ate them both.
Still think you are having a Bad Day?
---
Iraqi terrorist Khay Rahnajet didn't pay enough postage on a letter bomb. It came back with 'Return to Sender' stamped on it. Forgetting it was the bomb; he opened it and was blown to bits. Allahu Akbar!! There now, Feeling Better?
---
In characteristically straight forward terms, Canada’s foreign minister John Baird explains why his country is so supportive of Israel, and why others aren’t. (See 1 below.)
My courageous Arab-Israel friend tells it like it is and always does. Hope to see Toameh in October when I am in Israel. (See 1a below.)
---
Will the dollar survive Bernanke? (See 2 below.)
---
Hoe come Caroline Glick is not named SARAT HAASBARA (MINISTER OF INFORMATION )?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
---
SCOTUS guts Voting Act because based on outdated data. (See 3 below.)
In yesterday's duck on 'Affirmative Acton,' Justice Thomas' concurring opinion should have ruled and he should have written the majority's decision.
---
Are Blacks beginning to wise up? (See 3 below.) --- Iran expanding through Sudan to support Hezballah? Is Iran outflanking Obama? It would seem so. With Russia backing them and Obama being back downed by Putin, Iran may start sowing their oats beyond just nuclear. This should scare the hell out of the Saudis etc.. (See 4 below.) --- Haniyeh says Palestinians will never recognize Israel and yet, Obama wants Netanyahu to negotiate with an entity that has no interest in recognizing their negotiating partner. But then, Obama always plays his cards in a manner that causes him to give up any leverage. (See 5 below.) Putin is cleaning Obama's clock. But then Hillary said "What difference does it make." (See 5a below.) --- Markey beats Gomez 55 to 45. Thanks for pitching in Rove!
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Topics
John Baird is a big, friendly, open-faced, square-jawed man, who says things like “We’ve got to stand for what is right,” and “We don’t go along to get along,” and “Sometimes you’ve got to take a principled stand, even if it doesn’t make you popular,” and, of the Iranian leadership, “These people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
These are the kinds of aphorisms leaders of raw integrity might have delivered in less morally compromised times, which may not actually have ever existed. They are the unclouded philosophies of ultra-decent James Stewart movie types, or of fictional superhero fighters-for-justice, to be unleashed as villains are dispatched to the scrapheap in adventure films or on the pages of comic books.
They are not the kinds of things that Western foreign ministers tend to say in the early, hesitant years of the 21st century. Indeed, it’s reasonable to assume, they are not the kinds of things that Western foreign ministers, in the morally subverted world of realpolitik, are even capable of thinking.
But Baird is not your average Western foreign minister. And when it comes to foreign affairs, the Canadian government of Stephen Harper in which he serves is not your average Western government.
The clearest recent expression of its atypical nature? While most every country on earth, including the supposedly responsible, relatively decent Western European nations, either supported Mahmoud Abbas or abstained in last November’s UN General Assembly vote upgrading the Palestinians to nonmember state, Canada stood alongside only the US, Panama, the Czech Republic and four tiny Pacific Islands in voting with Israel against Abbas’s bid to attain sovereign recognition without the discomfort of negotiating Palestine’s modalities with Israel.
“Maybe people try to be pragmatic or, in the conduct of international affairs, worship at the altar of compromise or consensus,” Baird offered The Times of Israel by way of explanation. “I am more of a conviction politician, like Stephen Harper.”
The uncomplicated moral approach should not be mistaken for over-simplicity, however, or for an unsubtle reliance on guts and gung-ho fervor. In a lengthy interview with The Times of Israel during his visit to the region last week (he also went to Jordan and the Palestinian territories), Baird, 46, rejected the notion of easy fixes for Syria, even as he lamented the suffering of the Syrian people. He steered clear of prescriptions for Israeli-Palestinian progress, too, while urging the two sides to stop the “pettiness” and get down to negotiations.
But in many areas where his foreign minister counterparts tread warily or hedge, Baird spoke with a rare clarity. And he was unsparing, too, in addressing other states’ lapsed judgments, most notably when it comes to the international community’s attitudes to Israel.
The Times of Israel: I want to understand, first of all, why Canada is so strongly supportive of Israel. And more than that, when it seems so obvious to Israelis and apparently to you that Israel has shared values with the West, is subject to double standards on some of its policies, is uniquely stable and democratic in this part of the world, why is it that so many other countries aren’t where Canada is on Israel?
John Baird:
First and foremost, my grandfather fought in the Second World War … [and faced] the great struggles of his generation: fascism, communism. [In] the great struggle of our generation, international terrorism, far too often, the State of Israel and the Jewish people are on the front lines of that struggle. That is a global struggle and there is no room for moral relativism. We’ve got to stand for what is right, and against what is wrong.
In Israel we have a stable, liberal democracy with all kinds of warts, just like Canada and just like the United States. But I think most people — freedom-loving people anywhere in the world — would welcome it, warts and all.
I think we’ve seen what happens when the Jewish people don’t have a state. After the Holocaust, a Jewish state is so tremendously important.
You know, I was here a few years ago. I was with a friend. We were going through the Old City. He recognized the son of a family friend. The guy was 28 or 30. He was doing his two years of service in the IDF. He’s French. I said, “You’re 28, why are you doing your service in the IDF?” He said, “Oh we made aliyah later in life.”
After we left my friend told me that this man and his parents moved here because he got the snot kicked out of him once or twice — hate crimes — in France. To think that in the heart of Europe, that sort of stuff still happens. Stunning, absolutely stunning.
That’s why it’s so tremendously important to have a Jewish state. I do find that in the international institutions – when you find sometimes 25 percent of the resolutions are against Israel, it’s just totally disproportionate. And a total pile-on.
And under Stephen Harper, we don’t go along to get along. It’s a lot easier to shut up and to go with the crowd, but sometimes you’ve got to take a principled stand, even if it doesn’t make you popular.
And I should say two things. One is that in Canada, one percent of the population is Jewish, 3.6 percent is Muslim or Arab. My own constituency, I have 2,800 Jews, with 11,500 Muslims or Arabs, and we have strict campaign finances: 1,200 dollars [maximum donation], that’s it. So we don’t have big money involved. We do it out of moral conviction. I think we should stand up for what is right.
All of which you state as the blindingly obvious. And it seems to many Israelis to be blindingly obvious. And yet what ought to be consensual and obvious positions are atypical to the extent that in the vote in the UN last year on Palestinian statehood, it was Israel, Canada and seven others, four of whom you’d struggle to find on the map, who voted against the Palestinians’ upgraded status. Your position is not one of global consensus at all. It is an aberration. It marks you along with Israel on the margins of international consensus. Why is that? The Organization of Islamic States, the non-aligned nations, it’s not hard to understand where their instinctive positions are. But the supposed barometer, responsible states – the Western European states – in that resolution, for example, they abstained or voted for the
Palestinian upgrade. Why is it that they don’t see it in the obvious way that you see it?
There’s a natural tendency to support what they see as the underdog, moral relativism.
What does that mean?
Moral relativism is, “Well, I know that these people were terrorists, but they were marginalized and in a difficult place and you’ve got to understand where they come from, and it’s difficult, and if only people treated them nicer” — that sort of thought.
I strongly support a two-state solution. I was in Ramallah yesterday with the Palestinian prime minister and President Abbas. I think we have a good relationship. With that, we have honest differences of opinion and I don’t mind speaking out publicly or privately about what my views are. I think that sometimes, for various reasons, our prime minister has a lot of moral courage. And we’re very like-minded in terms of our positions.
I come from Britain, as you may have gathered from my accent, although a long time ago. In Britain, there are many more Muslims than Jews. The most popular boy’s name for years now is Mohammed. In France, there are ten times as many Muslims as Jews. Is it political pragmatism [that shapes their policies]? The demographics of some of these countries?
Absolutely.
I followed Tony Blair closely when he was prime minister. One of the reasons that he began to lose popularity was his perceived irrational support for Israel and his sensible position about the nature of terrorism. In parts of western Europe, including Britain, there seems to be this disinclination to believe that you have an Islamist, extremist threat to your country.
Maybe people try to be pragmatic or, in the conduct of international affairs, worship at the altar of compromise or consensus. I’m not totally unpragmatic but I am more of a conviction politician, like Stephen Harper.
I was in Jordan two and a half weeks ago for a World Economic Forum gathering. I got the sense that they’re seeing all sorts of chaos unfolding around them, and there’s a certain caution about being too revolutionary in Jordan. I found it to be relatively stable. Was that your sense as well?
We have a very close relationship with Jordan and with His Majesty’s government. We have provided just now a hundred million dollars for development — a big chunk of which was to support Jordan in dealing with the refugees.
I am always worried about the stability of like-minded friends and allies. I think His Majesty has had a difficult challenge in how do you balance off civil society, and prosperity, and the needs of a country, with the honorable aspirations of reformers. I think he’s accelerated some of the things that he was already doing, but it’s a tough balancing act. I said about Libya and Gaddafi’s decline: You don’t go from Gaddafi to Thomas Jefferson overnight. And I think you’ve got to recognize that [fact] if you go from a civil society, which is an honorable, aspirational goal, on the way to what we would see as more of a concept of democracy.
Freedom is the end goal. Democracy is one of the means to freedom. Obviously Jordan is a peace-loving society, dealing with a lot of big challenges. The fifth-largest city in Jordan now is a refugee camp. Twelve percent of the population are Syrian refugees and the fact is that they have been so decent and giving, to welcome these people in. They have buses to go to the border and transport these people, so they’ve been very generous. And we should be very, very mindful that this is a struggle over basic things like water and education, employment.
Syria has produced some surreal situations here. We had a story last week on our website about this four-year old Syrian girl who came from Jordan for life-saving surgery here— from a Jordan refugee camp to a hospital in Israel. We had a guy in the hospital last week who came with a note from his doctor in Syria – they found a note on his person – saying “Here’s how we tried to treat him, maybe you can do more, because we really haven’t got the capacity.” There’s extraordinary stuff going on as a consequence of the Syrian civil war.
It is. How someone who has ruled over his people, whose family has ruled for all these years, could watch the devastation and the suffering of these people, and could allow this to go on.
And hasn’t the West failed as a moral actor here in allowing this to continue?
If there is an easy solution to this, we haven’t found it. I suspect that there are a lot of good minds on it.
My colleagues and I in the West, my counterparts in the West — this does haunt us, finding the solution. What worked in Libya doesn’t necessarily work in Syria… I was recently in Baghdad, the security situation, the sectarian violence there, the influence of Iran, is deeply concerning as well. There’s no easy solution, there’s no one-size-fits all solution.
Obviously, my conclusion is that there’s only one way to end the suffering of the Syrian people, and that’s through a political solution. But if one side gets the upper hand, they’re less open to that. The real fear is sectarian violence – the minorities there, whether they be Palestinians, Druze, Alawites, Kurds, Christians – the real fear is that there’ll be a slaughter, a slaughter of those special sects.
What do you make of the new Iranian president? We have our typical Israeli range of responses – President Peres talking about, well, maybe this is a little bit encouraging, and Prime Minister Netanyahu saying, don’t be fooled. This guy doesn’t set policy and he’s not exactly a reformist either. On the other hand, he was the candidate that the reformists backed, so perhaps that says something about the Iranian public? What’s your sense?
You know, I’m not a pessimist and not an optimist. I’m a realist. The nuclear program, which is the chief of the big concerns we have with the regime in Tehran, is not controlled by the prime minister. It’s controlled by the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] and those around him. Only a select six of several hundred people were even allowed to contest the presidential election, so this is by no means a free and fair election. And if he [incoming president Hasan Rouhani] wants me to say something kind or generous, he’s going to have to solicit that by his actions, not by any perceived notion of him being a reformer. These people don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Are we at the end in terms of diplomacy [on Iran's nuclear program]?
There’s always a reason to wait another two or three months.
Even now, when they may be less than two or three months from…?
If they want to prove the naysayers wrong, they can make meaningful progress with the P5+1. I’m pessimistic on that but I hope to be proven wrong.
But you’d give it another two or three months?
We waited two or three months during this election period since the last meetings chaired by Catharine Ashton. A peacemaker — there’s no more noble action in the world. I hope they can make progress, but this process is nearing the end, and should have been nearing the end in my judgment. If Iran wants to seek out concrete, meaningful solutions to this, they have the opportunity to demonstrate to the world in the coming weeks that they’ll do that…
And if they don’t…
And you have someone [in Rouhani, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator] who doesn’t need to have any time to read up on the files. This person does not need anytime to be briefed up.
And if at the end of two or three months there isn’t some kind of concrete evidence…?
I think fair and reasonable people will have shown that they have taken every reasonable measure, every diplomatic measure, to try to successfully bring this to a conclusion.
Short of intervention. And then comes the time for intervention?
I’ll just leave it at that.
There was the prime minister, and [PA Foreign Minister] Mr. Al-Malki, who I got to know well and have a good relationship with. And we had my fourth or fifth meeting with President Abbas and it was good and constructive. I found him in a good mood, you know.
He didn’t say to you, Why are you so gung-ho, pro-Israel?
You know, listen, I respect his right to have his position and I think he respects Canada’s right to have their position. We engage with the Palestinians, we work with the Palestinians, we’ve been a major development partner with the Palestinians, also with the United States in Operation Proteus on security and justice development and reform, humanitarian assistance. We announced 25 million dollars in humanitarian aid. We discussed security stuff with them yesterday.
I found [Abbas] in a better mood than he has been. He seems incredibly engaged with John Kerry’s mission. I encouraged him, as I will with my Israel interlocutors. I’m not one who believes that this is the last chance for peace and the last chance for a two-state solution, but I think it’s the best chance and it’s right on our doorstep and both sides should take advantage of this American leadership. John Kerry, from his first day in office, has jumped head first into this. I think his is an extraordinary effort that deserves and merits full support.
I did find in my last meeting here with Prime Minister Netanyahu that he was and that his government was incredibly engaged. His comments on forming a new government after the elections were warm and generous. His appointment of Tzipi Livni [to oversee peace efforts with the Palestinians] is, I think, an olive branch, and we hope to see the Palestinians make a similar [move, and] come to this discussion with a similar approach.
Your meeting [in April] with Livni in [her Justice Ministry office in] East Jerusalem became controversial. Is Canada setting down some kind of a marker about East Jerusalem or was it just a convenient place to meet the minister?
Listen, I’m a visiting minister. I met with all four or five of the leaders of the coalition. I met with her in her office – it was coffee, and nothing more. I’ll go with any peace-loving person who wants to talk about peace, I’ll meet them anywhere to discuss that. I think we’ve got to move beyond these petty issues.
A minister in the previous Canadian government that we replaced, our minister of justice, had met with the [Israeli] minister of justice [in the same ministry building] and despite the media in Canada knowing that, they didn’t report it. Our position on that issue is unchanged.
As long as we’re debating a Canadian minister having coffee on this side of the street or that side of the street, as long as we’re debating why Israel can or cannot give treatments to cure the cancer of a dying Palestinian terrorist, as long as we’re debating these types of things, we’re not going to move forward. And we’ve got to stop this pettiness, in my judgment. On both sides.
And from Abbas, you sensed a certain…
This was my third visit to Ramallah. The most negative person on Canada’s relationship with the Palestinian Authority once again was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, by far. At a factor of a hundred times more negative than the Palestinians. Even though the two of them there [from the CBC] I had helped get out of jail in Turkey three days ago.
If anything, I think our relationship with the Palestinian Authority, certainly in the last seven years, has been at a high point, with honest differences of opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that. We have honest differences of opinion with the United States on some issues. There’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t mean you can’t have a good relationship.
We strongly support, strongly support a two-state solution. We want to see the Palestinians live in dignity, live in prosperity. We want to see a Jewish state where people live in security. We want to see that happen. This is the reason why this is one of most intractable problems in the world today.
In Jordan at the WEF event, Abbas made a speech that basically expressed bafflement with Israel: Why wouldn’t you pull out of the West Bank and trust us? We would never harm you, and so on. It seemed to be disingenuous, as did the appeal to the UN and the refusal to engage directly.
My view is the most fundamental foundation for constructive dialogue and peace is you’ve got to stop this hyperbole and this rhetoric on both sides.
I felt Abbas yesterday to be very engaged, in a good mood, better than I’ve seen him in recent times. He brought out a cake for my assistant Oren’s 30th birthday. He brought out a cake, sang happy birthday to him. Oren was born in Eilat. [We went] from coffee in East Jerusalem to cake in Ramallah.
1a)Palestinians: "No Jews Allowed!"
The next time U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visits Ramallah, will he actually violate U.S. law to make sure there are no Jews among his entourage, lest he upset his Palestinian hosts?
"We will approve the meeting on condition there are no Jews."
This is what you are likely to hear these days if you request a meeting with any senior Palestinian Authority official in the West Bank .
Palestinian journalists who try to arrange meetings or interviews with Palestinian Authority representatives for Western colleagues have become used to hearing such things almost on a daily basis.
Just last week, for example, a journalist who requested a meeting between Western journalists and a top Palestinian Authority official was told "to make sure there were no Jews or Israelis" among the visitors.
The official's aide went on to explain: "We are sorry, but we do not meet with Jews or Israelis."
Another Palestinian journalist who tried to arrange an interview with a Palestinian Authority official for a European colleague was turned down "because the man's name indicates he is a Jew."
In yet another recent incident, a Palestinian Authority ministry instructed its guards to "prevent Jewish reporters" from attending an event in Ramallah.
It is not clear at this stage if the Palestinian Authority leadership is behind the boycott of Jews and Israelis who seek to meet with its representatives.
What is clear is that Palestinian Authority officials do not hesitate to state in public that they do not want to meet with any Jew or Israeli.
The Palestinian Authority representatives assume that if you are a Jew, then you must be pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian.
The only people with whom they want to meet are those who support the Palestinians and do not ask difficult questions.
That is why the Palestinian Authority earlier this year imposed severe restrictions on the work of non-Palestinian journalists in the territories under its control in the West Bank .
Now, any journalist who wants to visit a Palestinian city or meet with a top Palestinian official needs to get permission in advance from the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information.
Even the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate in the West Bank has come out in support of the restrictions. The syndicate has even gone a step further by urging the Palestinian Authority leadership to ban Israeli journalists from entering Palestinian cities and working there without permission.
Some Israeli journalists covering Palestinian affairs, however, continue to defy the ban by visiting Ramallah and other Palestinian cities -- putting their lives at risk.
There were days when Israeli and Palestinian journalists used to work together and help each other in reporting the news. But those days were long before the Palestinian Authority and its representatives started promoting boycotts against Israelis.
It now remains to be seen how Palestinians will react when and if they see their leaders in the West Bank return to the negotiating table with Israel , or meet with a Jewish Congressman or politician.
The next time U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visits Ramallah, will he actually violate U.S. law to make sure there are no Jews among his entourage lest he upset his Palestinian hosts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Axel Merk to Moneynews: US Dollar Is the 'Last Domino Standing'
The dollar is one of the few financial assets to thrive since Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated last Wednesday that the Fed may taper its quantitative easing (QE) soon.
But the dollar's strength won't last long, Axel Merk, chief investment officer of Merk Investments, told Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview. The Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against six major currencies, gained 2 percent from Tuesday's low through Friday. "In many ways, the dollar is like the last domino standing," Merk said. "Remember, in 2008, there was a flight to the dollar as well. But the other asset class that did well was Treasurys. Well this time around, there is no hiding in Treasurys." The yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose from 2.54 percent Friday to 2.59 percent Monday, the highest level in almost two years. "Some people are saying the dollar's going to be doing great: we have all of this tightening happening at the Fed and what not," he noted. "Well, guess what? We just think that is the last bubble out there." While Bernanke sees a smooth exit from QE, "We also like to have cupcakes for dessert," he quipped. "The challenge is, of course, his exit won't happen. The market says we don’t want this exit because, guess what? We are addicted to this easy money." The dollar is benefiting now from "liquidity" now, not "quality," Merk explained. "In the U.S., the great thing is you can take your money out. That's why people are putting money in in times of crisis." Still, the euro has held its own against the dollar over the last year, he stated. Indeed, it gained 4.8 percent against the greenback during that period. And the dollar's recent strength doesn't help most U.S. investors in any case, as their investments are always denominated in dollars. Meanwhile, the recent severe correction in gold represents an attractive buying opportunity, Merk suggested. Gold has plunged more than 20 percent so far this year, trading at $1,275 Monday. "We like it when volatility is up," he said. "When gold goes up for 12 years in a row, ... at some point, somebody's going to sell, and then everybody piles in with a vengeance. It's more symptomatic of the markets in general that when liquidity dries up, we can plunge." As for the long term, "we're quite bullish on gold simply because there's too much debt in the world," Merk explained. "Europeans may try austerity but, in the rest of world, we'll use the printing press." And it's not as if there's a more attractive safe-haven investment. "You've got to realize there is no safe haven in the world left," he stressed. "And that's one of the reasons we argue you've got to diversify to purchase something as mundane as cash. If you hold cash, dollar cash, you're purchasing power is at risk. So gold is one of the tools you may want to have in your toolbox." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Times change: SCOTUS guts Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote Tuesday, struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that singles out part of the country for special treatment.
The outlawed provision, Section 4, identifies all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South. A separate provision, Section 5, not struck down by the Supreme Court, forces them to get permission -- or "preclearance" -- from the U.S. Justice Department or a three-judge federal panel in Washington to make any changes in how people vote in their jurisdictions, no matter how innocuous.
But without the identifying the parts of the country affected, the "preclearance" requirement is meaningless.
The landmark ruling frees up many parts of the country that have a history of discriminating against minorities from federal supervision.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the conditions that required Washington supervision no longer apply. Four other conservatives joined him. The court's four liberals dissented.
The core provisions of the Voting Rights Act were challenged by Shelby County, Ala. The "covered jurisdictions" of the act include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, most of Virginia, and bits and pieces elsewhere.
The lower courts ruled for the act, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying Section 4 is unconstitutional because the purpose of the act no longer reflects conditions in the covered jurisdictions.
"Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in Section 2 [of the act]," Roberts said. "We issue no holding on Section 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions. Such a formula is an initial prerequisite to a determination that exceptional conditions still exist justifying such an 'extraordinary departure from the
traditional course of relations between the states and the federal government.
"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by the three other liberals.
"In the [court majority's] view, the very success of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy," she said. "Congress was of another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous record, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extirpated. The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, Section 5 remains justifiable, [the Supreme Court or Congress]."
The 1965 Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly re-enacted by Congress in 2004.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Prominent Blacks Deserting the Liberal Plantation By Rosslyn Smith In the last few months we have seen the rise to national prominence of the conservative Dr. Ben Carson of Maryland, the surprise emergence of Bishop E.W. Jackson as the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor in Virginia, and now Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory has switched parties with a video that has gone viral. During this period Republican Congressman Tim Scott also became the junior US Senator from South Carolina. Note, too, that about a year ago former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis switched parties.
The media loves to talk about tokenism when it addresses the issue of black Republicans but there is a tipping point at which this becomes a trend that can't be dismissed, even if the likes of Chris Matthews insist there are currently no blacks in the US Senate.
Two factors may be happening here. Black men -- other than educated elites such as Obama -- have tended to have been treated pretty shabbily by the politically correct elite establishment, especially when they insist on speaking their own minds. Note also that since the 1960s most social spending has been concentrated on programs for women and children. Black women with college degrees now far outnumber black men with college degrees. Unemployment remains a huge problem for black men as does the continuing decline of stable, intact families. One does not have to read very deeply in publication aimed at black audiences to see that the culture wide war on men can be waged with particular nastiness in parts of the black community, due in large part to the disparity in education and career prospects between men and women. While they constantly bemoan the lack of well educated, employed and thus "marriageable" black men, the black women in these publications seldom, if ever, consider reforming a system that has bestowed them with both credentials and highly paid, secure jobs, often on the government payroll. I noted with some interest that in last year's election the one portion of the black demographic where Obama lost support in percentage terms from 2008 was among black men. This could be significant not just because black men haven't done well under Obama. It's been my experience that men in general are often more willing than women to buck the conventional wisdom.
In the 1940s and 50s, largely young black males in the civil rights movement would ask their elders what has 80 years of loyal support for the party of Lincoln actually gotten our people? The answer too often was a lot of patronizing lip service and not much else ever since a war weary North abandoned Southern Reconstruction and allowed the establishment of Jim Crow. (Yes, Republicans have traditionally supported civil rights but the significant changes only happened when a critical mass of liberal Democrats joined with them after WWII.)
Now we seem to have other black men asking what 60 years of solid support for the Democrats has gotten black voters. And they don't like the answer -- dependency on a government more interested in retaining power than in genuinely helping people.
It took over thirty years for black voters to turn from a reliable Republican voting block to a Democrat monolith. It won't change back overnight, but are we seeing the first cracks in the Democrats' black voting block?
Added to the mixture of things to consider is that the above black men live in former slave states and that the South is currently seeing a reversal of the black migration wave north of the mid-20th century. Politics tends to attracts ambitious people who are driven to succeed. For an ambitious young black man whose family moved to a Northern city from the Mississippi Delta in 1950, this usually meant becoming a member of an urban Democrat machine, simply because those machines controlled most Northern cities. Are the ambitious young black men born in today's South finding that more doors to statewide office may open up if they join the Republican Party? Perhaps too they may note that one of the ironies of the creation of minority majority legislative districts has been that few of those Democrat minority legislators ever seem to get elected to statewide office. If this is indeed a trend, what can be done to encourage it? An example may be found in the interesting example of Paul McKinley, the black Republican candidate in the special election this past April to fill the seat vacated by Jesse Jackson, Jr. It's a tough district for any Republican to win, but McKinley's strong anti-Democrat machine rhetoric seemed to appeal to what appeared to be a significant "had enough" element there. McKinley, a former felon who had paid his debt to society, openly attacked the Chicago Political Machine at every chance even as he fought a long rearguard action against some of the nincompoop politicos who have long controlled the Republican Party of Illinois. He ended up getting 22% of the vote, better than most Republicans running in heavily black districts, but clearly only a start.
Was McKinley an ideal candidate? Certainly not, but just as Lincoln could not spare the far from perfect General Grant because he fought, the Republican party of 2013 cannot spare any black candidate willing to do battle in hostile territory. Those pundits who purport to speak for the Republican Party to the press would be wise to remember the words of Saul Alinsky before they bemoan a certain lack of traditional Republican gentility among the people one may become allied with in a common political cause.
I don't think it is a coincidence that this apparent trend of the rise of black Republicans seems to coincide with the rise of the Tea Party with its emphasis in the candidate selection process on the soundness of basic principles over the acquisition of credentials. It is indeed a blessing to attract candidates with ivy in their resumes as well as a willingness to fight, but converts should not be sneered upon, nor should those whose life took a less conventional path be dismissed out of hand. This is particularly true when the candidate offers an opportunity to reach a new block of voters -- or to create fractures in an existing Democrat voting bloc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Iran secretly building in Port Sudan military supply base for Syria, Hizballah
A logistics base for handling tanks, missile systems, self-propelled artillery and other heavy weaponry bound for Syria and Hizballah is secretly under construction in a section of Port Sudan which Omar al Bashir has leased to Tehran.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards engineers in civilian dress are overseeing the hundreds of Sudanese workmen laboring flat out to build Iran’s second Red Sea base after Assab in southern Eritrea.
As a safeguard against an Israeli strike, the new Iranian facility abuts directly on Port Sudan's oil exporting installations, through which South Sudan, Israel’s ally, exports its oil, the new republic’s only source of revenue which also pays for its purchases of Israeli arms.
To give the military port a civilian aspect and suggest that Iranian warships no longer visit the port, Tehran has switched to commercial cargo vessels and oil tankers for delivering weapons for its Syrian and Hizballah allies through Port Sudan.
Still, Western intelligence sources watching the work are certain that the new Iranian facility is a military port in every sense of the word. It is similar to the Russian naval base built at the Syrian port of Tartus, except for being twice as large and capable of accommodating Iran’s largest war ships as well as submarines. Tehran is taking advantage of the strong military and intelligence ties it has developed with Sudan’s ruler Bashir for streamlining the weapons supply route to its embattled allies.
The Iranian section of the port has a fence with watchtowers and will soon acquire air defense systems. It is guarded by Revolutionary Guards sentries wearing civilian clothes and Sudanese soldiers. The new facility will enable Iran to transfer larger shipments of heavier weapons than the air corridor used until now to drop military equipment for the Syrian and Hizballah armies. The light and medium hardware will continue to be delivered by air, but the sea route for the heavy stuff will be cut in half by the large weapons depot the Iranians are building at the Sudanese Red Sea port. This will make it possible to ship items to their destination from the Red Sea through Suez and on to the Mediterranean to meet needs arising urgently from war crises in Syria or potential conflicts with Israel. Neither the US, Egypt or Israel has so far interfered with Iranian arms freighters navigating the Suez Canal on their way to Syria and the Lebanese Hizballah.
The Israeli Air Force has in the past struck four weapons convoys or targets in the Port Sudan area – two each in 2009 and in 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Haniyeh: Palestinians will not recognize Israel
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Tuesday that
Palestinians would not recognize Israel, despite the siege on Gaza and two
wars.
"We had two wars in which hundreds of people died, and thousands of acres of
land were destroyed, but Palestinians did not and will not recognize Israel," the Gaza premier said as he welcomed international activists to the enclave.
Haniyeh said Israel's blockade aimed to limit the influence of the Islamic
model outside the Gaza Strip, and to isolate Palestine in an attempt to force Palestinians to recognize Israel and accept the conditions of the Mideast Quartet.
The premier thanked activists who came to Palestine, describing solidarity
visits as a holy duty, and he urged more supporters to come.
Haniyeh said aid groups who visited Gaza in solidarity had a political and a
humanitarian message, showing that Gaza did not stand alone.
"These groups, along with the help of God and the Palestinian steadfastness,
eased the siege," he added.
The Hamas leader highlighted his government's efforts to generate support
for Jerusalem.
"The (Israeli) occupation built a hundred synagogues around al-Aqsa to
deceive the world and falsify facts," he added.
Haniyeh also called on Palestinians to support of the Arab and Palestinian
prisoners of Israel, particularly those on hunger strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama’s “reset” with Russia is really going well, don’t you think?
Russia is defying America by granting Edward Snowden, who exposed some of the most classified secrets of our government, safe haven as he continues to elude capture. As Reutersreports:
Washington was stung by Russian defiance… The White House said it expected the Russian government to send Snowden back to the United States and lodged ‘strong objections’ to Hong Kong and China for letting him go. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to India that it would be “deeply troubling” if Moscow defied the United States over Snowden, and said the fugitive “places himself above the law, having betrayed his country”. But the Russian government ignored the appeal and President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary denied any knowledge of Snowden’s movements. Asked if Snowden had spoken to the Russian authorities, [Dmitry] Peskov said: “Overall, we have no information about him.” This comes on top of Russia defying America’s wishes in the Syrian civil war, with Russia once again reasserting its presence in the Middle East after having been essentially expelled from there in the 1970s (a product of Henry Kissinger’s masterful diplomacy). Russia was an early and strong supporter of the Assad regime, while America is a late and weak supporter of the rebel groups. President Obama wants Russia to help us; Putin wants Assad to win. And thanks in good measure to Russia, Assad (and hence Iran) is winning. The Syrian debacle comes in the aftermath of Obama scrapping in 2009 a missile-defense system the Poles and the Czech Republic had agreed to house despite Russian threats, as a way to pacify Putin. (“The U.S. reversal is likely to please Russia, which had fiercely opposed the plans,” CNN reported at the time.) Add to that Putin’s support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and his crackdown at home. (The Washington Post writes that in “an attempt to suppress swelling protests against his rigged reelection and the massively corrupt autocracy he presides over, Mr. Putin has launched what both Russian and Western human rights groups describe as the most intense and pervasive campaign of political repression since the downfall of the Soviet Union.”). Taken all together, you can see that the Obama “reset”–which at the dawn of the Obama administration was described as a “win-win” strategy for both nations–has been a rout for the Russians. With the Snowden situation, Vladimir Putin seems intent not only defying America but embarrassing her. It turns out that an irresolute amateur like Barack Obama was the best thing that the brutal but determined Putin could have hoped for. He’s cleaning Obama’s clock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Putin Cleaning Obama's Clock and Iran is Aware of It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment