===
LTE to local paper:
After Obama was first elected he trotted off to Cairo and made a speech apologizing for America's
arrogant behaviour. Shortly thereafter we experienced the Arab Spring, the rise of The Muslim Brotherhood and the recovery of al Qaeda. But bin Laden was dead!!!
Now Obama is lecturing Egypt's military on how to respond to rioting.
Syria is in flames, Iran is pursuing nuclear devices and Obama's foreign policy is in shambles. The only thing foreign about his policies are their remoteness to logic and effectiveness. Is Obama about to act? (See 2 and 2a below.)
Switch to the domestic scene and the adage: ' if you want more of something fund it' is increasingly evident as poverty and food stamp demand escalates. The economic recovery is tepid and unemployment remains high.
Obama now wants to remove government from the mortgage business but insists it take over health care. More evidence of his purposeful destruction of our Republic and personal freedoms. (See 2b below.)
Liberal and progressive embrace of PC'ism made it virtually impossible for black fathers to compete against Uncle Sam's welfare largess so single family numbers have increased and government intrusion in state school systems has basically ruined education.
Congress remains impotent, so Obama circumvents The Founder's check and balance system by operating outside Constitutional constraints. Obama knows what he is doing. He is radicalizing our nation with his change. (See 2c and 2d below.)
Even murder on an army base is deemed work place violence.
You would think Americans would be taking to the streets but The Tea Partyers have been bagged by the press and media and we remain passive, uninformed dolts having allowed ourselves to be anesthetized by lies, inept leadership , dependency and distrust.
We are told scandals are contrived and "what difference does it make" rules the day. Meanwhile, a once proud, can do people suck their thumbs in a fetal position.
If I have overstated the case I am sure the Center's of the world will respond with their own contrived version of the truth. (See 3 below.)
===
More regarding future defenses in the event of missile attacks against Israel. (See 4 below.)
===
Toameh on Hamas and Iranian peace moves. (See 5 below.)
====
6) Stop QE 3 before it queers the nation's economy? (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)We Ignore Japan at Our Peril6) Stop QE 3 before it queers the nation's economy? (See 6 below.)
===
|
===
|
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the deepening rift between the United States and Japan, and the folly of appointing a completely unqualified Caroline Kennedy as the U.S. ambassador to Japan. If there ever was a time to have an experienced ambassador with solid credentials, it is now.
Just as the U.S.-led effort to create the multi-lateral Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the largest free-trade agreement in history — is gaining traction, which would open Asia for U.S. exports and create millions of jobs, U.S. union autoworkers have started delivering to Washington petitions demanding trade concessions. This on the very day that Japan formally announced it will join the TPP initiative, which would cover 40 percent of the global economy.
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, William Mauldin quoted U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman, who suggested that "Right now all foreign penetration of the Japanese auto market is 6 percent, and so everyone believes there's a long way to go before we can really say the Japanese market is open. The concern with Japan isn't tariffs but 'a number of voluntary measures that have been employed over the years that have had an adverse effect on auto imports, whether it's from the U.S. or Korea or Europe.'"
The TPP is such an important trade initiative that we cannot allow auto unions to derail it. Instead of building cars that American consumers want, Detroit is worried that moves to eliminate U.S. tariffs will boost sales of Japanese cars.
The solution? Build better cars at competitive prices that will meet the demand of U.S. consumers with wages and benefits that can be justified. We can then export them, as TPP eliminates current trade barriers. The economic ramifications are enormous. Do we want Caroline Kennedy to manage this?
In my book, Conscientious Equity, I noted that burgeoning trade deficits put us in a tenuous position with countries like China and Japan. This threat looms as large as any military threat we face and may even present a weak spot where damage could be inflicted on us suddenly and devastatingly.
The U.S. goods trade deficit with Japan increased from $63.2 billion in 2011 to $76.3 billion in 2012, an increase of 20.3 percent. This underscores the powerful impact a free trade agreement with Japan would have, as expanding U.S. exports would dramatically reduce the trade deficit, or even reverse it.
Throughout most of the 20th century, Japan and the United States were among the world's largest economic powers. Together they account for over 30 percent of world domestic product.
Although Japan remains important economically to the United States, its importance has slid, as it has been edged out by other trade partners. In 1989, Japan was the largest source of U.S. imports and the second largest U.S. export market. By the end of 2009, Japan was the our fourth-largest merchandise export market (behind Canada, Mexico and China) and the fourth-largest source for U.S. merchandise imports (behind Canada, Mexico and China) and remained so in 2012.
And this comes on the heels of a report by the Council on Foreign Relations, which noted in the World Policy Journal the "rising threat perceptions of North Korea and China," including Pyongyang firing missiles over the Japanese mainland.
North Korea remains a big risk for Asia and the entire world as Kim Jong-un continues to engage in "nuclear brinksmanship." Japan is rightfully concerned about its security, and has launched Iron Fist, a ramped up military exercise to address these threats.
The danger is that if Japan no longer depends fully on the United States as a safeguard, Japan may begin accelerating its military preparedness, leading inevitably to an arms race with neighboring states, including China, North and South Korea and Russia. This would surely raise the spectrum of a potential armed conflict.
Since 1947, Japan's constitution has forbidden the formation of a traditional military force. The country has maintained only a Self Defense Force (SDF), the mission of which has been to protect the Japanese mainland. Even within these limitations, the SDF has performed a supporting role for U.S. troops based in Japan in exchange for promises of protection. Some experts now see this dynamic shifting.
The Council on Foreign Relation also suggested that "there are increasing concerns from within Japan that the United States might not always embrace its role as Japan's protector, should the political landscape in East Asia begin to crumble."
"There is some concern that the U.S. might not be there when Japan needs its support," said Yuko Nakano, research associate at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. "When there was a [North Korean] Taepo Dong missile launch in 1998, a conspiracy theory appeared in the Japanese press that the United States was aware of the launch but didn't inform Japan in a timely fashion. So yes, I think this is a concern of the Japanese."
If the looming threat of a trade war and possibly a real war in the balance doesn't get the attention of congressional leaders to appoint a credentialed U.S. Japanese ambassador, we may look back at this as a pivotal moment in the history when the United States failed to protect its economy and its peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)New Centcom underground war room in Amman for US intervention in Syria
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Amman this week to inaugurate the Centcom’s Forward Command in Jordan manned by 273 US officers. US media correspondents were permitted to visit the new war room for the first time on condition of non-disclosure of its location and secret facilities. Military sources report that the installation is bomb- and missile-proof against a possible Syrian attack. The US Air Force command section is in direct communication with the US, Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi Air Force headquarters ready for an order by President Barack Obama to impose a partial no-fly zone over Syrian air space.
Another section is designed to coordinate operations between US and Jordanian special forces, as well as the units trained in commando combat by US instructors in Jordan. A closed section houses CIA personnel who control the work of US agents going in and out of Syria and also a communications center.
In his briefing to US forces Thursday, Aug. 15, Gen. Dempsey commented: “Jordan lives in a very volatile region and at a very critical time in its history. They can count on us to continue to be their partner.”
He suggested that the operation could continue well into next year or beyond.
Situated atop the underground facility is a large surface structure accommodating the American military and civilian offices dealing with Syrian issues from Jordan. It is guarded by US and Jordanian security units.
There are today some 1,000 US military personnel in the Hashemite Kingdom, plus a squadron of F-16 fighters and several Patriot anti-missile batteries strung along the Jordanian-Syrian border to shield Jordanian and American bases and the capital, Amman.
Obama’s final decision on US military intervention – consisting of a no fly and a buffer zone in Syria – is expected in the coming two to three weeks, depending on Dempsey’s recommendations upon his return to Washington after checking out preparations in Israel and Jordan. In neither operation will US boots touch Syrian soil.
The buffer zone in the south up to Damascus would be captured by 3,000 rebels trained in special operations tactics and armed by US forces in Jordan. Jordanian special forces are to spearhead the operation under US command.
Assad may take the fight outside his borders by launching missiles against Israel, Jordan and maybe Turkey.
Hizballah may join in with rocket attacks on Israel. Iran will beef up its active military presence in Syria and Jordan. And Russian Rapid Intervention units are on standby for saving Assad at their Black Sea and South Caucasian bases
Hizballah may join in with rocket attacks on Israel. Iran will beef up its active military presence in Syria and Jordan. And Russian Rapid Intervention units are on standby for saving Assad at their Black Sea and South Caucasian bases
2a) President Obama's foreign policy image takes hit with Egypt upheaval
President Obama's foreign policy image has taken a hit from violence in Egypt that has left more than 600 people dead.
The Egyptian military's crackdown — which came after the administration declined to call its toppling of President Mohammed Morsi a coup — has made Obama look powerless on the international stage, and raised criticism of his Middle East policy. The impression of aloofness was reinforced by images of the president golfing in Martha's Vineyard throughout the week's violence.
“We have lost nearly all credibility — and therefore leverage — in Egypt,” the chairwoman of the House Middle East panel, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), said Friday. “The United States must take a firm stance and not dither in order to encourage both sides to get back on track toward democracy.”
Even some Democrats are calling for a change in course beyond Obama's announcement Thursday that he's canceling next month's joint military exercises in Cairo. They say the administration should immediately freeze U.S. aid to the country and forcefully demand a return to democracy.
“While suspending joint military exercises as the president has done is an important step, our law is clear: Aid to the Egyptian military should cease unless they restore democracy,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate panel that controls spending for the State Department and foreign operations.
In a joint statement Friday, hawkish Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also urged the president to immediately call Morsi's July 3 ouster a military coup and suspend $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid.
“The interim civilian government and security forces – backed up, unfortunately, by the military – are taking Egypt down a dark path, one that the United States cannot and should not travel with them,” they said. “We cannot be complicit in the mass slaughter of civilians.”
And the Times' editorial board opined that it was "past time" for Obama to reverse decades of unquestioning support for Egypt's military.
Some experts think the damage is already done.
“People on different sides – whether it's Arab governments or opposition groups – don't take the U.S. seriously,” said Shadi Hamid, the director of research for the Brookings Doha Center who has lived in the region for the past four years and was in Egypt this week. “There is a widespread perception that Obama is a weak, feckless leader. That's not just Republican talking points – it's what people here in the region actually think and say on a regular basis.”
Hamid said there's an “emerging consensus that Obama has gotten the Middle East wrong” because he's convinced the United States only has limited power to shape events in the region. As a result, Hamid told The Hill, Obama missed a chance to embrace the Arab Spring by strongly opposing Bahrain's crackdown on protesters, intervening early on in Syria's uprising against Bashar Assad and labeling Morsi's ouster a coup.
“It sends a very dangerous message if the U.S. is not even willing to respect its own law on matters of national security,” Hamid said. “The fact that we can't call things what they are makes us a laughing-stock in the region. That's why people don't care about what Obama says and his rhetoric.”
The White House declined to comment. The administration has argued that ending aid to Egypt would weaken U.S. influence while warning the Egyptian military that U.S. policy would be conditioned on events going forward.
Obama has sought to shift the focus back on Egyptians.
“America cannot determine the future of Egypt. That’s a task for the Egyptian people,” he said during a brief break from his vacation on Thursday. “We don’t take sides with any particular party or political figure. I know it’s tempting inside of Egypt to blame the United States or the West or some other outside actor for what’s gone wrong.”
Hamid said the repercussions of this week's violence will haunt the United States for years to come.
While U.S. leaders and the public may wish to extricate the country from the Middle East, he predicted, the administration's weak response to the brutal crackdown against democratically elected Islamists will only fuel more terrorism.
“When you keep on waiting to take action and you keep on pushing things forward until some later date, you really run the risk that at the end of the day things are so much worse,” Hamid said. “Sometimes the time to act is very early on in conflicts.”
2b)
Subject: New Orleans lawyer
Part of rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, caused residents often to be challenged with the task of tracing home titles back potentially hundreds of years. With a community rich in history stretching back over two centuries, houses have been passed along through generations of family, sometimes making it quite difficult to establish ownership.
Here's a great letter an attorney wrote to the FHA on behalf of a client:
You have to love this lawyer...
He sought an FHA loan for a client. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer three months to track down.
After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply:
(Actual reply from FHA):
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803.
Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows:
(Actual response):
"Your letter regarding title in Case No.189156 has been received.
I note you wish to have title extended further than the 206 years covered by the present application.
I was unaware any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know Louisiana was purchased by the United States from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application.
For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France , which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain .
The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Queen Isabella. The good Queen Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus ' expedition.
Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume God also made the part of the world called Louisiana .
God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it, and the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory.
Now, may we have our loan?"
The loan was immediately approved.
And you think "Government" can manage running health care?
By Clarice Feldman
From his first presidential campaign to the present, the president, his party and his administration have openly flouted existing laws, and it doesn't seem there is any legal means of stopping him short of impeachment.
As you may recall, the Democrats refused to fill vacant spots on the Federal Election Commission so that when the Obama campaign disabled the system to track contributions there was no way in 2008 to challenge and stop the practice and countless suspicious contributions, including many from overseas, found their way into his coffers. This, after he reneged on his promise to use federal funds, a promise John McCain stupidly adhered to his disadvantage. Obama went back on his word and jimmied the system so his lawless behavior would succeed. Yes, years later, after he was elected, the FEC imposed a huge fine for this law breaking, but it really was too late to matter much.
This was prelude to years of simply flouting federal laws at will and demonstrating repeatedly his inability to handle the job.
"The left's agenda is in tatters. Obamacare has crashed on takeoff, after five years of Democratic policies the economy is in the doldrums and we are nearly $17 trillion in debt, and the Obama administration's foreign policy is in disarray. The Democratic Party, as represented by the press, desperately needs sideshows to 1) rally the party's faithful, and 2) distract the rest of us from the failures of the liberal agenda. Thus, I don't think it is a coincidence that liberals are doing their best to portray the summer of 2013 as more or less a replay of 1967. The silliness of the attempt is a measure of how out of ammo liberals are these days."
As the lawless scandals are exposed -- Benghazi, gunrunning in Mexico, misuse of the NSA, the IRS crippling the opposition in 2012 by illegal denials of tax exemptions -- the president and his allies have been fast and furious in ginning up his base by playing the race card so often it's worn to a mere stub.
[W]hile BO and MO try to relax here on the island they're keeping an eye on several controversies that continue to swirl around Washington. No, not the one about 400 shoulder mounted rockets that went missing following the Benghazi "incident," or Ricky Holder's gun running operation that lead to the death of agent Brian Terry; those are phony scandals. Nor are they watching the NSA phony scandal; as we've already put that phony scandal to rest on Jay Leno's show. And not the IRS political enemies list "scandal" either, that issue has already been resolved to Elijah Cumming's satisfaction.The controversies commanding the vacationing Wons attention are a bit more germane. First, there's the racist allegations that Oprah is a lying prima donna who just made up the story of racism in a Switzerland shop in order to hype her new movie about racism in America. Who would do that? Lie about racism?Also, attracting the eyes of the Prezzy: the raging controversy over rodeo clowns that has effectively deflected discussion away from all of the other clowns, mimes and garden statuary currently running Washington.
Still, to the outrage of many the media and his followers insist we must treat him as if he were a sacred cow.
Apparently they forgot the past presidents, most surely including President George Bush, were not treated like Gods:they were to the apparent amusement of the press, regularly mocked and vilified.
As both Ann Coulter and Roger L. Simon note, the race card playing is preposterous. In the first case, it induces blacks to vote for a party that doesn't represent their self interests. Looking at the liberal objection to stop and frisk and voter ID laws, she observes:
The New York Times hailed this remarkable achievement [ed: the drop in murders in NYC after stop and frisk policies were adopted] with an article headlined, "New York City Crime Falls but Just Why Is a Mystery."It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani's crime policies. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah of the Bible, who "brought order, peace, the law back to the land." The black minister told The New York Times, "I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun."[snip]Voter ID laws don't actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it's not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives.The claim that modern voter ID laws are a racist Republican plot to prevent minorities from voting is complicated by the fact that, in 2011, such a law was enacted by the overwhelmingly Democratic Rhode Island legislature and, in fact, was pushed through by black Democrats.Despite the pleas of national Democrats who realized their cover was being blown, the state senate's only black member, Democrat Harold Metts, sponsored a voter ID bill. He said he'd heard complaints about voter fraud for years, telling the story of one poll worker who encountered a voter who couldn't spell his own last name.A black legislator in the House, Anastasia Williams, complained that when she showed up to vote in 2006, she was told she had already voted. Another time, she saw a Hispanic man vote, go to the parking lot and change his clothes, then go back in and vote again.If white liberals are so concerned about black votes counting, why don't they ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts? Black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Allen West.But black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from specially designated minority districts. How come white liberals won't vote for a black representative? Can't a black person represent Nita Lowey's district? Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans.
Roger L. Simon says the civil rights movement should just be "extinguished".
The race card is a perfect example of this division and why this movement should be extinguished. Anybody who plays the race card in our country today is less than pond scum. It has become the 21st century equivalent of accusing someone of witchcraft in eighteenth century Salem.Anyone who uses the race card should be considered a pariah automatically. It's almost always projection. Black and brown people above all would profit from the end of the civil rights movement. We already have strong civil rights legislation. If anyone breaks the law, prosecute them. Meanwhile, move on. Stop dwelling on discrimination. Stop scratching the scab and let it heal.
It would be wonderful if some political figure other than Allen West started responding to this nonsense with honest refutations of this corrupt manipulation. Instead they cave to dishonest mobs by doing things like allowing murals in the Florida State Capitol that juxtapose Trayvon Martin's death with that of Martin Luther King, Jr's, keeping alive the lie that his death was inspired by racism instead of self-defense. (It would also be just -- given Oprah's penchant for making up discrimination stories relating to disappointment while shopping in very expensive stores in Europe to pretend racism is alive in the U.S. -- if the EU just denied her permission to enter the EU whenever she has a new film about to open.)
There was one bright spot this week when the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a case involving the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain ruled that it was illegal for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disregard congressional mandates simply because the executive branch disagrees with what Congress has enacted.
President Obama asserted the unilateral power to "tweak" inconvenient laws in last Friday's news conference, underscoring his Administration's increasingly cavalier notions about law enforcement. So it's good that the judiciary -- a coequal branch of government, in case the Administration forgot -- is starting to check the White House.In a major rebuke on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unusual writ of mandamus, which is a direct judicial order compelling the government to fulfill a legal obligation. This "extraordinary remedy" is nominally about nuclear waste, writes Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the 2-1 majority, yet the case "raises significant questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to disregard federal statutes."[snip]Mr. Obama promised to kill Yucca as a candidate and the Energy Department tried to yank the license application after his election. But an NRC safety board made up of administrative judges ruled unanimously that this was illegal unless Congress passed a law authorizing it. Mr. Obama then teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to stack the NRC with anti-Yucca appointees.[snip]"As things stand, therefore, the Commission is simply flouting the law," Judge Kavanaugh continues. "In light of the constitutional respect owed to Congress, and having fully exhausted the alternatives available to us," the court had no option other than the mandamus writ.So ponder that one: A federal court is stating, overtly, that federal regulators are behaving as if they are a law unto themselves.[snip]That is especially notable given that ObamaCare's employer-insurance requirement and other provisions are precisely such unambiguous statutory mandates, with hard start dates. The executive has broad enforcement and interpretative discretion but not the wholesale authority to suspend core parts of laws, even ones he co-wrote.All of this highlights that Mr. Obama is not merely redefining this or that statute as he goes but also the architecture of the U.S. political system. As with the judicial slapdowns on his non-recess recess appointments that the Supreme Court will hear next term, Judge Kavanaugh warns that endorsing the NRC's legal position "would gravely upset the balance of powers between the Branches and represent a major and unwarranted expansion of the Executive's power."The professors and pundits who fret about the Imperial Presidency go into hibernation when the president is a Democrat, so it is crucial that the courts reject Mr. Obama's increasing contempt for constitutional limits.
While this strong rebuke is a promising development, a look at Obama's remedies going forward demonstrates how weak is the judicial tool to reign in executive lawlessness. For example, the government can seek a rehearing, a rehearing en banc (the entire court) or both, which would hold up compliance for several months. Then if the rehearing is denied or the court again rules against it, the government can go to the Supreme Court and seek a writ of certiorari. It's not likely the court would grant the writ and hear the case, but that action if accompanied by a petition for a stay-- would allow the administration to further delay implementing the duly passed legislation.
There is no quick way through the courts, I'm afraid, to stem the Administration's repeated, open flouting of the law. Is anyone on Capitol Hill paying attention?
2d)Martha’s Vineyard: ‘Birthplace of the Man from Nowhere’s Presidency’
 | By Judi McLeod |
Like a homing pigeon, President Barack Obama always returns to Martha’s Vineyard.
There since Saturday, Obama vacationed in Martha’s Vineyard in 2009, 2010 and 2011, missing only last summer when he was running for re-election.
But is it really the lure of the ocean or wanting to get in golfing and family time that keeps bringing him back?
It now turns out that ‘The Presidency of the Man from Nowhere’ both began and continues in Martha’s Vineyard, where uncrowned ‘Queen Behind the Oval office’ Valerie Jarrett is a longtime summer resident.
Senior Obama advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, Jarrett, who receives full-time Secret Service Protection, has 24-7 access to Obama White House living quarters, making the Martha’s Vineyard getaways for the two all the more curious.
Madam Jarrett claims huge influence in her power-behind-the-presidency position. “When billionaire investor Warren Buffett showed up for a private lunch with the president last July, the table was set for three.” (New York Times, Sept. 1, 2012). “If Carl Rove was known as George W. Bush’s political brain, Ms. Jarrett is Mr. Obama’s spine.”
“She is is also his gatekeeper.”
Jarrett’s Martha’s Vineyard oceanfront home, within walking distance of the East Chop Beach Club in an area of pricey Oak Bluff, is the Obamas’ perennial ‘Home Away from Home’ that draws Barack and Michelle back like moths to the proverbial flame. According to capecodonline.com, Jarrett owns the Seaview Ave. home.
Many people think Chicago when they think Jarrett. It was in Chicago where she was tagged “slum landlord”.
“Jarrett’s record before she went to Washington was spotty at best. After Mayor Daley made her commissioner of planning, she became embroiled in a massive screw-up in the city’s public housing revitalization plan, which cost Chicago millions of dollars in overruns. Daley fired her without explanation. (The Amateur)
“After she left city hall, Jarrett became CEO of Habitat Executive Services, where she earned $300,000 in salary and $550,000 in deferred compensation. She managed a federally subsidized housing complex that was seized by the government after inspectors found crime-infested slum conditions and widespread blight.”
Savvy Internet blogger Ulsterman was the first to notice when reading about Obama’s lunch with Jarrett yesterday that it was a bizarre Muhammad-going-to-the-mountain kind of situation: “Upon reading this report, I was first surprised, as I said, by the fact that Valerie Jarrett has a home in the super wealthy neighborhood of Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard. Second, I was struck by the fact that the President of the United States was traveling to see Jarrett, and not the other way around. It would appear even the pretense of Obama actually being in charge is being dropped away during his second term.”
Ulsterman being Ulsterman put his investigative skills to work and did a little more digging and came across “this rather interesting article from a 2009 edition of Martha’s Vineyard Magazine:
“On July 27, 2004, the morning that Barack Obama was to give his now-famous keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, a Philadelphia Daily News headline read “Who the Heck Is This Guy?” Then came the 2,297 words, spoken over 17 minutes, that gave America the answer: He was an unheralded political phenomenon. But there were people on this Island who knew long before that speech what his potential was.
“Valerie Jarrett, Oak Bluffs seasonal resident, longtime Obama confidante, and now a senior advisor to the president, was one who knew. And she invited him to take a little time out from his Senate campaign (for which she was his finance chairman) and come down to Martha’s Vineyard after the Boston appearance. Two others who knew were Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr.
“And so it came to pass that the Obamas – Barack, Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha – came here for a brief vacation, and Obama was invited along to Edgartown’s Old Whaling Church, where Charles was staging his regular summer forum on race issues. Barack Who? was yet to be elected as a U.S. senator, and he was not on the program. But he dropped in, Charles says, “to meet a few people.” And Skip Gates introduced him as “my pick for President in 2012.”
“He was a little off in terms of how soon it would happen,” Charles says with a chuckle.
“Barack walked into the Old Whaling Church through the back door and the place was packed and folks went wild,” he says. “I expected [Obama] just to wave and thank people, but he gave a wonderful talk….He made quite a splash.” There was a reception in Obama’s honor the next day at Skip’s house in Oak Bluffs: “It was a remarkable gathering of Vineyard veterans who relished the idea that this guy was popular beyond measure,” Charles says.
There are some names at the beginning of the article that might sound familiar to some of you. Charles Ogletree is a former Black Panther member and current professor and Director of the Race and Justice Institute at Harvard. He has admitted to “mentoring” both Barack and Michelle Obama when both attended Harvard. Given Ogletree’s longstanding demands for federal reparation payments to African Americans, his strong ties to the Black Panther party, his critical role in attempting to deny Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court, and Ogletree’s ongoing ties to Communist USA activist Johnnetta Cole, it seems clear the kind of mentoring that must have been conducted on the two current residents of the White House. Ogletree also has an ongoing and close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America as well.
The second name at the beginning of the article is Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. Gates is also a Harvard professor, and was the man involved in the mistaken break in of his own home and subsequent arrest by Harvard police after a neighbor called saying they believed the home was being broken into. The event led then recently elected President Barack Obama to famously accuse Harvard law enforcement of “acting stupidly” before any of the actual facts had been released – namely that Mr. Gates was not arrested for breaking into his home, but for his repeated and threatening verbal abuses of the Harvard Police, most notably Officer James Crowley. The degree of Gates’ belligerence might better be understood through the prism of his attitude for American society in general - he views the United States as “deeply racist”, and that much of the ills he perceives within the Black community are “because of White racism.” In 2005, Gates was among a group that included George Soros and the ACLU that attempted to eruct a memorial on the site New York City’s Ground Zero that was to display “Man’s inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South.” Like Charles Ogletree, Gates is closely tied to the Democratic Socialists of America.
“These are the types of people who were surrounding Barack Obama all those years ago at the Martha’s Vineyard home of Valerie Jarrett, pushing a then largely unknown Senator into the role of President of the United States. This information, which should be shocking to most, given the radical and anti-American ties these people have, was readily available to the Mainstream Media, but they ignored it. Some, like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others, attempted to get people to pay attention, but America, by and large, remained blissfully ignorant of the kind of man it was electing, and just how hateful and divisive his background truly was – and is.”
Ulsterman is right on the money when he identifies Martha’s Vineyard as “the very location that some believe was the true birthplace of Barack Obama’s bid to become President of the United States” and concludes: “Barack Obama’s current vacation at the possible birthplace of his radicalized campaign for president, marches on…”
Folk have been media-focused on what the Obamas dine on while vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard; how islanders were “thrilled” spotting Barack and Michelle, then married 17 years, out on a date without their daughters in 2009, and how Portuguese Water Dog Bo was airlifted to the vacation scene on a MV-22 Osprey this year.
They should be far more concerned that, while Obama is golfing, lunching and vacationing, he is with Valerie Jarrett getting his marching orders on ‘How to be President’ even when officially on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, ‘Birthplace of the Man from Nowhere’s Presidency’ and the Marxist Misery that is killing off America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Democracy in Egypt Can Wait
By CHARLES A. KUPCHAN
WASHINGTON — THE Egyptian military’s bloody crackdown on supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood is yet another sign of the dark side of the Arab awakening. Across the Middle East, glimmerings of democracy are being snuffed out by political turmoil and violence.
That reality requires a sobering course correction in American policy. Rather than viewing the end of autocracy’s monopoly as a ripe moment to spread democracy in the region, Washington should downsize its ambition and work with transitional governments to establish the foundations of responsible, even if not democratic, rule.
Ever since the Egyptian military seized power last month, the United States government, backed by much of the country’s foreign policy elite, has demanded the restoration of democratic rule. President Obama instructed Egypt’s generals “to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government.” The Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina visited Cairo to press the new government to restore democratic rule and have called for cutting off aid if it doesn’t.
But while Washington must unequivocally condemn the violence unleashed by the Egyptian military, clamoring for a rapid return to democracy is misguided.
To be sure, the American creed favors the promotion of democracy, and democracies do have a track record of better behavior than autocracies. But the penchant for rushing transitional states to the ballot box often does more harm than good, producing dysfunctional and illiberal regimes. Egypt’s recently deposed president, Mohamed Morsi, may have been fairly elected, but he presided over the near collapse of the Egyptian state and ran roughshod over his political opponents.
Rather than cajoling Cairo to hold elections and threatening to suspend aid if it does not, Washington should press the current leadership to adhere to clear standards of responsible governance, including ending the violence and political repression, restoring the basic functions of the state, facilitating economic recovery, countering militant extremists and keeping the peace with Israel. At this fragile moment in Egypt’s political awakening, the performance of its government will be a more important determinant of its legitimacy and durability than whether it won an election.
More generally, Washington should back off from its zealous promotion of democracy in Egypt and the broader Middle East for three main reasons.
For starters, even if liberal democracies do tend to provide good governance at home and abroad, rapid transitions to democracy historically have had the opposite effect: disorder at home and instability beyond the countries’ borders. In nations that lack experience with constitutional constraints and democratic accountability, electoral victors usually embrace winner-take-all strategies; they shut out the opposition, govern as they see fit and unsettle their neighbors. In one case after another — Bosnia, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, Egypt — newly democratic governments have demonized opponents and ruled with an iron fist.
Incremental change produces more durable results; liberal democracies must be constructed from the ground up. Constitutional constraints, judicial reform, political parties, economic privatization — these building blocks of democratic societies need time to take root. The West’s own experience provides ample evidence. England became a constitutional monarchy after the Glorious Revolution in 1688, but did not mature into a liberal democracy until the 20th century.
Moreover, transitions to democracy in the Middle East will be more perilous than those elsewhere because of factors unique to the region: the power of political Islam and the entrenched nature of sectarian and tribal loyalties.
Islam and democracy are by no means incompatible. However, religion and politics are intimately interwoven throughout the Middle East. Islamic tradition makes no distinction between mosque and state, helping Islamists win elections throughout the region. One result is a debilitating struggle between empowered Islamists and fractured secularists that is playing out in Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and just about everywhere else.
Absent the Western tradition of separating the sacred from the secular — which came about only after the bloody wars of the Protestant Reformation — pitched battles over the role of Islam in politics will bedevil aspiring Middle East democracies for generations to come.
So, too, will sectarian and tribal politics make successful democratic transitions in the Middle East especially elusive. A sense of national belonging is the twin sister of democracy; nationalism is the social glue that makes consensual politics work. Egypt, like Turkey and Iran, is fortunate to have a strong national identity dating back centuries. But Egypt is nonetheless stumbling as it tries to put down robust democratic roots.
Social cohesion will be even harder to come by in many of the region’s other states — like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon — which are contrived nations cobbled together by departing colonial powers. They risk being split asunder by sectarian, ethnic and tribal cleavages.
Finally, Washington’s determined promotion of democracy compromises its credibility because doing so is often at odds with its own policies. Its closest allies in the Arab world, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, are the region’s least democratic states. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006, America promptly sought to undermine the new government.
These departures from democratic principles are, as they should be, guided by concrete national interests. But as the Arab awakening unfolds, Washington’s leverage will further diminish unless its rhetoric catches up with its actions.
The United States should do what it can to shepherd the arrival of liberal democracy in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East. But the best way to do that is to go slow and help the region’s states build functioning and responsible governments. Democracy can wait.
Charles A. Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Iron Dome is a game changer, but it’s just the beginning
By PETER J. ROSKAM, THEODORE E. DEUTCH
For well over the past decade, Israel has been terrorized by indiscriminate rocket fire from Hamas, Hezbollah and other neighboring terrorist entities.
Thousands of rockets aimed at schools, nursing homes and city centers within Israel have killed or injured hundreds of innocent Israelis.
Over 50,000 rockets are pointed at Israel at any given time, not including chemical weapons from Syria or intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from an Iran on the brink of nuclearization.
To address this increasingly sophisticated and aggressive threat, the United States and Israel are co-producing a multi-tier missile defense apparatus capable of intercepting virtually any rocket or missile. This unprecedented joint venture will save lives, prevent further conflict escalation, create American jobs and pay dividends far into the future.
Until 2011, one of Israel’s greatest security challenges was the rocket bombardment of southern Israel by Hamas. A blaring siren afforded the citizens of Sderot and other cities along the Gaza border just 15 seconds to take shelter.
And then came Iron Dome, a short-range rocket interceptor developed by Israel and deployed with the help of US funding. During Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, Iron Dome interdicted 500 Hamas rockets with a success rate of nearly 85 percent, shielding innocent Israelis and likely averting a full-blown war.
Iron Dome is a game changer, but it’s just the beginning.
Cheap, unsophisticated rockets from Hamas are becoming a thing of the past as Iran and its proxies continue to develop more advanced medium- and longrange missiles. And these dangers are not exclusive to Israel. Many brave Americans serving overseas have been killed by enemy projectiles, including three of the last US troop casualties from the Iraq War, who were killed by a rocket from a Hezbollah affiliate. Moreover, just last month the Pentagon reported that Iran may possess ICBMs capable of reaching the east coast of the United States by 2015.
In response, the US and Israel are co-producing two revolutionary systems – David’s Sling and Arrow 3. David’s Sling will be able to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, long-range rockets, and cruise missiles.
The program’s missile firing unit and interceptor – the Stunner – are being developed and manufactured in the US, and the system achieved its first interception in November 2012.
The next generation of the Arrow Weapon System – a medium-range ballistic missile interceptor operational since 2000 – Arrow 3 is an exo-atmospheric interceptor designed to catch missiles at high altitude to minimize leakage from chemical or nuclear warheads. Arrow 3 completed its second successful flight test last month with an expected on-time deployment in the near future.
To further this strategic imperative for the US and Israel, we’ve joined together to introduce H.R. 2717, the bipartisan United States-Israel Missile Defense Cooperation Act of 2013, which authorizes further assistance and cooperation for these critical systems. This legislation underscores the mutually beneficial joint venture of developing these cooperative programs with Israel and helps ensure their continued inclusion in future authorization bills.
Republicans and Democrats agree that an investment in US-Israel missile defense cooperation is an investment in peace and security.
We must continue to work with our allies on these types of programs in an effort to stay one step ahead of our enemies in order to minimize national security threats and work toward a peaceful, safe future.
Congressman Peter J. Roskam (R-Illinois-06) serves as chief deputy majority whip and co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus. Congressman Theodore E. Deutch (D-Florida- 22) is the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Iran Enters the Peace Process
By Khaled Abu Toameh
Hamas is so desperate following the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that it is now seeking to mend fences with Iran.
The honeymoon between Hamas and Iran is about to resume — bad news for both the peace process and stability in the region.
Relations between Hamas and Iran became strained after the Palestinian Islamist movement decided to support the rebels fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
Both Syria and Iran have since been boycotting Hamas, which until recently enjoyed political, financial and military aid from the two countries.
For some time, Hamas did not appear to be very worried about the loss of its allies in Tehran and Damascus.
Hamas leaders believed that the support of Qatar and Egypt's ruling Muslim Brotherhood was enough to keep it in power in the Gaza Strip.
But now that Hamas has lost the backing of the largest Arab country, Egypt, its leaders realize that they can not depend only on Qatar's support.
Hamas leaders see the decision to charge Morsi with “collaboration” with their movement as a “declaration of war” against their regime in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas leader Ahmed Bahr scoffed at the charges against Morsi, dubbing them “ridiculous.” He also warned the Egypt's new rulers of tightening the blockade on the Gaza Strip by turning Hamas into a “hostile” entity.
Beleaguered Hamas officials revealed this week that they have contacted the Iranians with the hope of patching up differences between the two sides.
Ahmed Yusef, a senior Hamas official, was quoted as saying that his movement recently held two meetings with Iranian government officials in an attempt to achieve reconciliation between the two parties.
“Iran and Hamas have a common interest and we are keen on not losing anyone,” Yusef said in an interview with Asia News. “The case of Palestine is the case of the entire Islamic nation and we want everyone to meet around this case.”
Hamas's apparent rapprochement with Iran is paving the way for Iran to play a major role in the Palestinian arena.
This does not bode well for the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, especially on the eve of the resumption of the peace talks with Israel.
It is one thing when Qatar and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood support Hamas. After all, the Qataris and Morsi could never be as bad as Iran.
But Iran's support for Hamas means that the Islamist movement means renewed financial and military support. It also means that Iranian military experts could soon arrive in the Gaza Strip to train members of Hamas and other radical groups.
With the support of Iran, Hamas will step up its efforts to foil any attempt by the Palestinian Authority to regain control over the Gaza Strip. And with Iran's backing, Hamas and other Palestinian groups will do their utmost to foil any attempt to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
Some Palestinian Authority officials expressed fear that Hamas, on instructions from Tehran, would try to initiate a confrontation with Israel in an attempt to embarrass Abbas and thwart US Secretary of State John Kerry's effort to resume the peace negotiations.
Without dealing with the new Iranian threat, it is hard to see how the Palestinian Authority would be able to move forward with any peace process with Israel. The presence of the Iranians in the Gaza Strip will scare Abbas and his aides and make them think twice before reaching any deal with Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the view of noted economist Allen Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University public policy professor and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors under Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
In a column for Project Syndicate, Meltzer wrote, "The Fed has printed new bank reserves with reckless abandon" during its rounds of QE, but that almost all of the reserves sit idle on commercial banks' balance sheet, earning the banks 0.25 percent.
"For the bankers, that's a bonanza, paid from monies that the Fed would normally pay to the U.S. Treasury. And, adding insult to injury, about half the payment goes to branches of foreign banks."
Bank loans have started to increase, but instead of the loans going to individuals and small businesses, banks "consider it safer to lend to the government, large corporations and giant real estate speculators," Meltzer wrote.
According to Meltzer, 40 percent of U.S. government debt comes due within two years. "Rolling it over at higher rates of 4 percent to 5 percent would add more than $100 billion to the budget deficit." And that does not include the increase in the current account deficit to pay China, Japan and other foreign owners of America's debt.
"Instead of continuing along this futile path, the Fed should end its open-ended QE3 now," he stated.
"It should stop paying interest on excess reserves until the U.S. economy returns to a more normal footing. Most important, it should announce a strategy for eliminating the massive volume of such reserves."
In a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Vasco Curdia, an economist at the San Francisco Fed, and Andrea Ferrero, an economist at the New York Fed, estimated that the QE2 round of Fed easing in 2010 and 2011 boosted gross domestic product by only 0.13 percentage point and added 0.03 percentage point to inflation.
"Asset purchase programs like QE2 appear to have, at best, moderate effects on economic growth and inflation," the report concluded.
In congressional testimony last month, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the central bank would keep "a high degree of monetary accommodation" in place for "an extended period" by keeping interest rates near zero even after Fed asset purchases end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Allen Meltzer: Stop QE3 Before it Scuttles America
The Federal Reserve should reveal its scheme for eliminating the massive volume of excess monetary reserves wrought by quantitative easing (QE) because selling those reserves, which now amounts to more than $2 trillion, will take years and have an unknown impact on America.
That's the view of noted economist Allen Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University public policy professor and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors under Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
In a column for Project Syndicate, Meltzer wrote, "The Fed has printed new bank reserves with reckless abandon" during its rounds of QE, but that almost all of the reserves sit idle on commercial banks' balance sheet, earning the banks 0.25 percent.
"For the bankers, that's a bonanza, paid from monies that the Fed would normally pay to the U.S. Treasury. And, adding insult to injury, about half the payment goes to branches of foreign banks."
Bank loans have started to increase, but instead of the loans going to individuals and small businesses, banks "consider it safer to lend to the government, large corporations and giant real estate speculators," Meltzer wrote.
According to Meltzer, 40 percent of U.S. government debt comes due within two years. "Rolling it over at higher rates of 4 percent to 5 percent would add more than $100 billion to the budget deficit." And that does not include the increase in the current account deficit to pay China, Japan and other foreign owners of America's debt.
"Instead of continuing along this futile path, the Fed should end its open-ended QE3 now," he stated.
"It should stop paying interest on excess reserves until the U.S. economy returns to a more normal footing. Most important, it should announce a strategy for eliminating the massive volume of such reserves."
In a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Vasco Curdia, an economist at the San Francisco Fed, and Andrea Ferrero, an economist at the New York Fed, estimated that the QE2 round of Fed easing in 2010 and 2011 boosted gross domestic product by only 0.13 percentage point and added 0.03 percentage point to inflation.
"Asset purchase programs like QE2 appear to have, at best, moderate effects on economic growth and inflation," the report concluded.
In congressional testimony last month, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the central bank would keep "a high degree of monetary accommodation" in place for "an extended period" by keeping interest rates near zero even after Fed asset purchases end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment