==
Now for a little humor before we get into the more serious message mostly regarding Syria and other related topics: (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)
===
THE ITALIAN LOVER
A virile, middle-aged Italian gentleman named Guido was relaxing at his
favourite bar in Rome when he managed to attract a spectacular young blond
woman.Things progressed to the point where he invited her back to his apartment
and, after some small talk, they retired to his bedroom where he rattled her
senseless.After a pleasant interlude he asked with a smile, "So, you finish?" She
paused for a second, frowned, and replied, "No."
Surprised, Guido reached for her and the rattling resumed.
This time she thrashed about wildly and there were screams of passion.
The sex finally ends and, again, Guido smiles and asks, "You finish?"Again, after a short pause, she returns his smile, cuddles closer to him
and softly says, "No."Stunned, but damned if he was going to leave this woman unsatisfied. Guido
reaches for the woman yet again.Using the last of his strength, he barely manages it, but they end together
screaming, bucking, clawing and ripping the bed sheets.Exhausted, Guido falls onto his back, gasping..
Barely able to turn his head, he looks into her eyes, smiles proudly and
asked again, "You finish?"Barely able to speak, the beautiful blond whispers in his ear,
"No, I'm Norwegian."
===
Obviously what is happening vis a vis Syria should be on the minds of every American. There are many views, many conflicting. I will post a series of those I believe set forth the pros and cons.
===
On another front, Obama has loved playing the race card. Apparently, Hilary is prepared to use the entire deck.
Democrats have made a successful history of putting together gender and ethnic groups to win campaigns. In the process they have succeeded in doing harm to their constituents and the nation with policies that have failed but wining is everything to them and Hillary and 'Ole' Bill are masters at the game.
When it comes to benefiting from government welfare options, dependent ethnic groups seem to have no problem managing the maze of rules and regulations and presenting some form of identification but when it comes to protecting the sacred rights of legitimate voters Democrats and their treasure trove of supporters invoke racial prejudice to inflame passions.(See 2 below.)
Another way Liberals and Progressives use to pit Americans against each other, besides playing the race card/deck, is to highlight income disparity and attack the wealthy as evil. This does not create jobs but , it too, helps to raise anger and win elections.
If getting Americans employed was the ultimate goal of Liberals etc. Obama and Greens, to whom he pays constant homage, would open our energy wealth to appropriate drilling. Not only would high paying jobs be created but our dependency on growing oil imports from unstable areas, which Obama's apologetic and feckless policies have helped explode, would decline. (See 2a and 2b below.)
It is impossible to gauge when the accumulated disasters of this administration's policies begin to germinate and perhaps, they never will because the press and media continue to protect Obama and the less informed are incapable of thinking for themselves. One would think, however, at some point, in the near future, even the most detached would begin to come to realize 'something is rotten in Denmark ,' as it were.
If, however, before Obama's term ends the, mentally unwashed, cannot see the light of day then the prospects for Hillary become better and better because the excitement of the first female president would serve to exhilarate and energize the female vote and blacks and Hispanics would dutifully follow the dictates of the Democrat Party. Republicans have yet to figure out how to combat this alignment. Factual and logical arguments do not overcome emotional thinking and lies that generate fear.
===
More support of why the market is dues for a correction. (See 3 below.)
===
Does crime pay? (See 4 below.)
===
China is preparing to play hard ball yet, we remain surprised? (See 5 below.)
===
A meaningful piece of advice and some facts. (See 6 and 6a below.)
===
Kim expresses what I have been writing. (See 7 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal thoughts and comments regarding Obama and Syria:
Syria represents a perfect example of why Obama's foreign policy initiatives have not only been a consistent disaster but also have given tremendous insight into the man himself.
Apparently Obama came upon the scene believing his personality alone could calm the world's turbulent waters and most specifically so in The Middle East considering his own Muslim heritage.
We all know about his initial efforts to make speeches which served as an apology for America's arrogance and denial of our national exceptionalism.
Not in any particular order: the Arab Spring came, then Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, undercut Mubarak, insulted Israel, led from the rear regarding Iran and Libya and, of course, his failed 'reset' with Russia and I have yet to mention Benghazi and his many empirical acts of defiance of our Constitution and arrogant defiance of the people's will regarding health care, energy independence and that is only part of the list.
Then Obama drew a red line regarding Assad's use of chemicals against his own people while ignoring the well over 100,000 casualties and many more millions of refugees caused by Assad's defense of his regime. (One can argue that the Syrian Civil War, while tragic, provided no legal basis for us to become involved.)
Assad then dissed Obama. Apparently, The Administration is now convinced Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, and thus, Obama became confronted by his own challenge. After threatening he would follow through on his commitment and after sending his Secretary of State to reaffirm his intentions, Obama waffled and did what was politically astute, ie. he asked Congress to throw him a life raft.
All the while it should be pointed out Obama kept telling the world more about what he would not do by way of an attack than what he would, giving Assad time to remove much of what we might target should Obama finally give the orders to carry out such an attack.
So where are we? First, Obama, and, more importantly, America's prestige and credibility are at stake. If Congress fails to give Obama authorization, which he acknowledges he does not need, will Obama keep his tail between his legs and do nothing? What kind of feckless signal would that send not only to Iran, N Korea, Russia and China, but also to our allies, aka, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc.?
If Congress gives Obama the authority he does not need but sought will he act boldly and attack in a meaningful way or will he simply engage in a pin prick attack in order to validate his previous vow that he would act? Obama's history is not encouraging. In fact it is disturbing that we have an American Chamberlain as president.
1a)Serious About Syria?
Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be?
What is painfully clear from President Obama's actions, inactions and delays is that he is more or less playing it by ear, as to what specifically he is going to do, and when. He is telling us more about what he is not going to do -- that he will not put "boots on the ground," for example -- than about what he will do.
All this is happening a year after issuing an ultimatum to the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria against the use of chemical or biological weapons. When the President of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.
But that is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not.
With the mainstream media ready to ooh and aah over his rhetoric, and pass over in silence his policy disasters as President, Obama is home free as far as domestic politics is concerned. But, on the world stage, neither America's enemies nor America's allies are hypnotized by his words or his image.
Nations that have to decide whether to ally themselves with us or with our enemies understand that they are making life and death decisions. It is not about rhetoric, image or symbolism. It is about whether nations can count on the realism, wisdom and dependability of the American government.
Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a very clever man. But cleverness is not wisdom, or even common sense.
When he was in the Senate, Obama -- along with Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton -- was critical of the Bush administration for not being favorable to the Assad regime.
Hillary Clinton said that she and other lawmakers who visited Assad considered him a "reformer." Back in 2007, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both Senator Biden and Senator Hagel chided her for not being more ready to negotiate with Assad.
Senator John Kerry in 2009 said, "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region."
Some people said that having Joe Biden as Vice President meant that President Obama had someone with many years of foreign policy experience. What they ignored was that Biden had decades of experience being wrong on foreign policy issues, time and time again.
Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan's military buildup that countered the Soviet Union's buildup, and helped bring about both the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union. General David Petraeus' "surge" strategy that greatly reduced the terrorist attacks in Iraq was opposed in 2007 by Senator Biden, who said, "We need to stop the surge and start to get our troops out."
Senator Hillary Clinton not only opposed the surge from the outset, she was among those who refused to believe that it had succeeded, even after all the hard evidence had convinced most other people.
The grim reality is that key people in positions to shape our foreign policy during the Obama administration -- the President, the Vice President, two Secretaries of State, and the current Secretary of Defense -- all have a track record of grossly misconceiving the issues, our enemies and our national interest.
This is the administration that is now asking for a blank check from Congress to take unspecified military action to achieve unspecified goals.
"Military action" is a polite phrase for killing people. It would be nice to believe that this has some larger purpose than saving Barack Obama from political embarrassment, after having issued an ultimatum without having thought through what he would do if that ultimatum was ignored.
He has the authority to take military action if he wants to. The question is whether he can sucker the Republicans into giving him political cover by pre-approving his unknown actions and unknown goals.
1b)Where is the West?
By Thomas Sowell
European nations protesting Saddam Hussein's death sentence, as they protested against forcing secrets out of captured terrorists, should tell us all we need to know about the internal degeneration of western society, where so many confuse squeamishness with morality.
Two generations of being insulated from the reality of the international jungle, of not having to defend their own survival because they have been living under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, have allowed too many Europeans to grow soft and indulge themselves in illusions about brutal realities and dangers.
The very means of their salvation have been demonized for decades in anti-nuclear movements and protesters calling themselves "anti-war." But there is a huge difference between being anti-war in words and being anti-war in deeds.
How many times, in its thousands of years of history, has Europe gone 60 years without a major war, as it has since World War II? That peace has been due to American nuclear weapons, which was all that could deter the Soviet Union's armies from marching right across Europe to the Atlantic Ocean.
Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know that you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely anti-war. Chamberlain's appeasement brought on World War II and Reagan's military buildup ended the Cold War.
The famous Roman peace of ancient times did not come from negotiations, cease-fires, or pretty talk. It came from the Roman Empire's crushing defeat and annihilation of Carthage, which served as a warning to anyone else who might have had any bright ideas about messing with Rome.
Only after the Roman Empire began to lose its own internal cohesion, patriotism and fighting spirit over the centuries did it begin to succumb to its external enemies and finally collapse.
That seems to be where western civilization is heading today.
Internal cohesion? Not only does much of today's generation in western societies have a "do your own thing" attitude, defying rules and flouting authority are glorified and Balkanization through "multiculturalism" has become dogma.
Patriotism? Not only is patriotism disdained, the very basis for pride in one's country and culture is systematically undermined in our educational institutions at all levels.
The achievements of western civilization are buried in histories that portray every human sin found here as if they were peculiarities of the west.
The classic example is slavery, which existed all over the world for thousands of years and yet is incessantly depicted as if it was a peculiarity of Europeans enslaving Africans. Barbary pirates alone brought twice as many enslaved Europeans to North Africa as there were Africans brought in bondage to the United States and the American colonies from which it was formed.
How many schools and colleges are going to teach that, going against political correctness and undermining white guilt?
How many people have any inkling that it was precisely western civilization which eventually turned against slavery and began stamping it out when non-western societies still saw nothing wrong with it?
How can a generation be expected to fight for the survival of a culture or a civilization that has been trashed in its own institutions, taught to tolerate even the intolerance of other cultures brought into its own midst, and conditioned to regard any instinct to fight for its own survival as being a "cowboy"?
Western nations that show any signs of standing up for self-preservation are rare exceptions. The United States and Israel are the only western nations which have no choice but to rely on self-defense — and both are demonized, not only by our enemies but also by many in other western nations.
Australia recently told its Muslim population that, if they want to live under Islamic law, then they should leave Australia. That makes three western nations that have not yet completely succumbed to the corrosive and suicidal trends of our times.
If and when we all succumb, will the epitaph of western civilization say that we had the power to annihilate our enemies but were so paralyzed by confusion that we ended up being annihilated ourselves?
1c)
Obama is a Prisoner of his own Agenda
By Victor Sharpe
If the American President was not a prisoner to his own pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda, the U.S. Administration would now be applauding the Egyptian military’s crackdown on the anti-Western, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood thugs who have instigated horrific violence in Cairo and throughout much of the country.
Indeed, his own agenda has resulted in untold bloodshed and a human rights meltdown in Syria, Iraq, North Africa, Afghanistan and Yemen. It threatens Jordan, Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States while leaving Iran free to acquire nuclear weapons capability. And it imposes upon Israel a course which will inevitably lead to national suicide unless the Lion of Judah can finally awake and roar back.
The Egyptian military, acceding to the demands of some 33 million of its citizens to remove the Islamic and Sharia colluding Morsi regime, redeployed to end Mohammed Morsi’s Brotherhood supporters from their occupation of areas of the Egyptian capital. They were met by heavy gunfire and over 100 soldiers and police were killed in the first few hours of the confrontation.
Not surprisingly, Obama never mentioned this fact during his August 15th press conference; a long harangue during which, according to former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Obama predictably blamed not the Morsi rioters but the Egyptian military; again revealing this president’s egregious and systemic support for the Muslim extremists who wish to turn Egypt into an Islamic republic.
Nor did Obama castigate fully the pro-Morsi thugs who turned their savagery upon the hapless embattled Coptic Christian community. It is estimated that perhaps as many as 50 churches and Christian establishments were burned to the ground during the Muslim anti-Christian pogrom; this after Copts have been beheaded in the streets of Cairo. And still the Vatican and world Christendom remain in the main deathly silent.
For decades, ever since the secular revolution of Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1954, successive Egyptian presidents and governments have tried to crush the Brotherhood. This has been done by popular demand from the majority of Egyptians.
Obama’s threats against the military thus fly in the face of all reality. His actions will most certainly act against the best interests of the West and particularly of the United States. But there are many who believe that Barack Hussein Obama is on track to tactically do just that – harm America economically, politically and militarily – and not by incompetence, but by a planned and mendacious strategy. After all, did not Obama promise that he would fundamentally transform America?
During Morsi’s time in office, it should be remembered that sexual assaults against women skyrocketed. Islamic discrimination against women in Egypt under Morsi echoed the horrors perpetrated against females under the Taliban in Afghanistan. It encouraged genital mutilation among Egyptian women, opposed any moves to stop polygamy, and rejected any rights for women to have equality in the distribution of inheritance and assets.
And still, apart from a very few brave souls, the feminists around the world have remained deathly silent. And was there a word of censure by President Obama? Not one peep.
Remember, too, that the first public announcement Morsi made was to call for war against Israel and utter his vile insult – straight out of the Koran – equating Jews with monkeys and pigs.
But what did Obama continue to do in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood’s excesses? Why, he showered the Morsi government with F16 fighter bombers and 400 Abrams tanks – all, no doubt, weapons that eventually could be turned against the Jewish state.
According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI): Egyptian cleric Dr. Khaled Said, in an interview aired on Al-Hafez TV (via the Internet) on March 17, 2013 described American foreign military aid this way:
“If the (Islamic) revolution declares a framework for dealing with the West and America – they will accept it, kiss our hands, and double the aid they give us. We consider this aid to be jizya [poll tax], not regular aid. They pay so that we will let them be. The aid constitutes jizya.”
All non-Muslims living under Muslim control were forced over the centuries to pay the discriminatory jizya tax if they refused to convert to Islam. Thus American aid to the Morsi regime was considered just that by the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to a report by Debka, an intelligence organization which some commentators often respond to negatively, whether with good reason or not, “President Barack Obama put in a call to Egypt’s strongman, Defense Minister Gen. Abdel-Fattah El-Sissi, debkafile’s intelligence sources report. The US president wanted to give the general a dressing-down much on the lines of the call he made to former president Hosni Mubarak in February, 2011.”
The Debka report continued: “Realizing what was coming, Gen. El-Sissi decided not to accept Obama’s call. The anecdote shows that the military strongman is not only determined to avoid the pitfalls which brought Mubarak down but is equally determined to keep the US Administration from interfering in his plans for driving the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egyptian politics.”
El-Sissi has a trump card that he will use against pressure from the Obama Administration. Saudi-Arabia has already begun to provide the financial support he needs to quell the Muslim Brotherhood, whom the Saudis loathe, as do several of the Gulf States. All this will create another self-induced foreign affairs nightmare for Obama as an ever-widening rift opens up between the rulers of the Gulf States, Saudi-Arabia and the White House.
Indeed, according to Debka, “Our intelligence sources also disclose that, while President Obama was trying to get through to Gen. El-Sissi, the general was on the phone with Prince Bandar, Director of Saudi Intelligence.”
Sadly, Israel, unlike Egypt, doesn’t possess alternate allies who can help buttress the Jewish state from hostile pressure from the Obama Administration; pressure which has forced the Netanyahu government to timidly accede to obscene demands from the Holocaust denying Chairman of the so-called Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and from U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, to release Muslim monsters with Jewish blood on their hands: Next, to agree to enter into “piece” talks with the Jew hating thugdom, the PA, that currently occupies parts of biblical and ancestral Jewish Judea and Samaria.
Calls have been made by myself and others in the Opinion columns of Arutz Sheva for a push by Israel to be made to create just such foreign alliances, perhaps with India or China. Israel might not be faced with such intolerable pressures from such a presidency as that of Barack Obama if thought had been given to such a strategy much earlier.
Notwithstanding the above, it would be a salutary admonition to the Netanyahu government to consider what Winston Churchill said during his fractious June, 1940 Cabinet discussions with then Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax. During those dark days, when the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk, Halifax had wanted to appease Hitler with peace overtures via Mussolini. Churchill withstood the appeasement pressure from Halifax and shot back with the following words:
“Nations which go down fighting, rise again; those that surrender timidly are finished.”
Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer with many published articles in leading national and international conservative websites and magazines. Born and educated in England, he has been a broadcaster and has authored several books including a collection of short stories under the title The Blue Hour. His three-volume set of in-depth studies on the threats from resurgent Islam to Israel, the West and to Judeo-Christian civilization is titled, Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State. www.amazon.com
1d)
Obama: 'I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line'
Asked about his past comments drawing a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons, Obama said it was a line that had first been clearly drawn with the chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world and ratified by Congress.
He declared, quote, "That wasn't something I made up. didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."
The president said there was far more than his own credibility at stake in responding to the chemical weapons attack.
"I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line," he said. "The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of world population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent." He added that Congress set its own red line when it ratified the treaty.
With Obama in Europe, his top national security aides were to participate Wednesday in public and private hearings at the Capitol to advance their case for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime in retaliation for what the administration says was a deadly sarin gas attack by his forces outside Damascus last month.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote on authorizing the use of force as early as Wednesday, the first in a series of votes as the president's request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.
She makes a polarizing pitch that ignores trends in voter turnout.
Hillary Clinton began her 2016 march to the White House last week, and it wasn't a promising debut. The former first lady and Senator used her first big policy speech since leaving the State Department to portray American election laws as fundamentally racist. The speech was longer on anecdotes than statistics, so allow us to fill in some of the holes.
"In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states," Mrs. Clinton told her political base of lawyers at the American Bar Association. She portrayed these laws as part of an effort reaching back years to "disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters." And she threw the Supreme Court in as part of this racist conspiracy, assailing its recent decision finding the "preclearance" section of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional.
She claimed the High Court had "struck at the heart" of the law, though all it did was eliminate a section that had forced such states as Mississippi to meet higher legal burdens for election laws than other states with a worse current record of minority voter participation. "Now not every obstacle is related to race," Mrs. Clinton added, "but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention."
No one thinks racial discrimination has vanished from American life or the human condition. But as for minority voting, Mrs. Clinton is the one who hasn't been paying attention. In particular, she must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on "The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)."
The study, based on data from the November 2012 Current Population Survey, shows that minority voter turnout nationwide has been rising—dramatically so. Take blacks, who as recently as 1996 had a low voter turnout rate of 53%.
As the nearby chart shows, black turnout has jumped in each of the last four presidential elections. In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.
Having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket no doubt helped this black voter mobilization, but the trend shows that the surge preceded his candidacy. Remember when liberals portrayed Bill Clinton as "America's first black President"? The black turnout surge accelerated after Mr. Clinton's last election. Such a large increase in black voter turnout over 16 years would seem to refute the claim by Mrs. Clinton that racial obstacles to voting are increasing.
Mrs. Clinton ignores all of this and focuses instead on anecdotes, while raising alarm about the voter ID laws that have passed in the last decade. She specifically raises fears about North and South Carolina. Yet the same Census Bureau study shows that black turnout exceeded non-Hispanic white turnout by statistically significant rates in both Carolinas, and was higher in most states east of the Mississippi River outside of New England.
North Carolina, she says, has this year "pushed through a bill that reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression." But that supposed horror show merely reduces early voting by a week, and bars same-day registration and extending voting hours by political whim. All of these are designed to preserve ballot integrity, which is as vital as voter access to public confidence in honest elections. Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered.
By the way, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee have some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws, yet the Census report says black turnout exceeded that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?
The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton can play the "first woman President" card, but she also needs large minority turnout. If she can't motivate that turnout based on rising economic optimism or opportunity, which is hard given the Obama economic record, she and Democrats will play to racial fears to drive it. She wants a racially polarized electorate.
This is a tragedy for the country, and Republicans like Mitt Romney share the blame for doing so little to attract minority votes. But this strategy and Mrs. Clinton's speech don't bode well for a less polarized politics as Democrats try to extend their electoral dominance.
Mrs. Clinton billed her speech last week as the first of a series addressing what she called "eroding public trust" in government. Government could use the help, though note the irony that Mrs. Clinton's party has been running the government even as its reputation sinks. In any case, stoking racial fears based on imaginary government racism won't make Americans feel better about politics or government.
2a)T.J. Rodgers: Targeting the Wealthy Kills Jobs
My investment in my company helps maintain 3,470 permanent positions. What's not 'fair' about that?
By
One of the signature themes of the Obama administration is that the American dream is under attack due to "income disparity." The words divide the country into haves and have-nots, suggesting a national condition that needs to be corrected—presumably by "progressive" taxation as a mechanism for income redistribution. The American dream has traditionally been one of individual success that is rewarded and admired. But we are now urged to become a zero-sum society in which those achieving the American dream are envied and even resented.
The American dream is not politically affiliated. The last time it was alive and well was the period from Ronald Reagan's second term in office through Bill Clinton's second term in office. In those 16 years, we enjoyed continuous low taxes, low government spending and economic prosperity.
Since 2000, the economy has staggered under the record government spending and deficits of two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The result of that spending spree has been lower real wages and higher and more-persistent unemployment. The Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates to near-zero, and, for the first time ever in the U.S., that Depression-era medicine has not worked—a scary situation reminiscent of Japan's decade-plus economic demise.
According to the latest 2012 IRS income-tax data, the top 1% of American taxpayers earned 20% of all income and paid 36% of all taxes. The top 5% earned 36% of all income and paid 58% of all taxes. Will even higher taxes help the economy? My experience in Silicon Valley tells me that high and so-called progressive taxes are a major cause of the country's current economic problems, not the solution.
In Silicon Valley, the rich commonly reinvest their wealth close to home. For example, I have reinvested most of my net worth in 8.5% of the shares of my own company.
Since its 1982 founding, Cypress Semiconductor has been a net creator of jobs and wealth. We have returned $2.2 billion more to the economy through stock buybacks, share dividends and spinouts than we have taken out in total lifetime investments. That figure doesn't count the $4 billion in wages the company has paid or the taxes paid on those wages. Currently, my investment helps maintain 3,479 permanent, high-paying jobs with good health-care benefits that are now threatened by more taxes.
A couple of years ago, I decided to invest in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wis., by building a $1.2 million lakefront restaurant. That restaurant now permanently employs 65 people at an investment of $18,000 per job, a figure consistent with U.S. small businesses. If progressive taxation in the name of "fairness" had taken my "extra" $1.2 million and spent it on a government stimulus program, would 65 jobs have been created?
According to recent Congressional Budget Office statistics on the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program, each job created has cost between $500,000 and $4 million. Thus, my $1.2 million, taxed and respent on a government project of uncertain duration, would have created about one job, possibly two, and not the 65 sustainable jobs that my private investment did.
On the other end of the capital-intensity scale, Cypress Semiconductor required huge investments to create jobs in its chip-manufacturing plants. Between 1983 and 2003, those investments totaled $797 million and led to the creation of 4,033 jobs at an investment of $198,000 per job created. Thus, my own experience on the cost of job creation ranges from $18,000 to $198,000 per job, compared with $500,000 to $4 million per job created by the Obama stimulus program.
This data squares with the broad numbers showing that private investment is more efficient than government spending in creating jobs. In other words: Every dollar that is taxed away from private investment and spent by government produces fewer jobs than the jobs destroyed by the loss of private investment.
Yet the politics of envy, promoted most notably by President Obama himself, continuously stokes the idea that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share." This injured sense of unjust rewards was summed up on a radio show I heard the other day, when a caller said of the rich: "How much more do they need?"
How much more do I need? How many more jobs do you want?
Even European socialist democracies are starting to understand that tax-and-spend policies kill jobs. For example, both Italy and Spain have repealed their incentive programs for solar energy (along with their "green jobs") because the countries have calculated that for every job created by government investment in green energy, somewhere between 4.8 jobs (Italy) and 2.2 jobs (Spain) are lost because of the reciprocal cuts in private investment. I am aware of these figures because from 2002-11 I was a major investor in and chairman of SunPower, the world's second-largest solar-energy company, also based in Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley is today's brightest example of the traditional American dream still at work. The investments for most startup companies must come from individuals who can wait 10 years to get a return on investment. Only very wealthy Americans can afford that.
Like many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, I have reinvested in the next generation of entrepreneurs, in my case via the Sequoia Fund and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, two venture-capital firms that gave me a shot at the American dream. I also serve as a board member of their portfolio companies.
Does anybody really believe that moving investment decisions from Silicon Valley to Washington by raising taxes on venture capitalists and their investors would make Silicon Valley more productive? Consider the Solyndra debacle: It was obvious to most of us here that the solar-energy company had zero chance of survival. That's why the company had to be government-funded near the end; no real investors were willing to step up.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama insulted America's entrepreneurs by telling them: "You didn't build that." Progressive taxation is just another tool used by government to take over an ever-larger part of the U.S. economy. The horrible irony is that the government keeps telling the very people whose jobs it destroys that if we only tax the rich more, everything will be better.
Mr. Rodgers is the founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor
2b)
CONNECT
2b)
U.S. Refiners Don't Care if Keystone Gets Built
Railroads and Rival Pipeline Firms Are Making the Keystone Pipeline Less Necessary.
By BEN LEFEBVRE
U.S. companies that refine oil increasingly doubt that the controversial Keystone XL pipeline expansion will ever be built, and now they don't particularly care.
Railroads are carrying soaring amounts of crude from Canada down to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, reducing the need for the TransCanada Corp.TRP.T +0.18% project, which is still awaiting approval from the U.S. government after two years of delays.
Meanwhile, a rival pipeline company, Enbridge Inc., ENB.T -0.18% is expanding existing pipes to carry Canadian crude south—and it doesn't need federal permission because it's using existing pipeline rights of way. In addition, so much oil is sloshing around the U.S. from its own wells that refiners don't need lots more heavy crude from the north to keep busy.
"Keystone XL has been back-burnered for so long that any relevant parties have been able to make plans as though the project never even existed in the first place," says Sam Margolin, an analyst at Cowen & Co.
TransCanada designed the proposed conduit to ship 830,000 barrels a day of heavy crude from western Canada, as well as lighter-grade oil from North Dakota shale fields, to the U.S. refining complex along the Gulf of Mexico.
The cross-border Keystone project, billed as a way to reduce heavy oil imports from Venezuela and Mexico, requires a permit from the U.S. State Department.
Concerns about the pipeline's possible environmental impact and legal skirmishes over the company's use of eminent domain to acquire land along the pipeline's proposed route have also bogged down the project.
TransCanada says that the case for building Keystone XL remains strong and that it hopes the U.S. State Department will decide whether to grant the construction permits by the end of this year .
But refiners are moving ahead with other plans. Valero Energy Corp. VLO +1.69%had signed to receive oil from Keystone XL when the project was first announced and spent billions of dollars upgrading some of its U.S. Gulf Coast refineries to turn heavy Canadian crude into gasoline and diesel.
But it says it no longer considers the pipeline critical to its business. The company is now expanding rail terminals at its refineries in Benicia, Calif.; St. James, La.; and Quebec to receive more crude oil shipments, including heavy Canadian crude. Part of the reason is the long wait for Keystone. "If we just sat around and waited for Washington, we'd never get anything done," Valero spokesman Bill Day said.
Nearly 200,000 rail cars in Canada carried crude oil or fuel during the first seven months of 2013, up 20% from the year before, according to the latest data from the American Association of Railroads.
Refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast are also taking advantage of the boom in light, sweet crude coming out of Texas and North Dakota. That oil is easier to process than heavy oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico, and as the supply has increased, the demand for heavy crudes at many refineries has diminished.
Enbridge, TransCanada's cross-town rival, plans to spend $2.4 billion to expand several pipelines in its Lakehead system by 2014. Such an expansion would bring 1.2 million barrels a day of crude oil from Canada and North Dakota to the Midwest, where it could then be shipped to the Gulf Coast via the Seaway pipeline that Enbridge owns with Enterprise Products Partners EPD -0.77% LP.
Oil producers in Canada are still pushing for Keystone. Imperial Oil, an affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corp., and other companies have argued that they need the pipeline to give them more access to the U.S. Gulf Coast, which is one of the few places in the world able to handle large volumes of heavy crude oil. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says that without the pipeline, production from oil sands will exceed shipping capacity by 2016.
But even as they hope for the project's approval, some producers in Canada are making other plans. Cenovus Energy Inc. CVE.T +0.42% has signed contracts to send 200,000 barrels a day to Canada's east coast via TransCanada's Energy East pipeline and 175,000 barrels a day to the country's west coast on a Kinder Morgan pipeline, spokeswoman Rhona DelFrari said.
"The long wait for the Keystone XL decision has created uncertainty for the oil industry," Ms. DelFrari added. "We're not putting all our eggs in one basket."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Dow Jones Industrial Average: Is Reality About To Kick In?
Moe Zulfiqar: How long will this move to the upside on the Dow Jones Industrial Average(INDEXDJX:.DJI) and S&P 500 Index (INDEXSP:.INX) last? This question has become the topic of discussion among investors these days. When I hear it, I certainly don’t blame them for asking. The key stock indices have increased significantly without a pullback, especially since the end of 2012, and key stock indices like the S&P 500 have increased roughly 13% in the first quarter of 2013.
Investors are indecisive on what to do; do they buy more, or sell and increase their cash position? Sadly, this is because, as the key stock indices have edged higher, speculation on a significant downturn has also increased.
The bears certainly have a good argument against the rally in key stock indices. They argue that the economy is bleak, there’s job growth in the low-wage-paying sectors, and earnings, the most essential ingredient that cause key stock indices to increase, are dismal. They say that this is not sustainable.
As of August 2, the second-quarter corporate earnings growth rate of S&P 500 companies stood at 1.7%. If this growth rate remains the same, then it would be the third worst earnings growth rate in the last four years. (Source: “S&P 500 at record highs despite cuts to earningsestimates for Q3 2013,” FactSet, August 2, 2013.)
With all this in mind, can we see a significant downturn in the key stock indices?
Certainly, as the key stock indices go higher on anemic fundamentals, they can see a major downtick. Remember that the reality always kicks in when the optimism clears; earnings fall when the consumer is struggling.
The big question still remains: when it will happen? This question is not only tough, but may also be impossible to answer.
Currently, on the key stock indices, it looks like the path of least resistance is to the upside; they are trending higher and there seems to be continuous buying. Consider the monthly chart of the S&P 500 below, paying close attention to the circled area:
Chart Courtesy of StockCharts.com
After breaking above the long-term resistance (black line), the S&P 500 did come back to test the same level, but from there, it increased once again—in the words of technical analysts, it confirmed the breakout.
If it didn’t sustain that level and broke lower, then it could have been a selling point.
When it comes to the stock market, sometimes irrationality can drive it higher. This is nothing new: the tech boom was a prime example, and we saw this during the 2006 and 2007, as well.
Investors who are investing with the long term in mind shouldn’t forget that the fundamentals aren’t strong but, at the same time, should also avoid calling when the key stock indices will top or bottom. They need to be aware that risks are present and then assess them carefully, take some profits off the table if they have any, and adjust their portfolio as the market changes. Taking on a position early can impact one’s portfolio.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Crime Pays!!
So, Jesse Jackson, Jr. 17 year veteran of the US Congress, suddenly gets a "mood disorder" (about the same time he learned he was to be indicted) and is going to prison for 2.5 years. Because his "mood disorder" was so severe, he has become disabled and will receive $8700 per month as a disability payment as well as $45000 a year from his congressional pension, a total of about $150K per year.
Is this a great country or what?
By the way, I have had a rather substantial "mood disorder disability" ever since Obama got elected in 2008. I have not committed any felonies, have not been convicted and sentenced to prison and I don't get squat - other than a higher and higher tax bill every year and the privilege of watching our federal deficit grow every day of the year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)China Launches Three ASAT Satellites
Small maneuvering orbiters include one with a robotic arm
BY: Bill Gertz
China’s military recently launched three small satellites into orbit as part of Beijing’s covert anti-satellite warfare program, according to a U.S. official.
The three satellites, launched July 20 by a Long March-4C launcher, were later detected conducting unusual maneuvers in space indicating the Chinese are preparing to conduct space warfare against satellites, said the official who is familiar with intelligence reports about the satellites.
One of the satellites was equipped with an extension arm capable of attacking orbiting satellites that currently are vulnerable to both kinetic and electronic disruption.
“This is a real concern for U.S. national defense,” the official said. “The three are working in tandem and the one with the arm poses the most concern. This is part of a Chinese ‘Star Wars’ program.”
China’s 2007 test of an anti-satellite missile shocked U.S. military and intelligence leaders who realized the U.S. satellites, a key to conducting high-performance warfare, are vulnerable to attack. Officials have said China could cripple U.S. war-fighting efforts by knocking out a dozen satellites. Satellites are used for military command and control, precision weapons guidance, communications and intelligence-gathering.
The official discussed some aspects of the Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) program on condition of anonymity after some details were disclosed in online posts by space researchers.
“The retractable arm can be used for a number of things – to gouge, knock off course, or grab passing satellites,” the official said.
The three satellites also could perform maintenance or repairs on orbiting satellites, the official said.
Details of the small satellite activity were first reported last week in the blog “War is Boring.”
The posting stated that one of the satellites was monitored “moving all over the place” and appeared to make close-in passes with other orbiting satellites.
“It was so strange, space analysts wondered whether China was testing a new kind of space weapon — one that could intercept other satellites and more or less claw them to death,” the report said.
The U.S. official said: “It is exactly what was reported: An ASAT test.”
According to space researchers who tracked the satellites movements, one of the satellites on Aug. 16 lowered its orbit by about 93 miles. It then changed course and rendezvoused with a different satellite. The two satellites reportedly passed within 100 meters of each other.
One space researcher was quoted in the online report as saying one satellite was equipped with a “robot-manipulator arm developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
The Chinese appear to be testing their capability for intercepting and either damaging or destroying orbiting satellites by testing how close they can maneuver to a satellite, the U.S. official said.
“They are learning the tactics, techniques and processes needed for anti-satellite operations,” the official said.
The Chinese have given a code name to the satellites and numbered the satellites differently. Chinese state-run media identified the satellites as the Chuang Xin-3 (Innovation-3); the Shi Yan-7 (Experiment-7); and Shi Jian-15 (Practice-15). The Shi Jian-15 is believed to be the satellite with the robotic arm. The official said the designation used in the blog, SY-7, was not correct.
A Pentagon spokesman said the three Chinese spacecraft are being monitored by the U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Combatant Command for Space (JFCC-SPACE), “consistent with its routine operations to maintain track of objects in space.” The spacecraft were tracked since the July 20 launch and the command “noticed the relative motions of these satellites amongst each other and with respect to other space objects,” the spokesman said.
The official said the Obama administration is keeping details of the Chinese anti-satellite warfare program secret as part of its policies designed to play down threats to U.S. national security.
“There is a Star Wars threat to our satellites,” the official. “But the official said the administration does not want the American people to know about it because it would require plusing up defense budgets.”
The use of satellites for space warfare appears to be a departure from past Chinese ASAT efforts. China faced international condemnation in 2007 for firing a missile that blasted a Chinese weather satellite in space, leaving tens of thousands of debris pieces.
A recently translated Chinese defense paper on the use of a kinetic energy anti-satellite missile revealed that China is making progress with its anti-satellite warfare program. The report reveals that a U.S. software program called Satellite Tool Kit is being used by the Chinese military for its ASAT program.
“Kinetic energy antisatellite warfare is a revolutionary new concept and a deterrent mode of operation,” the 2012 translation of the report stated. “The construction of the corresponding information flow is certainly important to the effectiveness of the kinetic energy antisatellite operation. The STK package, being a powerful professional space simulation platform, will play an active supporting role in research on information flow in kinetic energy antisatellite warfare.”
A joint State Department and Pentagon report on export controls published last year stated that China is working on several types of anti-satellite warfare systems.
“China continues to develop and refine its ASAT capabilities as one component of a multi-dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by potential adversaries during times of conflict,” the report said.
“In addition to the direct-ascent ASAT program, China is developing other technologies and concepts for kinetic and directed energy for ASAT missions.”
The report said China has said that to support its manned and lunar space program, it is “improving its ability to track and identify satellites—a prerequisite for effective, precise counter-space operations.”
“The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is acquiring a range of technologies to improve China’s space and counter-space capabilities,” the report said.
A recent PLA analysis concluded that space is the “commanding point” for the modern information battlefield.
“Battlefield monitor and control, information communications, navigation and position guidance all rely on satellites and other sensors,” and Chinese military writings emphasize, “destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy’s reconnaissance … and communications satellites.”
The military writings suggest that satellites could be part of an initial attack aimed at blinding the enemy. “Destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors … will deprive an opponent of initiative on the battlefield and [make it difficult] for them to bring their precision guided weapons into full play,” the PLA report said.
Rick Fisher, a Chinese military affairs specialist, said the maneuvering satellites are a significant element of China’s military space program.
The satellite with the robotic arm is a clear dual-use, military-civilian satellite, said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
“The robot arm will develop a larger arm for China’s future space station, but this satellite can also perform ‘co-orbital’ surveillance or attacks against target satellites,” Fisher told the Free Beacon. “It is essentially China’s version of the 2007 DARPA Orbital Express satellite that was criticized by liberals as step toward ‘militarizing’ space.”
According to Fisher, the satellites are part of a space surveillance and targeting system that will monitor space debris and also allow interception of space targets.
Elements of the satellite system also will be used for China’s missile defense system, which is linked to China’s anti-satellite missiles.
“But despite any potential ‘peaceful’ uses, the main point for the United States is that the PLA owns these programs and will use them as weapons against American space assets when it so chooses,” Fisher said. “All future U.S. military satellites require low-cost stealth or defense capabilities if the U.S. is to keep its essential military space architecture.”
The space weapons program in China shows that no amount of American restraint will halt Beijing’s drive for military advantage in space.
“Today China’s dictatorship rejects all forms of strategic arms control that could deny the Communist Party a capability that it deems essential to the survival of its dictatorship,” Fisher said. “When China gains superiority in any strategic category it will be even less willing to bargain away capability for the sake of ‘stability.’ China will not ‘reward’ any future U.S. nuclear weapon reductions or restraint in developing space weapons.”
China also conducted a maneuvering small satellite test in 2010, according to defense officials, which also was deemed an ASAT-related experiment.
Two Chinese satellites rendezvoused several hundred miles above Earth in August 2010 as part of what was viewed by officials as a contribution to the anti-satellite weapons program.
The Pentagon said at the time, “Our analysts determined there are two Chinese satellites in close proximity of each other. We do not know if they have made physical contact. The Chinese have not contacted us regarding these satellites.”
The two satellites also maneuvered during the Aug. 22, 2010 encounter. Based on the behavior, it appeared one of the satellites made contact with another satellite causing it to change orbits. The two satellites were estimated to have been as close as 200 meters to each other.
Small maneuvering orbiters include one with a robotic arm
BY: Bill Gertz
China’s military recently launched three small satellites into orbit as part of Beijing’s covert anti-satellite warfare program, according to a U.S. official.
The three satellites, launched July 20 by a Long March-4C launcher, were later detected conducting unusual maneuvers in space indicating the Chinese are preparing to conduct space warfare against satellites, said the official who is familiar with intelligence reports about the satellites.
One of the satellites was equipped with an extension arm capable of attacking orbiting satellites that currently are vulnerable to both kinetic and electronic disruption.
“This is a real concern for U.S. national defense,” the official said. “The three are working in tandem and the one with the arm poses the most concern. This is part of a Chinese ‘Star Wars’ program.”
China’s 2007 test of an anti-satellite missile shocked U.S. military and intelligence leaders who realized the U.S. satellites, a key to conducting high-performance warfare, are vulnerable to attack. Officials have said China could cripple U.S. war-fighting efforts by knocking out a dozen satellites. Satellites are used for military command and control, precision weapons guidance, communications and intelligence-gathering.
The official discussed some aspects of the Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) program on condition of anonymity after some details were disclosed in online posts by space researchers.
“The retractable arm can be used for a number of things – to gouge, knock off course, or grab passing satellites,” the official said.
The three satellites also could perform maintenance or repairs on orbiting satellites, the official said.
Details of the small satellite activity were first reported last week in the blog “War is Boring.”
The posting stated that one of the satellites was monitored “moving all over the place” and appeared to make close-in passes with other orbiting satellites.
“It was so strange, space analysts wondered whether China was testing a new kind of space weapon — one that could intercept other satellites and more or less claw them to death,” the report said.
The U.S. official said: “It is exactly what was reported: An ASAT test.”
According to space researchers who tracked the satellites movements, one of the satellites on Aug. 16 lowered its orbit by about 93 miles. It then changed course and rendezvoused with a different satellite. The two satellites reportedly passed within 100 meters of each other.
One space researcher was quoted in the online report as saying one satellite was equipped with a “robot-manipulator arm developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
The Chinese appear to be testing their capability for intercepting and either damaging or destroying orbiting satellites by testing how close they can maneuver to a satellite, the U.S. official said.
“They are learning the tactics, techniques and processes needed for anti-satellite operations,” the official said.
The Chinese have given a code name to the satellites and numbered the satellites differently. Chinese state-run media identified the satellites as the Chuang Xin-3 (Innovation-3); the Shi Yan-7 (Experiment-7); and Shi Jian-15 (Practice-15). The Shi Jian-15 is believed to be the satellite with the robotic arm. The official said the designation used in the blog, SY-7, was not correct.
A Pentagon spokesman said the three Chinese spacecraft are being monitored by the U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Combatant Command for Space (JFCC-SPACE), “consistent with its routine operations to maintain track of objects in space.” The spacecraft were tracked since the July 20 launch and the command “noticed the relative motions of these satellites amongst each other and with respect to other space objects,” the spokesman said.
The official said the Obama administration is keeping details of the Chinese anti-satellite warfare program secret as part of its policies designed to play down threats to U.S. national security.
“There is a Star Wars threat to our satellites,” the official. “But the official said the administration does not want the American people to know about it because it would require plusing up defense budgets.”
The use of satellites for space warfare appears to be a departure from past Chinese ASAT efforts. China faced international condemnation in 2007 for firing a missile that blasted a Chinese weather satellite in space, leaving tens of thousands of debris pieces.
A recently translated Chinese defense paper on the use of a kinetic energy anti-satellite missile revealed that China is making progress with its anti-satellite warfare program. The report reveals that a U.S. software program called Satellite Tool Kit is being used by the Chinese military for its ASAT program.
“Kinetic energy antisatellite warfare is a revolutionary new concept and a deterrent mode of operation,” the 2012 translation of the report stated. “The construction of the corresponding information flow is certainly important to the effectiveness of the kinetic energy antisatellite operation. The STK package, being a powerful professional space simulation platform, will play an active supporting role in research on information flow in kinetic energy antisatellite warfare.”
A joint State Department and Pentagon report on export controls published last year stated that China is working on several types of anti-satellite warfare systems.
“China continues to develop and refine its ASAT capabilities as one component of a multi-dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by potential adversaries during times of conflict,” the report said.
“In addition to the direct-ascent ASAT program, China is developing other technologies and concepts for kinetic and directed energy for ASAT missions.”
The report said China has said that to support its manned and lunar space program, it is “improving its ability to track and identify satellites—a prerequisite for effective, precise counter-space operations.”
“The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is acquiring a range of technologies to improve China’s space and counter-space capabilities,” the report said.
A recent PLA analysis concluded that space is the “commanding point” for the modern information battlefield.
“Battlefield monitor and control, information communications, navigation and position guidance all rely on satellites and other sensors,” and Chinese military writings emphasize, “destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy’s reconnaissance … and communications satellites.”
The military writings suggest that satellites could be part of an initial attack aimed at blinding the enemy. “Destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors … will deprive an opponent of initiative on the battlefield and [make it difficult] for them to bring their precision guided weapons into full play,” the PLA report said.
Rick Fisher, a Chinese military affairs specialist, said the maneuvering satellites are a significant element of China’s military space program.
The satellite with the robotic arm is a clear dual-use, military-civilian satellite, said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
“The robot arm will develop a larger arm for China’s future space station, but this satellite can also perform ‘co-orbital’ surveillance or attacks against target satellites,” Fisher told the Free Beacon. “It is essentially China’s version of the 2007 DARPA Orbital Express satellite that was criticized by liberals as step toward ‘militarizing’ space.”
According to Fisher, the satellites are part of a space surveillance and targeting system that will monitor space debris and also allow interception of space targets.
Elements of the satellite system also will be used for China’s missile defense system, which is linked to China’s anti-satellite missiles.
“But despite any potential ‘peaceful’ uses, the main point for the United States is that the PLA owns these programs and will use them as weapons against American space assets when it so chooses,” Fisher said. “All future U.S. military satellites require low-cost stealth or defense capabilities if the U.S. is to keep its essential military space architecture.”
The space weapons program in China shows that no amount of American restraint will halt Beijing’s drive for military advantage in space.
“Today China’s dictatorship rejects all forms of strategic arms control that could deny the Communist Party a capability that it deems essential to the survival of its dictatorship,” Fisher said. “When China gains superiority in any strategic category it will be even less willing to bargain away capability for the sake of ‘stability.’ China will not ‘reward’ any future U.S. nuclear weapon reductions or restraint in developing space weapons.”
China also conducted a maneuvering small satellite test in 2010, according to defense officials, which also was deemed an ASAT-related experiment.
Two Chinese satellites rendezvoused several hundred miles above Earth in August 2010 as part of what was viewed by officials as a contribution to the anti-satellite weapons program.
The Pentagon said at the time, “Our analysts determined there are two Chinese satellites in close proximity of each other. We do not know if they have made physical contact. The Chinese have not contacted us regarding these satellites.”
The two satellites also maneuvered during the Aug. 22, 2010 encounter. Based on the behavior, it appeared one of the satellites made contact with another satellite causing it to change orbits. The two satellites were estimated to have been as close as 200 meters to each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
–Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766
6a)Under Obamanomics, Welfare Pays More Than Work In Most States
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILYIncentives: A new study shows that in most states welfare programs pay more
than a minimum-wage job, and in some states government aid can be more than
the earnings from a regular, entry-level job.
Back in 1996, a Republican House led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, working with
Democratic President Clinton, helped enact genuine welfare reform that
included three main elements, the most important of which was the work
requirement. Within five years of the law's implementation, stagnant welfare
rolls were halved, employment among low-income Americans soared and child
poverty rates plummeted.
Democratic President Clinton, helped enact genuine welfare reform that
included three main elements, the most important of which was the work
requirement. Within five years of the law's implementation, stagnant welfare
rolls were halved, employment among low-income Americans soared and child
poverty rates plummeted.
This was after a 1995 study by the Cato Institute that found packages of
welfare benefits for a typical recipient in the 50 states and the District
of Columbia were not only well above the poverty level, but also more than a
recipient's annual wages from an entry-level job.
welfare benefits for a typical recipient in the 50 states and the District
of Columbia were not only well above the poverty level, but also more than a
recipient's annual wages from an entry-level job.
The 1996 law turned the federal welfare program into state block grants
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and for a while
it worked very well. A safety net was provided for those truly unable to
work or lacking basic skills, but the able-bodied were incentivized to seek
work and most found that getting up and going to work each day could be
rewarding in both self-esteem and remuneration.
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and for a while
it worked very well. A safety net was provided for those truly unable to
work or lacking basic skills, but the able-bodied were incentivized to seek
work and most found that getting up and going to work each day could be
rewarding in both self-esteem and remuneration.
Enter the Obama administration and the beginning of the "fundamental
transformation" of America, with its emphasis on redistribution of, rather
than the creation of, wealth. Once again, the poor were told they were poor
because the rich had taken their money and had rigged the zero-sum game to
their advantage. We were soon on our way to becoming a food-stamp nation.
Matters were made worse in July 2012, when the administration released a
directive from the Department of Health and Human Services announcing that
states would be able to waive the law's work requirements. The requirement
that able-bodied adults work, prepare for work or look for work in order to
receive benefits was deemed too much of a burden for some states and the
poor to bear.
transformation" of America, with its emphasis on redistribution of, rather
than the creation of, wealth. Once again, the poor were told they were poor
because the rich had taken their money and had rigged the zero-sum game to
their advantage. We were soon on our way to becoming a food-stamp nation.
Matters were made worse in July 2012, when the administration released a
directive from the Department of Health and Human Services announcing that
states would be able to waive the law's work requirements. The requirement
that able-bodied adults work, prepare for work or look for work in order to
receive benefits was deemed too much of a burden for some states and the
poor to bear.
A follow-up report by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes published Monday by
Cato shows that it's now a case of back to the future with welfare reform.
According to Cato, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35
states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13
states it pays more than $15 an hour.
Cato shows that it's now a case of back to the future with welfare reform.
According to Cato, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35
states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13
states it pays more than $15 an hour.
In 11 states, welfare was found to pay "more than the average pretax
first-year wage for a teacher. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting
wage for a secretary. And in the three most generous states a person on
welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer."
Cato's calculations are based on what a single mother with two dependents
would receive from a full-time job paying the minimum wage versus the value
of benefits provided by seven major federal welfare programs.
first-year wage for a teacher. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting
wage for a secretary. And in the three most generous states a person on
welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer."
Cato's calculations are based on what a single mother with two dependents
would receive from a full-time job paying the minimum wage versus the value
of benefits provided by seven major federal welfare programs.
"One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job," says
Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the new study. "But as long
as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job,
recipients will continue to choose it over work."
Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the new study. "But as long
as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job,
recipients will continue to choose it over work."
So what we have is a colossal double-whammy: President Obama creates an
economy with a disincentive due to taxes, regulations and ObamaCare for
employers to hire, forcing them to reduce workers to part-timers while it
says to those needing a job, "Don't worry about those nasty work
requirements, we'll take care of you."
economy with a disincentive due to taxes, regulations and ObamaCare for
employers to hire, forcing them to reduce workers to part-timers while it
says to those needing a job, "Don't worry about those nasty work
requirements, we'll take care of you."
Reducing the availability of work at the same time you make work less
profitable than welfare is a recipe for marching "forward" to an economic
disaster.
profitable than welfare is a recipe for marching "forward" to an economic
disaster.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) A Test of GOP Resolve on ObamaCare
Congress begged for a White House handout and got one. Republicans ought to reject it.
By Kim Strassel
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YS518_pw0830_D_20130829175633.jpg)
Getty Images
Republicans are busy debating what gives them the most "leverage" in their fight to get rid of ObamaCare. One powerful tool, it happens, is an issue that few of them so far have wanted to talk about.
The issue is the White House's recent ObamaCare bailout for members of Congress and their staffs. The GOP has been largely mute on this blatant self-dealing. The party might use what's left of its summer recess to consider just how politically potent this handout is, and what—were they to show a bit of principle—might be earned from opposing it.
The Affordable Care Act states clearly that all members of Congress and their staff must buy their health insurance through an ObamaCare exchange. The law just as clearly does not reconstitute the generous government premium subsidies that members and staff currently receive. Since most members and staffers earn too much to qualify for subsidies in the dreaded ObamaCare exchanges, they were looking at an enormous financial hit come January.
Democrats in particular freaked out, and so the White House in early August conjured out of thin air a bailout for the political elite. The Office of Personnel Management announced—with no legal authority—that Congress could keep receiving its giant subsidies. Oh, and the OPM also declared that each member of Congress also gets to define which of his staff is covered by the law. Chances are many staffers will never have to deal with the exchanges at all.
This deal ought to have led to a wild GOP protest, both on philosophical and legal grounds. Instead, there has been nary a peep of complaint.
Getty Images
The charitable explanation is that the announcement came after Congress had left for recess, giving Republicans little opportunity to unify around a response. The less charitable explanation is that Republicans themselves are under huge pressure from their own staffers to shut up and keep the subsidies flowing.
Some members, like Arkansas's Tim Griffin, went so far as to post on his Facebook page a "myth vs. fact" explanation (read: defense) of OPM's ruling. The responses on his Facebook page were scathing.
Few things infuriate Americans more than special privileges for Washington. The public could not care less that insurance hikes might lead to a Washington "brain drain." (Most would view that as progress.) Americans scrabbling for work, struggling to pay bills and facing soaring insurance premiums are not sympathetic to congressional complaints that the loss of their subsidies is unfair. As word has spread about the White House fix, a bipartisan fury has started to build at town-hall meetings, at rallies, and in letters and phone calls to Congress.
With a little fortitude, the GOP still has the opportunity to be on the right side of public opinion. The White House's unilateral bailout is a tailor-made opportunity for the GOP to highlight, yet again, the administration's unequal application of its flawed health law: waivers for Democratic union buddies, exemptions for big business, and now a special handout to Mr. Obama's political class.
The special deal is also an opportunity to oppose, yet again, the White House's extralegal actions.
Mostly, it is an opportunity to insist that Democrats either fully experience their experiment in social engineering—by living without subsidies within the ObamaCare exchanges they created—or give every other American relief. The reality is that Democrats, far more than Republicans, wanted this fix. They are terrified of their own creation. As leverage goes, there's little to compare with Democratic self-interest.
Imagine forcing Democrats, daily, to justify this self-dealing—a gravy handout reviled equally by independent, Democratic and Republican voters. Imagine the House attaching to a must-pass piece of legislation, say, a provision that requires Congress and staffers and administration officials to live uniformly and subsidy-free in the ObamaCare exchanges, or give a pass to ordinary Americans. Let's see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid handle that one.
A handful of Republicans—Sens. David Vitter and Mike Enzi, and Reps. Ron DeSantis and Shelley Moore Capito—are already calling for action. Any of their legislative approaches might serve as a starting point for a broader effort.
Of course, for Republicans to take this route, they'd have to risk their own self-interest. The GOP is currently sniping over who has more "principles" in the fight against ObamaCare. Those advocating a defund provision for the law this fall seem willing to hold hostage the economy and American households as part of a shutdown fight.
Yet nothing would make a greater statement about principles than a GOP willingness to first hold its own financial self-interest hostage in a fight. If Republicans want to show that they "stand for something," this is it. If they really are willing to do "whatever it takes" to oppose this law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment