His logic is overwhelming:
===Subj: Let me see if I have this right...
Ukraine buys almost all its energy (natural gas) from Russia. Revenues from natural gas sales are a primary source of income for Russia.Because of the recent disagreement between Ukraine and Russia, Russia is raising the price of natural gas it sells to Ukraine.Ukraine is almost broke and can't afford the increase in the natural gas price because it would be forced into bankruptcy.Obama(the USA) just announced the United States is giving Ukraine $1 billion to assist in paying for the higher priced natural gas it buys from Russia.So, the United States is actually giving Russia $1 billion because the money is just passing through Ukraine.The first question: Has Putin figured out a way to raise the price of his natural gas sales and make the U.S. pay for the increase?Next question: Was he really in the KGB or was he a commodities trader?If this analysis is accurate, Putin just got Obama (the USA) to pay him $1 billion by holding a press conference and trucking some troops across town from the Russian Navy base in Ukraine.Who is the smartest guy in the room now?Oh yes…“I’ll have more flexibility after I am reelected.”
Hypocrisy knows no end when it comes to misguided, mindless and pathetic J Streeters! (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile Arabs no longer take Obama seriously according to my courageous Arab Israeli friend and analyst, Khaled Abu Toameh? (See 1a below.)
===
Is 2014 the year America's economy begins to move forward? This economist says yes!
He certainly could be right but there are always things lurking in the back stage that can cause even an overdue recovery to trip.
They are:
a) If sanctions against Russia bite and are effective then it will boomerang on Europe and ourselves. That is the pain we must endure if Russia is to feel any impact.
b) If the Fed begins to withdraw from buying bonds, because it believes the economy is strong enough to support itself, that could prove a premature decision.
c) Obamacare has been postponed and/or modified about 28 times but if it is not defeated or altered it's bite will be hard causing the government to bail out insurance companies with tax payer dollars and will generate higher deficits.
d) The foreign picture is fraught with un-determinable risks any of which could explode.
Stay tuned! (See 2 below.)
===
Exhaustion can be overcome by leadership and down to earth telling it like it is. No shrills, no frills, no hype - just plain spoken words. (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, Obama has accomplished a great deal since taking over our government. The latest accomplishment is the act of a lone regional NLRB member who decided to allow Unions to take over College Football.
This is part of the equalizing effort to turn America into a land of the dis-enchanted.
If the ruling stands, football players will soon be able to call a strike at mid-field. If one of the team member scores he/she might be reminded they did not make that touchdown the government did.
Obama has accomplished his nefarious pursuits in many subtle,slick and unconstitutional ways but they all appear to have a common goal - as he said, he wanted to transform America so we would no longer recognize our nation.
However, Obama has fumbled every ball thrown to him but that does not deter him because his destructive work remains unfinished, because we still have some vestige of freedom, we still have a few ships plying the open seas and a few people in military uniforms.
In time, I have no doubt, Obama will render them ineffective because America is a threat to world peace. After all, Putin is exercising his right to rebuild the empire we caused Russia to lose and Russia always needed a warm water port so take it and don't look back because America is now led from the rear.
And if you believe Obama's reset button has proven to be a myth, as it always was, just remember Hillary told us "what difference does it matter."
And in fact, if truth be known, what difference does it matter if we allow Iran to have a bomb? It only matters to the Saudis and Israelis, with whom we no longer feel a connection.
What difference does it matter if NATO turns out to be a paper tiger and Europe continues to cower at the prospect of having their Russian energy source cut off or worse the price raised? That's their problem because America is in withdrawal mode.
What difference does it matter if we leave our own energy in the ground so Greens are appeased?
What difference does it matter if Obama shreds the Constitution by daily acts of political perfidy? After all it's an old document and was made on animal parchment and that his to offend the Politically Correct and animal lovers.
All of his actions are in pursuit of leveling the playing field so everyone has a stake in what the other person worked for and if that is not a saintly pursuit then you just do not understand the beauty of Socialism and wedge politics.
No, Obama is not a Socialist. He is far more dangerous because he is an ideologically driven ignoramus with a golden tongue enamored by his own self worth. His narcissism knows no bounds.
Somewhere deep inside Obama lurks the essence of a bully who lacks guts and who seems driven by deep seated feelings of rejection.because of his confused and conflicted child rearing years.
But then again what difference does it matter that one man has been able to make fools of an entire and once proud nation and people?
Well it makes a difference to me but then what do I know? I am just a low life Conservative who has lived 80 plus years and during that time seen most of my feared predictions come to be realized and now am seeing them regurgitated.
Am I bitter? Hell no. Selfishly speaking I lived during America's filet mignon years. Am I disappointed? You betcha!. I always thought America was exceptional but now I know what difference does it matter is the light by which Liberals and Progressives, and sadly politicians of all stripes, will guide us.. Am I cynical? Yup, sure am but I hate to I take comfort in the fact that my children and grandchildren are the stuckees and they will have to worry about what difference does it matter because I and those who think like I do are what is wrong with America..
But we have become portrayed as the racists, the uncaring who want to deprive everyone beneath us because we ask those who are capable to be responsible for their actions, to get a proper education, to respect the laws by which we govern ourselves, quit having children out of wedlock and above all, shuck their dependency, quit their complaining, wipe their noses, get their act together and make something of themselves.
For those who cannot there are ways to help them live a dignified and productive life as physically and emotionally possible.
But in a dependent society, in the final analysis, what difference does it matter because Uncle Sam is our saviour. He's the go to man of the hour.
How nauseating are the words what difference does it matter and more nauseating the woman who said them!
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)- J Street’s hypocrisy must be exposed
J Street’s 'Big Tent’ is open only to one side - the anti-Israel and BDS-supporting hard left of its own position; pro-Israel centrists are censored.
J Street supporters holding a rally in Boston for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. / Photo by Bob Nesson
J Street, the American organization that calls itself pro-Israel and pro peace but that always seems to be taking positions that are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, is asking America’s Jewish leadership to have a big tent and to open its doors to J Street. While I generally support that position, it is imperative that J Street’s hypocrisy be exposed. J Street insists that all major pro-Israel organizations be open to speakers who favor opposing views—such as supporters of the BDS movements, supporters of the single secular binational state approach, and those who oppose Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In the abstract, this open tent policy seems commendable. We should be committed to the open marketplace of ideas in which views prevail on their merits not on the basis of exclusion.
Now let’s see how J Street itself fares with regard to an open tent policy. It has categorically refused to allow speakers like me, who oppose J Street’s policies on Iran and other security matters, to speak to its members at its conventions. I have repeatedly and persistently sought an opportunity to present my perspective—which is shared by many American supporters of Israel—at the J Street convention, or at other events officially sponsored by J Street. When J Street invites BDS supporters and those oppose Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people to speak at its events, it claims that it does not necessarily support these positions, but it believes in encouraging its members to hear views that are different from its official positions. That is total nonsense. J Street only wants people to hear views to the anti-Israel hard left of its position. It categorically refuses to allow its members to hear views that are more centrist and more pro-Israel, such as my own.
I don’t want this to sound like sour grapes over not being invited by J Street to speak at its convention. Indeed I suspect that this column will generate such an invitation, since J Street will not be able to justify to its members its policy of censoring speakers to the center and right of its official positions. I receive hundreds, perhaps thousands of invitations each year, to speak to pro-Israel groups. I am writing this not to solicit an invitation but rather to set the record straight that from the beginning of its existence, J Street has never invited me, or others who hold my critical views of J Street, to address its members.
And there is a good reason why they have placed this cone of silence over its critics. J Street survives, and even expands, largely as the result of speaking out of two sides of its mouth. It seeks to attract centrist members by advocating the two-state solution, an aggressive stance towards peace negotiations and criticisms of Israel’s settlement policies. These are positions I fully support, and if they were J Street’s only positions, I would have joined that organization many years ago. But in an effort to expand leftward, particularly hard leftward, it has taken positions that undercut Israel’s security and that virtually no Israeli center-leftists support. It placed its imprimatur behind the despicable and mendacious Goldstone Report by bringing Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill and introducing him to members of Congress. In doing so it undercuts the efforts of the Obama Administration, which was supportive of Israel’s self-defense efforts in Gaza and not supportive of the Goldstone Report.
J Street’s position on Iran has been extremely troubling. It opposes the United States threatening military action, even as a last resort. It deliberately misquoted several former heads of the Mossad as opposing an American strike against the Iranian nuclear program as a last resort. The truth is that these distinguished Israelis oppose only an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran, but favored keeping the American military option on the table as a last resort and as a sword of Damocles. J Street now claims that it is not opposed to keeping the American military option on the table, but it says that in a whisper, while loudly proclaiming to its hard left constituency that an American military attack on Iran’s nuclear program, even as a last resort, would be a disaster to be avoided at all costs.
J Street has also spoken out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of whether the Palestinian leadership should recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. While first appearing to oppose such recognition, it now seems to be saying that this issue should be left to final stage negotiations, but it leaves open the possibility that it will continue to oppose such recognition if and when such negotiations are reached.
Moreover, J Street has accepted funding from sources—such as George Soros—who are openly anti-Israel, and have kept this fact secret so as not to alienate its centrist supporters.
It is easy to understand therefore why J Street doesn’t want me, or others who hold positions like mine, to enter into its tent. It does not want its own members to be confronted with the reality of J Street’s double talk. If I speak at its convention, I will be speaking at the same time to those centrists it seeks to attract and to those hard leftists it wants within its tent. Both sides will be shocked by J Street’s duplicity in telling each what they want to hear.
So here is my challenge: at the next J Street convention, show the film The J Street Challenge: The Seductive Allure of Peace in Our Time to all of its members, invite me to speak to them, allow me to distribute its conflicting position papers and positions and let the marketplace of ideas remain open to its members. Only when J Street opens up its tent to views critical of its own should it be demanding that pro-Israel groups open its tent to them.
The author is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard, a practicing criminal and constitutional lawyer and the author, most recently, of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.”
1a) Arabs No Longer Take Obama Administration Seriously
The extension of the peace talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.
The communiqué issued by Arab heads of state at the end of their summit in Kuwait this week shows that the Arab countries do not hold the Obama Administration in high regard or even take it seriously.
The Arab leaders also proved once again that they do not care much about their own people, including the Palestinians.
The Arab leaders, at the end of their two-day meeting, announced their "total rejection of the call to consider Israel a Jewish state."
This announcement came despite pressure from the Obama Administration on the Arab leaders to refrain from rejecting the demand.
A top Arab diplomat was quoted as saying that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry contacted Arab leaders on the eve of their 25th summit in Kuwait to "warn" them against rejecting Israel as a Jewish state.
Kerry, according to the diplomat, asked the Arab leaders completely to ignore the issue of Israel's Jewishness and not to make any positive or negative reference to it in their final statement.
Kerry did not want the Arab heads of state to repeat the same "mistake" that the Arab League foreign ministers made on March 9, when they too issued a statement declaring their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The Arab leaders, however, decided to ignore Kerry's warning and went on to endorse Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas's refusal.
The Arab summit's statement was published shortly before Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with Abbas in Amman in a last-minute effort to salvage the peace process with Israel.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry cut short a European tour to hold an emergency meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, pictured above on March 26, 2014. (Image source: U.S. Sate Department)
|
In light of the Arab summit's announcement, all that is left for Kerry to do is to put heavy pressure on Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the April 29 deadline set by the U.S. Administration.
At the meeting in Amman, Kerry warned Abbas that failure to comply with his demand would result in U.S. sanctions against the PA, including suspending financial aid and closing the PLO diplomatic mission in Washington.
Emboldened by the Arab leaders' backing, however, Abbas does not seem to take Kerry's threats seriously, particularly in light of previous threats by the U.S. Administration that were never carried out.
In 2012, Abbas had also ignored U.S. threats and pressure by seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama Administration did not take any retaliatory measures against the PA or against Abbas himself.
Like most of the Arab leaders, Abbas apparently understands that the Obama Administration has been weakened to a point where it is no longer able to impose its will on any Arab leader.
The way things appear now, it is Abbas who is setting new conditions and coming up with new demands, evidently from a conviction that the Obama Administration has no choice but to succumb.
Abbas today seems to feel confident enough to set his own conditions for accepting Kerry's demand to extend the peace talks.
Abbas has therefore now come up with a new requirement: that Israel release three senior Palestinians from Israeli prison: Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, PFLP Secretary-General Ahmed Sa'dat and Gen. Fuad Shobaki. All three are serving lengthy prison sentences for their role in terrorist activities, including the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.
The Palestinians also continue to accuse the Obama Administration of exerting heavy pressure on Abbas to soften his position and accept some of Israel's demands, including the issue of Israel's Jewishness. Some senior Palestinian officials in Ramallah have even accused Obama and Kerry of practicing "political and financial blackmail" against Abbas.
Abbas seems assured that Obama and Kerry are so desperate to avoid a collapse of the peace talks that they will be willing to accept anything he or the Arab leaders ask for.
The Arab summit stance on the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is a blow to the Obama Administration's efforts to achieve a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
There is a feeling among many Arabs and Palestinians that the Obama Administration has no clue as to what it wants from the Arab world. They point out that the Obama Administration has failed in its policies toward several Arab countries, especially Egypt, Libya and Syria.
Abbas, in wake of growing US pressure on him, evidently sees the Arab summit as a "victory" for the Palestinians. As one of his aides explained, "The Arab summit's announcement is a political and moral boost for the Palestinian leadership."
Abbas might eventually agree to the American demand to extend the peace talks at least until the end of the year. But this does not mean that he is going to change his position regarding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Nor does it mean that Abbas is about to make real concessions on any of the core issues, such as the future of Jerusalem or the issue of borders.
The extension of the talks means only one thing: that Abbas will be able to use the new time given to him to try to extract further concessions and gestures from the U.S. and Israel, while all the time bearing in mind that Obama and Kerry are willing to do almost anything to avoid a situation where they are forced to admit that their efforts and initiatives in the Middle East have failed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Economists Say 2014 Could Be Breakout Year for US
Once this year's harsh weather has faded, the U.S. economy could be poised for a breakout year — its strongest annual growth in nearly a decade.
The combination of an improving job market, pent-up consumer demand, less drag from U.S. government policies and a brighter global outlook is boosting optimism for the rest of 2014.
Many analysts foresee the economy growing 3 percent for the year, after a weak first quarter that followed a stronger end of 2013. It would be the most robust expansion for any year since 2005, two years before the Great Recession began.
One reason for the optimism: The government estimated Thursday that the economy grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the October-December quarter, up from its previous estimate of 2.4 percent. Fueling the gain was the fastest consumer spending for any quarter in the past three years.
The numbers pointed to momentum entering 2014 from consumers, whose spending drives about 70 percent of the economy.
Analysts cautioned that the brutal winter weather has depressed spending in the January-March. And they think economic growth has likely slowed to an annual rate of 2 percent or less this quarter. Yet that slowdown could pave the way for a solid bounce-back in the April-June quarter. Many think growth will be fast enough the rest of the year for the economy to grow at least 3 percent for all of 2014.
"We think that once temperatures return to more normal levels, we will see a lot of pent-up demand released," said Gus Faucher, senior economist at PNC Financial Services. "People will be buying cars and homes and making other purchases that they put off during the winter."
Economists have suggested before that the recovery appeared on the verge of acceleration, only to have their expectations derailed by subpar growth that left unemployment at painfully high levels.
This time, there's a growing feeling that the improvements can endure.
"We are looking for progressively faster growth as the year goes on," said Doug Handler, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.
The National Association for Business Economics predicts that the economy will grow 3.1 percent this year, far higher than the lackluster 1.9 percent gain in 2013.
If that forecast proves accurate, it would make 2014 the strongest year since the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, expanded 3.4 percent in 2005. Since the Great Recession ended in June 2009, annual growth over the past four years has averaged a weak 2.2 percent.
The U.S. economy has been hit by a series of blows since then — from a Japanese tsunami and European debt crisis, which hurt U.S. exports, to Washington budget fights, which fueled uncertainty about the government's spending and tax policies.
Tax increases and deep spending cuts that took effect in 2013 subtracted an estimated 1.5 percentage points from growth last year.
With Congress having reached a budget agreement and a deal to raise the government's borrowing limit, companies now have more certainty about federal fiscal policies.
"We now seem to have a truce on budget issues, which means uncertainties have faded." Faucher said. "That is a big reason growth will be stronger."
Also helping will be an improving outlook overseas. Economies in Europe are strengthening, which should boost U.S. exports. In addition, the U.S. job market is improving.
The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people seeking unemployment benefits last week reached its lowest level since November — an encouraging sign that hiring should be picking up.
In February, U.S. employers added 175,000 jobs, far more than in the two previous months. Though the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent from a five-year low of 6.6 percent, it did so for an encouraging reason: More people grew optimistic about their job prospects and began seeking work. The unemployment rate rose because some didn't immediately find jobs.
With more people working, more consumers will have money to spend to boost the economy.
"The last missing link to a stronger recovery was income growth, and now we are seeing that," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economics.
Unexpected events might yet prove that analysts are overly optimistic. But at the moment, economists don't expect the standoff with Russia over Ukraine or the Federal Reserve's paring of its economic stimulus to destabilize global markets or derail the U.S. recovery.
Naroff said the consensus view might even prove too pessimistic. He said he thought economic growth could achieve a vigorous 4.4 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter if pent-up consumer demand tops estimates. And he said growth could exceed 3.5 percent in the second half of this year.
"Once we get past this winter of our discontent, things should be looking a lot better," Naroff said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Cliff May
Russia’s Vladimir Putin, seething over the collapse of the Soviet Empire, wants to become the hegemon of Eurasia — at least. Iran’s Ali Khamenei, outraged by the decline of Islamic power, wants to become the hegemon of the Middle East — at a minimum.
President Obama wants to “end wars,” “give diplomacy a chance,” extend the hand of friendship to those who regard themselves as America’s adversaries and enemies, and, most importantly, cast the United States as an equal member — and no more than that — of “the international community” in the 21st century, which he believes will not be nearly as bloody as were the 19th and 20th centuries.
I fear this is not going to end well.
Pull up almost any photo of the negotiators in Vienna last week and you’ll see European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif grinning broadly. It makes me wonder: What’s so amusing?
Lady Ashton and the other Western European diplomats sitting across the table from Iran’s envoys have a critical mission: To persuade the Islamic republic’s rulers to verifiably terminate their nuclear weapons program. If they fail, the nuclear non-proliferation effort is dead. The chances that nuclear weapons will spread and be used over the coming decades increases exponentially.
The United States and Europe are holding out a carrot: They are willing — indeed, eager — to terminate all economic sanctions on Iran and, what’s more, to fully integrate the regime into the international economic system. It’s a straightforward deal, but American officials, ensconced at Vienna’s elegant Palais Coburg, have termed the talks a “Rubik’s Cube.” I suspect they’ve let process replace purpose.
The diplomats palavering with Iran represent the so-called P5 plus 1: the United States, Germany, France and Britain — but also China and Russia, whose commitment to preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear capability appears less than rock-solid.
And no one — diplomats, Western leaders or the major media — seemed terribly distressed by this: Last week, Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations‘ “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” issued a report on the egregious persecution and discrimination of religious minorities and dissidents in that country. He noted that Iran has incarcerated at least 895 “prisoners of conscience” and “political prisoners,” including 379 political activists, 292 religious “practitioners” — including dozens of Christians — 92 human rights defenders, 71 civic activists, 37 journalists and 24 student activists.
I’d guess Lady Ashton agrees with the American official who quickly absolved “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani of any blame. “These are indicators that President Rouhani has no influence over hard-liners, who remain fully in charge of the judiciary and security apparatus, government entities that are responsible for the most severe abuses against religious minorities,” Dwight Bashir, deputy director for policy at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com.
Those darned “hard-liners” also must be responsible for Iran continuing to top the list of terrorism sponsors. Al Jazeera — not exactly a conservative news outlet — this month aired a documentary making a convincing case that the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 was commissioned by senior Iranian officials and sanctioned by then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini himself.
Perhaps Lady Ashton thinks, “That was so long ago.” It was just two weeks ago, though, that Israeli navy commandos interdicted the Klos-C, a ship carrying Iranian missiles intended for terrorists in Gaza. Perhaps Lady Ashton thinks, “Well, that’s different.” I can’t think of any good reason why it would be. Or perhaps in private, she frowned at Foreign Minister Zarif and said something like, “Not nice, Javad.”
It’s hard to imagine how the Iranian foreign minister might have responded. He is not one to conceal his enthusiasm for terrorism. Earlier this year, you may recall, he laid a wreath on the grave of Imad Mugniyeh, mastermind of the mass murder of American Marines and diplomats in Beirut in 1983.
At the conclusion of last week’s talks, a senior U.S. official summed up what had been achieved: “We understand each other’s concerns.” My rough translation from diplomatese into English: “We got nowhere.”
Perhaps they’ll do better when they get together again next month. Here’s one reason not to bet on it: Mr. Obama last week imposed sanctions on Russia in response to its takeover of Crimea. These were minimal sanctions — the Russian stock market actually rose in relief — but the fact is we’re now sanctioning Russia even as Vladimir Putin “partners” with us in negotiations that may lift much tougher sanctions from Iran, Russia’s fellow neo-imperialist autocracy. Does anyone see a problem with this?
It gets worse — or rather, it’s likely to: According to The New York Times, “Russia’s delegate to the Iran talks, Sergei A. Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister, hinted in comments reported by the Interfax news agency Wednesday night that Russia might link the Ukraine and Iran issues as part of its own diplomatic leverage with the United States and European Union.”
Mr. Ryabkov added: “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes, taking into account the sentiments in some European capitals, Brussels and Washington.” Let me also translate this: He’s saying: “That’s a nice little dry-cleaning business you have there, Mr. Obama. It would be a shame if something should happen to it.”
For some months, Mr. Putin has been vaguely threatening to conclude a sanctions-busting deal with Iran — billions of dollars in Iranian oil in exchange for missiles and additional nuclear facilities. Russia also has been toying with the idea of selling Iran its effective S-300 anti-aircraft batteries. That would leave the Israelis with a stark choice: Strike Iran before the system is operative or risk losing whatever capability they now have to deploy airpower to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.
I fear this may not end well. Did I mention that?
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a policy institute focusing on national security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment