Mona Charen
PARIS -- An estimated 50,000 Iranian exiles and supporters from Europe and North America are here to remind the world that no cooperation with the brutal, expansionist regime in Tehran can possibly advance Western interests.
This annual gathering of MeK (People's Mujahedin of Iran), an Iranian resistance group, was already scheduled. But it might have been called just to rebut Secretary of State John Kerry's comments about possible cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq. "I think we need to go step by step," Kerry mused, "and see what, in fact, might be a reality, but I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq, not one sectarian group over another. It has to be inclusive, and that has been one of the great problems of the last few years."
The administration has walked back a bit from that flabbergasting comment, but the confusion it reflects is typical.
Does the Obama administration understand what it's dealing with in Iran?
The Weekly Standard reports that President Barack Obama's "spiritual adviser," Pastor Joel Hunter, recently traveled to Iran to discuss "religious tolerance" with the speaker of Iran's parliament, officials of Iran's Academy of Sciences, Christian and Jewish leaders, and grand ayatollahs in Qom. Hunter will brief Obama.
Who can object to talks, right? Dialogue promotes peace, doesn't it? Only if your partner has a semblance of integrity. Dialogue with brutal, vicious revolutionaries, who lie as a matter of policy, signals only an eagerness to deceive oneself, which is what is arguably happening now in Geneva, Switzerland.
The mullahs are practiced in deception. While Obama was ignoring Iraq, Tehran encouraged Nouri al-Maliki to oppress all opposition. The Sunnis, who had made common cause with the U.S. against al-Qaida, were forced out of government, arrested and sometimes murdered -- all while Washington issued bland endorsements of Maliki's inclusive reign.
Among Maliki's non-Sunni targets is a group of 3,000 Iranian ex-patriots, members of MeK, currently housed in a facility called (the irony was unintentional) Camp Liberty. MeK is the best-organized and largest domestic opposition to Iran's regime. Maliki's units have repeatedly entered the camp, and they have assassinated 52 people after handcuffing them. The fate of the remainder remains very much in doubt.
The whole world's got trouble. Why should this group compel particular concern? Because, as a letter to Obama signed by 30 prominent Americans details, these opponents of Iran's regime voluntarily disarmed and cooperated with U.S. forces starting in 2003. " ... The MeK worked hard to help protect the lives of our service members ... providing invaluable information about not only Iran's concealed nuclear enrichment activities, but also threats inside Iraq." Each MeK member was vetted by U.S. Forces and promised security.
The letter continues: "Over the last three years, while your administration was committed to keeping the residents secure ... a total of 135 have been murdered or died while being denied access to medical treatment ... In the pocket of each deceased resident was a Protected Person Status identity card."
The hand of the mullahs can be seen in a worldwide disinformation campaign to discredit the MeK. Though they stand for women's rights (one of the leaders is a woman), democracy, religious pluralism, free markets, freedom of expression, abolition of the death penalty, and separation of church and state, they have been tarred as "terrorists" and a cult.
In a carefully researched analysis of these old smears (the U.S. State Department listed MeK as a terrorist group until 2012), Lincoln Bloomfield writes, "A large part of what credentialed authorities in the U.S. have been saying about the MeK's past ... is either demonstrably untrue, factually unsupportable or misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty." Human Rights Watch, Bloomfield argues, issued a report on MeK that relied on several sources who were secretly in the pay of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. HRW's conclusions were, in turn, relied upon by the RAND Corporation and State Department.
It's one deception among thousands -- starting with 20 years of denials that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Let's ask again, as tens of thousands of Iranian exiles gather in Paris to plea for regime change: Does the Obama administration know what they're dealing with?
28 Jun 2014
IRAQ AND IDEOLOGY
Jack Kerwick
That the vast majority of Republicans remain as committed as ever to a strong American military presence in Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative ideology that dominates their party.
Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives subordinate the contingencies of history and culture to such abstract universal “principles” as “human rights” and/or “Liberty”—principles in which they locate America’s unique, supra-historical origins. The latter, in turn, endows America with it special, indeed, messianic, mission to protect “Liberty”—to promote what neoconservatives call, “liberal democracy”—for peoples everywhere.
It is this ideological creed of theirs that accounts for why neoconservatives have always favored an American presence in Iraq.
And it is this creed that explains why neoconservatives favor the presence of the American military, not just in those places where “liberal democracy” is absent; but even in those places—like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—where it has been present for decades but is, presumably, insufficiently stable and in dire need of American soldiers to prop it up.
Let’s see how this ideology plays out in the current discussion over the disaster that is Iraq.
When President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was “over” in 2011, his neoconservative critics blasted him. Obama, being as much of an ideologue as anyone, had his own reasons for making this declaration: it was a pretext that gave him cover for making the politically advantageous decision to begin withdrawing American soldiers. Neoconservatives opposed Obama’s call, contending that there wasn’t any basis for his claim.
But now, it is they who insist that the war really was over, even if neoconservatives instead choose to speak of the war as having been “won” prior to the troop withdrawal. This semantics trickery, though, is unconvincing, for if victory had been achieved in Iraq, as we are now being told, then Obama was correct and the war was over.
However, if the war in Iraq had been won, then what would be the point in continuing to deploy more American lives and treasure to that region? To this, the neoconservative can respond easily enough: We remain in Iraq for the same reason that we’ve remained in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.: To insure that our victory is not lost.
Let’s us now spell out the implications of the neoconservative ideology.
First, the neoconservative is theoretically committed to expending American resources in blood, time, and treasure all around the globe and until the end of time. The belief that America exists for the sake of promoting and defending, not the liberties of Americans, but the abstraction of “Liberty,” the “Liberty” of Earthlings, necessarily leads to this conclusion.
Secondly, though he routinely rails against “Big Government,” the neoconservative is just as much a friend to it as are his enemies to his left. In fact, it is arguable that neoconservatives are actually more wedded to Big Government. The neoconservative vision, after all, requires an American military possessed of potentially limitless power. The military is government, and big military is Big Government.
Indeed, without the military, the (national) government would be but the proverbial paper tiger.
Thirdly, insofar as neoconservatives believe that “America” ought to fight for “Liberty” wherever around the globe it happens to be threatened, they believe that the American taxpayer—you and I—have a duty to work extra hours, to part with our hard earned dollars, to say nothing of parting with the lives of our sons and daughters, to defend the “Liberty” of non-Americans throughout the Earth.
The American citizen, the neoconservative would have us think, exists to sacrifice life, limb, and treasure for the citizens of the world.
But it’s critical to grasp that neoconservatives aren’t just telling Americans that this is what they ought to do.
Since the mission to fight for “Liberty” is a government enterprise that, like all other government exploits, is subsidized by citizens, neoconservatives are saying that this is what Americans must be compelled to do.
Finally, as long as “victory” requires a perpetual American military presence in the lands of those who the United States “defeated,” then there is no victory. Think about it: Suppose someone razes your old house and builds you a new one in its stead. Would you consider the job completed, a success, if the only way to keep your new house from collapsing is for the builder or his team of construction workers to move in with you and indefinitely prop it up? And wouldn’t it be that much more horrible of a deal if you knew that you would have to continue to pay them to live in and sustain your home?
This is the neoconservative ideology that underwrote the war in Iraq.
That the vast majority of Republicans remain as committed as ever to a strong American military presence in Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative ideology that dominates their party.
Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives subordinate the contingencies of history and culture to such abstract universal “principles” as “human rights” and/or “Liberty”—principles in which they locate America’s unique, supra-historical origins. The latter, in turn, endows America with it special, indeed, messianic, mission to protect “Liberty”—to promote what neoconservatives call, “liberal democracy”—for peoples everywhere.
It is this ideological creed of theirs that accounts for why neoconservatives have always favored an American presence in Iraq.
And it is this creed that explains why neoconservatives favor the presence of the American military, not just in those places where “liberal democracy” is absent; but even in those places—like Japan, Germany, and South Korea—where it has been present for decades but is, presumably, insufficiently stable and in dire need of American soldiers to prop it up.
Let’s see how this ideology plays out in the current discussion over the disaster that is Iraq.
When President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was “over” in 2011, his neoconservative critics blasted him. Obama, being as much of an ideologue as anyone, had his own reasons for making this declaration: it was a pretext that gave him cover for making the politically advantageous decision to begin withdrawing American soldiers. Neoconservatives opposed Obama’s call, contending that there wasn’t any basis for his claim.
But now, it is they who insist that the war really was over, even if neoconservatives instead choose to speak of the war as having been “won” prior to the troop withdrawal. This semantics trickery, though, is unconvincing, for if victory had been achieved in Iraq, as we are now being told, then Obama was correct and the war was over.
However, if the war in Iraq had been won, then what would be the point in continuing to deploy more American lives and treasure to that region? To this, the neoconservative can respond easily enough: We remain in Iraq for the same reason that we’ve remained in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.: To insure that our victory is not lost.
Let’s us now spell out the implications of the neoconservative ideology.
First, the neoconservative is theoretically committed to expending American resources in blood, time, and treasure all around the globe and until the end of time. The belief that America exists for the sake of promoting and defending, not the liberties of Americans, but the abstraction of “Liberty,” the “Liberty” of Earthlings, necessarily leads to this conclusion.
Secondly, though he routinely rails against “Big Government,” the neoconservative is just as much a friend to it as are his enemies to his left. In fact, it is arguable that neoconservatives are actually more wedded to Big Government. The neoconservative vision, after all, requires an American military possessed of potentially limitless power. The military is government, and big military is Big Government.
Indeed, without the military, the (national) government would be but the proverbial paper tiger.
Thirdly, insofar as neoconservatives believe that “America” ought to fight for “Liberty” wherever around the globe it happens to be threatened, they believe that the American taxpayer—you and I—have a duty to work extra hours, to part with our hard earned dollars, to say nothing of parting with the lives of our sons and daughters, to defend the “Liberty” of non-Americans throughout the Earth.
The American citizen, the neoconservative would have us think, exists to sacrifice life, limb, and treasure for the citizens of the world.
But it’s critical to grasp that neoconservatives aren’t just telling Americans that this is what they ought to do.
Since the mission to fight for “Liberty” is a government enterprise that, like all other government exploits, is subsidized by citizens, neoconservatives are saying that this is what Americans must be compelled to do.
Finally, as long as “victory” requires a perpetual American military presence in the lands of those who the United States “defeated,” then there is no victory. Think about it: Suppose someone razes your old house and builds you a new one in its stead. Would you consider the job completed, a success, if the only way to keep your new house from collapsing is for the builder or his team of construction workers to move in with you and indefinitely prop it up? And wouldn’t it be that much more horrible of a deal if you knew that you would have to continue to pay them to live in and sustain your home?
This is the neoconservative ideology that underwrote the war in Iraq.
BENGHAZI AND HILLARY
Bruce Bialosky
By now you must be pretty sick of reading and hearing about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I am ready for No Mas. But after I wrote my first column about Benghazi many readers wrote and asked me to promise I would not let the subject die. Since nothing has happened that has warranted dropping the subject I felt obligated to march on to find the facts. Hillary has now released her book, Hard Choices, with a 34 page chapter dedicated to the subject. I spent my hard earned money to find out if the Secretary of State answered any questions.
This is not the first time I have bought a Democratic Presidential candidate’s book (yes, she is running unless she continues to embarrass herself). My first adventure was reading Al Gore’s (ok, Vice-President) Earth in the Balance while walking around the Republican National Convention in 1992. Some thought that to be odd. But when Gore ran for President in 2000 the book was a blueprint of how to defeat the man in the election.
Reading the 34 page chapter you learn that Mrs. Clinton really cared about the people in her department and especially the ones that were killed that night. But more importantly does she answer questions about what happened before, during and after the attacks on the American Consulate in Benghazi.
On the fifth page of the chapter Clinton starts to describe the video that inflamed people “across the Middle East and North Africa.” She leans on this issue on numerous occasions throughout the chapter never divorcing her from making this a centerpiece of the uprising and attacks. She offers a defense of Susan Rice’s now famous news show statements the Sunday following the incidents and states the comments were “approved by the CIA.” But that has been disavowed by former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell.
What is more important is the timeline of how an Ambassador was in a barely defendable consulate. Clinton does state she had been getting daily briefings about security matters. There is no description of any enhanced security plans that were communicated to embassies regarding the anniversary of 9/11. In fact, Clinton states the tumult regarding the video started on September 8th. If anyone was not worried with 9/11 coming up they certainly should have been after that. But Clinton then hangs the decision on Ambassador Chris Stevens to go to Benghazi. On page 389 she states “U.S. Ambassadors are not required to consult or seek approval from Washington when traveling within their countries, and rarely do. She goes on to describe his knowledge of the lawless situation in Benghazi, but he went there anyway. In addition, she delineates Steven’s requests for security upgrades which she was not alerted about.
To recap, there is no elaboration of special warnings regarding 9/11, no heightened concerns regarding tumult beginning on Sept. 8th, no one correlated the inadequate security that existed in Benghazi with this special situation and once the protests started next door in Egypt no one called the people in Benghazi and told them to get on a plane and get out of there back to Tripoli which was safer. Otherwise, there was near absolute chaos in supervision of the situation. This is not the “Fog of War.”
Clinton brings into the discussion the panel appointed to review what happened in Benghazi (Accountability Review Board –ARB) and she stated she implemented all of their proposals (24) prior to her departure from the State Department. The ARB questioned the funding level for the State Dept. which Clinton repeated on Page 409. She then enhanced that by saying “I spent four years making the case to Congress that adequately funding our diplomats and development experts was a national security priority.” Thus she laid at the feet of Congress the cause of insufficient security because of denied additional funding. There are two aspects here: 1) the State Department receives $48 billion already and 2) What government department does not want more money and a bigger share of the pie. But that does not explain why diplomats went to an insufficiently secured location during an already tumultuous time on the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil in our history. Congress was not at fault here.
On the second to last page (414) of the chapter Clinton addresses her presentation to Congress in January 2013 where she made her now famous statement “What difference at this point does it make?” She provides the total statement she made and stated the line above was taken out of context. She then attacks her opponents for politicizing the issue during the 2012 election. This brings up two points: 1) Is it not possible the people who were questioning this at the time did it because of policy and Clinton attacking them is actually the politicization of the issue and 2) She still apparently does not know what difference it makes. Though she mentions in the chapter some of the efforts made after 9/11 she never answered specifically or generally what efforts she made to secure other embassies and personnel in light of the protests in Egypt and attacks in Libya. Were the embassies in Tunisia, Morocco and other countries directed to be locked down? What specific instructions did Clinton as leader of the State Department do to secure her personnel throughout the world? We still don’t know and that is what difference it would have made.
Though others may present additional unanswered questions reading Mrs. Clinton dissertation I still am left without answers to the same basic questions. What were the intelligence reports telling the President and Clinton a week before the attacks? What specific instructions were given to State Department personnel worldwide in anticipation of 9-11-2012 to heightened security? Once Egypt erupted what instructions were given to personnel in neighboring countries? Once the attacks on Benghazi started what was done to secure embassy personnel in high-risk areas?
Clinton answers none of these questions and adds very little to the discussion. Without these answers we only have her statements that local personnel make their own decisions on where to be in their respective country and Congress did not fund the State Department sufficiently. Otherwise, I take responsibility, but not really.
By now you must be pretty sick of reading and hearing about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I am ready for No Mas. But after I wrote my first column about Benghazi many readers wrote and asked me to promise I would not let the subject die. Since nothing has happened that has warranted dropping the subject I felt obligated to march on to find the facts. Hillary has now released her book, Hard Choices, with a 34 page chapter dedicated to the subject. I spent my hard earned money to find out if the Secretary of State answered any questions.
This is not the first time I have bought a Democratic Presidential candidate’s book (yes, she is running unless she continues to embarrass herself). My first adventure was reading Al Gore’s (ok, Vice-President) Earth in the Balance while walking around the Republican National Convention in 1992. Some thought that to be odd. But when Gore ran for President in 2000 the book was a blueprint of how to defeat the man in the election.
Reading the 34 page chapter you learn that Mrs. Clinton really cared about the people in her department and especially the ones that were killed that night. But more importantly does she answer questions about what happened before, during and after the attacks on the American Consulate in Benghazi.
On the fifth page of the chapter Clinton starts to describe the video that inflamed people “across the Middle East and North Africa.” She leans on this issue on numerous occasions throughout the chapter never divorcing her from making this a centerpiece of the uprising and attacks. She offers a defense of Susan Rice’s now famous news show statements the Sunday following the incidents and states the comments were “approved by the CIA.” But that has been disavowed by former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morell.
What is more important is the timeline of how an Ambassador was in a barely defendable consulate. Clinton does state she had been getting daily briefings about security matters. There is no description of any enhanced security plans that were communicated to embassies regarding the anniversary of 9/11. In fact, Clinton states the tumult regarding the video started on September 8th. If anyone was not worried with 9/11 coming up they certainly should have been after that. But Clinton then hangs the decision on Ambassador Chris Stevens to go to Benghazi. On page 389 she states “U.S. Ambassadors are not required to consult or seek approval from Washington when traveling within their countries, and rarely do. She goes on to describe his knowledge of the lawless situation in Benghazi, but he went there anyway. In addition, she delineates Steven’s requests for security upgrades which she was not alerted about.
To recap, there is no elaboration of special warnings regarding 9/11, no heightened concerns regarding tumult beginning on Sept. 8th, no one correlated the inadequate security that existed in Benghazi with this special situation and once the protests started next door in Egypt no one called the people in Benghazi and told them to get on a plane and get out of there back to Tripoli which was safer. Otherwise, there was near absolute chaos in supervision of the situation. This is not the “Fog of War.”
Clinton brings into the discussion the panel appointed to review what happened in Benghazi (Accountability Review Board –ARB) and she stated she implemented all of their proposals (24) prior to her departure from the State Department. The ARB questioned the funding level for the State Dept. which Clinton repeated on Page 409. She then enhanced that by saying “I spent four years making the case to Congress that adequately funding our diplomats and development experts was a national security priority.” Thus she laid at the feet of Congress the cause of insufficient security because of denied additional funding. There are two aspects here: 1) the State Department receives $48 billion already and 2) What government department does not want more money and a bigger share of the pie. But that does not explain why diplomats went to an insufficiently secured location during an already tumultuous time on the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil in our history. Congress was not at fault here.
On the second to last page (414) of the chapter Clinton addresses her presentation to Congress in January 2013 where she made her now famous statement “What difference at this point does it make?” She provides the total statement she made and stated the line above was taken out of context. She then attacks her opponents for politicizing the issue during the 2012 election. This brings up two points: 1) Is it not possible the people who were questioning this at the time did it because of policy and Clinton attacking them is actually the politicization of the issue and 2) She still apparently does not know what difference it makes. Though she mentions in the chapter some of the efforts made after 9/11 she never answered specifically or generally what efforts she made to secure other embassies and personnel in light of the protests in Egypt and attacks in Libya. Were the embassies in Tunisia, Morocco and other countries directed to be locked down? What specific instructions did Clinton as leader of the State Department do to secure her personnel throughout the world? We still don’t know and that is what difference it would have made.
Though others may present additional unanswered questions reading Mrs. Clinton dissertation I still am left without answers to the same basic questions. What were the intelligence reports telling the President and Clinton a week before the attacks? What specific instructions were given to State Department personnel worldwide in anticipation of 9-11-2012 to heightened security? Once Egypt erupted what instructions were given to personnel in neighboring countries? Once the attacks on Benghazi started what was done to secure embassy personnel in high-risk areas?
Clinton answers none of these questions and adds very little to the discussion. Without these answers we only have her statements that local personnel make their own decisions on where to be in their respective country and Congress did not fund the State Department sufficiently. Otherwise, I take responsibility, but not really.
ANOTHER GHOST TOWN IN CHINA, A REPLICA OF MANHATTAN
Mike Shedlock
Malinvestment in China proceeds at a staggering pace. Technically, this growth adds to GDP, but eventually it will be written off.
Ghost cities, ghost malls, and empty train stations in China have been in the news for years. The world's largest mall is unoccupied and entire cities sit vacant.
We can now add another ghost city to the list, a big one. Bloomberg reports China Builds Its Own Manhattan -- Except It's a Ghost Town.
China’s project to build a replica Manhattan is taking shape against a backdrop of vacant office towers and unfinished hotels, underscoring the risks to a slowing economy from the nation’s unprecedented investment boom.
The skyscraper-filled skyline of the Conch Bay district in the northern port city of Tianjin has none of a metropolis’s bustle up close, with dirt-covered glass doors and construction on some edifices halted. The area’s failure to attract tenants since the first building was finished in 2010 bodes ill across the Hai River for the separate Yujiapu development, which is modeled on New York’s Manhattan and remains in progress.
The deserted area underscores the challenge facing China’s leaders in dealing with the fallout from a record credit-fueled investment spree while sustaining growth and jobs in the world’s second-biggest economy. A Tianjin local-government financing vehicle connected to the developments said revenue fell 68 percent in 2013 to an amount that’s less than one-third of debt due this year.
“There will have to be a reckoning,” said Stephen Green, head of Greater China research at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong. Sales of bonds by local-government vehicles to repay bank loans are just “buying time,” he said. “The people will pay” for it through bank bailouts, recapitalization with public money or inflation.
Conch Bay showed few signs of life during a June 19 visit by Bloomberg reporters. Work on Glorious Oriental, a two-tower residential and office complex, had stopped, and at the north end of Conch Bay, the main building of the Country Garden Phoenix Hotel, billed as Asia’s largest hotel, was a deserted shell with no signs of any work under way.
Calls to Glorious Oriental’s Beijing and Tianjin offices went unanswered.
Wang Wei, a 34-year-old Tianjin resident, was driving through the area to check out property prices, finding them six times higher than what he’d be willing to pay. “I’ve seen a lot of reports about the area, but apparently it’s not a place fit for home -- at least for now,” said Wang. “No shops, no schools, no hospitals and no neighbors.”
Empty
Buildings stand in the Conch Bay district of Tianjin, China. Photographer: Steve Engle/Bloomberg
Stories like this show why it is extremely unlikely China will pass the US any time soon.
Chinese growth is enormously exaggerated, malinvestment abounds, prices are absurd, and shadow bank operations that funds these developments will eventually implode.
Malinvestment in China proceeds at a staggering pace. Technically, this growth adds to GDP, but eventually it will be written off.
Ghost cities, ghost malls, and empty train stations in China have been in the news for years. The world's largest mall is unoccupied and entire cities sit vacant.
We can now add another ghost city to the list, a big one. Bloomberg reports China Builds Its Own Manhattan -- Except It's a Ghost Town.
China’s project to build a replica Manhattan is taking shape against a backdrop of vacant office towers and unfinished hotels, underscoring the risks to a slowing economy from the nation’s unprecedented investment boom.
The skyscraper-filled skyline of the Conch Bay district in the northern port city of Tianjin has none of a metropolis’s bustle up close, with dirt-covered glass doors and construction on some edifices halted. The area’s failure to attract tenants since the first building was finished in 2010 bodes ill across the Hai River for the separate Yujiapu development, which is modeled on New York’s Manhattan and remains in progress.
The deserted area underscores the challenge facing China’s leaders in dealing with the fallout from a record credit-fueled investment spree while sustaining growth and jobs in the world’s second-biggest economy. A Tianjin local-government financing vehicle connected to the developments said revenue fell 68 percent in 2013 to an amount that’s less than one-third of debt due this year.
“There will have to be a reckoning,” said Stephen Green, head of Greater China research at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong. Sales of bonds by local-government vehicles to repay bank loans are just “buying time,” he said. “The people will pay” for it through bank bailouts, recapitalization with public money or inflation.
Conch Bay showed few signs of life during a June 19 visit by Bloomberg reporters. Work on Glorious Oriental, a two-tower residential and office complex, had stopped, and at the north end of Conch Bay, the main building of the Country Garden Phoenix Hotel, billed as Asia’s largest hotel, was a deserted shell with no signs of any work under way.
Calls to Glorious Oriental’s Beijing and Tianjin offices went unanswered.
Wang Wei, a 34-year-old Tianjin resident, was driving through the area to check out property prices, finding them six times higher than what he’d be willing to pay. “I’ve seen a lot of reports about the area, but apparently it’s not a place fit for home -- at least for now,” said Wang. “No shops, no schools, no hospitals and no neighbors.”
Empty
Buildings stand in the Conch Bay district of Tianjin, China. Photographer: Steve Engle/Bloomberg
Stories like this show why it is extremely unlikely China will pass the US any time soon.
Chinese growth is enormously exaggerated, malinvestment abounds, prices are absurd, and shadow bank operations that funds these developments will eventually implode.
WW1 AND SECOND FALL OF MAN
Paul Kengor
On June 28, 1914, a Bosnian-Serb student named Gavrilo Princip killed Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, the duchess. It was the shot-heard-round-the-world, unleashing a series of events that by August 1914 embroiled Europe in war. That deadly summer unfolded 100 years ago, and the world truly was never the same.
Civilization was soon engaged in a horrific conflict marred by mechanized warfare previously unimaginable: tanks, subs, battleships, air power, machine guns with names like “the Devil’s paint brush,” and legions of poison gas—the largest-scale use of chemical weapons in history. Winding through all the agony were rotten, death-strewn trenches, an incomprehensible maze of thousands of miles of freezing, disease-ridden, and rat-infested tunnels where men subsisted below the earth. They rose from this hell only to be fed into a worse one—no man’s land, a dénouement with the human meat-grinder.
It was World War I, the “Great War.”
Ever since, professors have struggled to explain to students how the major powers became engulfed by this nightmare. I start my lectures on WWI with an hour on its causes. These ranged from colonial and tariff disputes to a complicated network of alliances that inexorably committed various countries to battle, beginning with Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, and Russia.
Still, as I cover these causes with my students, they are confused, frustrated, unsatisfied. Where was the Pearl Harbor? Where were the concentration camps? Where was the Hitler-Stalin Pact? Who was the brutal dictator?
There was none. No such blatant evils precipitated this war.
It was a disastrously wasteful affair that Pope Benedict XV publicly declared an unjust war, a mad form of collective European suicide. The pontiff rightly judged that there were no salient moral issues dividing the combatants. These countries should not have been at war, let alone slaughtering their boys by the millions.
The moral calamity was obvious to all. Quite apart from the bishop of Rome, the acclaimed atheist-leftist intellectual Sidney Hook might have best summed up the catastrophe when he referred to World War I not as the “Great War,” or “War to End All Wars,” or the “Kaiser’s War,” or, in PresidentWoodrow Wilson’s famous line, the war to “make the world safe for democracy,” but as something considerably less inspiring: World War I was, said Hook mordantly, “the second fall of man.”
And so it was.
Religious metaphor best captures the gravity of this giant fall from grace. Historian Michael Hull evokes the image of O Cristo das Trincheiras, “The Christ of the Trenches.” This life-size statue of Jesus Christ hung with arms outstretched on a tall wooden cross was erected on the Western Front. Soiled, bullet-scarred, and, most of all, crucified, the French presented it to the government of Portugal after the war to memorialize the thousands of Portuguese who sacrificed themselves at the Battle of Flanders. It’s an appropriate symbol for the millions who gave their lives for this colossal sin.
Michael Hull maintains that World War I was, in a perverse way, arguably more horrible than World War II. How so? “The horrors of World War I,” writes Hull, “exceeded those of World War II in terms of the sheer futility of squandered lives.”
Moreover, the horror didn’t end. It simply begot more horror.
Here’s what the modern world should know about World War I: This wretched war, whose reasons still baffle, enabled Hitler in Germany and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. It helped lead to World War II and the Cold War. The famous British historian A.J.P. Taylor put it plainly, “The first war explains the second and, in fact, caused it, in so far as one event causes another.”
The bloody disaster would be a mere warm-up, the first of two worldwide wars, fostered by the “punitive peace” imposed upon the surrendering Germans at the unforgiving hands of the French and other Allied leaders at the Versailles Conference. That punishing peace did not produce a peaceful heart among the Germans, many of which mistakenly believed they had
won the war and surrendered only to agree to acceptable conditions of peace. Instead, the conditions at Versailles helped sow the seeds for Hitler’s rise.
The war not only permitted the cataclysm in Germany; it also enabled the fall of Czar Nicholas II in Russia. It’s difficult to imagine the Bolsheviks supplanting the Romanov dynasty without the intervention of WWI.
Ultimately, World War II far surpassed World War I’s carnage, and the Soviet global communist ideology killed even more still; both precipitated by a “Great War” in which no great moral issues were at stake.
World War I unleashed death, principally death. It was a result that Mr. Princip could have never imagined when he pulled that trigger 100 years ago.
On June 28, 1914, a Bosnian-Serb student named Gavrilo Princip killed Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, the duchess. It was the shot-heard-round-the-world, unleashing a series of events that by August 1914 embroiled Europe in war. That deadly summer unfolded 100 years ago, and the world truly was never the same.
Civilization was soon engaged in a horrific conflict marred by mechanized warfare previously unimaginable: tanks, subs, battleships, air power, machine guns with names like “the Devil’s paint brush,” and legions of poison gas—the largest-scale use of chemical weapons in history. Winding through all the agony were rotten, death-strewn trenches, an incomprehensible maze of thousands of miles of freezing, disease-ridden, and rat-infested tunnels where men subsisted below the earth. They rose from this hell only to be fed into a worse one—no man’s land, a dénouement with the human meat-grinder.
It was World War I, the “Great War.”
Ever since, professors have struggled to explain to students how the major powers became engulfed by this nightmare. I start my lectures on WWI with an hour on its causes. These ranged from colonial and tariff disputes to a complicated network of alliances that inexorably committed various countries to battle, beginning with Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, and Russia.
Still, as I cover these causes with my students, they are confused, frustrated, unsatisfied. Where was the Pearl Harbor? Where were the concentration camps? Where was the Hitler-Stalin Pact? Who was the brutal dictator?
There was none. No such blatant evils precipitated this war.
It was a disastrously wasteful affair that Pope Benedict XV publicly declared an unjust war, a mad form of collective European suicide. The pontiff rightly judged that there were no salient moral issues dividing the combatants. These countries should not have been at war, let alone slaughtering their boys by the millions.
The moral calamity was obvious to all. Quite apart from the bishop of Rome, the acclaimed atheist-leftist intellectual Sidney Hook might have best summed up the catastrophe when he referred to World War I not as the “Great War,” or “War to End All Wars,” or the “Kaiser’s War,” or, in PresidentWoodrow Wilson’s famous line, the war to “make the world safe for democracy,” but as something considerably less inspiring: World War I was, said Hook mordantly, “the second fall of man.”
And so it was.
Religious metaphor best captures the gravity of this giant fall from grace. Historian Michael Hull evokes the image of O Cristo das Trincheiras, “The Christ of the Trenches.” This life-size statue of Jesus Christ hung with arms outstretched on a tall wooden cross was erected on the Western Front. Soiled, bullet-scarred, and, most of all, crucified, the French presented it to the government of Portugal after the war to memorialize the thousands of Portuguese who sacrificed themselves at the Battle of Flanders. It’s an appropriate symbol for the millions who gave their lives for this colossal sin.
Michael Hull maintains that World War I was, in a perverse way, arguably more horrible than World War II. How so? “The horrors of World War I,” writes Hull, “exceeded those of World War II in terms of the sheer futility of squandered lives.”
Moreover, the horror didn’t end. It simply begot more horror.
Here’s what the modern world should know about World War I: This wretched war, whose reasons still baffle, enabled Hitler in Germany and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. It helped lead to World War II and the Cold War. The famous British historian A.J.P. Taylor put it plainly, “The first war explains the second and, in fact, caused it, in so far as one event causes another.”
The bloody disaster would be a mere warm-up, the first of two worldwide wars, fostered by the “punitive peace” imposed upon the surrendering Germans at the unforgiving hands of the French and other Allied leaders at the Versailles Conference. That punishing peace did not produce a peaceful heart among the Germans, many of which mistakenly believed they had
won the war and surrendered only to agree to acceptable conditions of peace. Instead, the conditions at Versailles helped sow the seeds for Hitler’s rise.
The war not only permitted the cataclysm in Germany; it also enabled the fall of Czar Nicholas II in Russia. It’s difficult to imagine the Bolsheviks supplanting the Romanov dynasty without the intervention of WWI.
Ultimately, World War II far surpassed World War I’s carnage, and the Soviet global communist ideology killed even more still; both precipitated by a “Great War” in which no great moral issues were at stake.
World War I unleashed death, principally death. It was a result that Mr. Princip could have never imagined when he pulled that trigger 100 years ago.
THE DISASTROUS TENURE OF " OBAMA'S ENFORCER "
Ed Fuelner
I don’t know who the next U.S. attorney general will be. But I know I pity that person. Restoring the Justice Department’s reputation in the wake of Eric Holder’s tenure will take a lot of work.
You can find out just how big a task it will be in “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department,” a new book by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky. Even at a relatively slim 217 pages, it’s quite a bill of indictment.
It’s one thing to read about certain cases as they pop up in the news cycle -- an article about a civil-rights investigation here, a blog post about Operation Fast and Furious there. It’s another to assemble them in one place and get the big picture in one sitting.
Holder is the first attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress. Considering his behavior toward the legislative branch, it’s not surprising. He stonewalled, for example, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned him about the scandal that erupted when it was revealed that the IRS was targeting conservative organizations.
Or take the testimony he gave the House Judiciary Committee when asked about prosecuting the press over publishing classified material. Holder swore that he had never been involved in that or even thought about doing so.
Yet the committee subsequently learned that Holder had approved a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails by “swearing to a federal court that Mr. Rosen was a co-conspirator in a national security leak investigation.”
How did Holder explain this gap between his answer and the truth when the committee asked about it? He didn’t. He refused to answer.
Then there’s the deplorable way the Civil Rights Division has been run under Holder and Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general from 2009 to 2013.
In their chaper “The (Un)Civil Rights Division,” Fund and von Spakovsky detail numerous instances in which Holder and Perez “pursued a militant civil rights agenda intended to help Democrats win elections and implement …. a socialized America where racial, ethnic, and sexual quotas are required in everything from college admissions to public employment to school discipline.”
But Holder will probably be best known for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious, which put more than 2,000 guns into the hands of a Mexican drug cartel and led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and a U.S. Border Patrol agent. When federal lawmakers began investigating, Holder again opted not to cooperate, but to cover up.
Any claim “that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them to Mexico is false,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in February 2011. “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation into Mexico.”
But nine months later, after weeks of foot-dragging and attempts to find “dirt” on those who had blown the whistle on Fast and Furious, the Justice Department finally came clean. In November 2011, Holder admitted under oath that the gun-walking had, in fact, occurred. The February denial was rescinded.
To some observers, the idea of a truly ethical Justice Department is something of a pipe dream. As far as they’re concerned, the attorney general is nominated by a president who’s either Democrat or Republican, so we shouldn’t be surprised when he conducts business is a partisan manner.
Such a cynical view, though, is unfounded. Many fine attorneys general have served ethically defensible terms under both Republicans and Democrats. The tenures of Edwin Meese under Ronald Reagan and Griffin Bell under Jimmy Carter, for example, prove that the Justice Department can be run in an entirely independent, professional way.
Holder’s term as attorney general represents the other end of the spectrum: driven by politics, tainted by scandal and mired in corruption. The need for an attorney general that will, in fact, uphold the Constitution in a fair, impartial and ethical fashion has never been greater.
I don’t know who the next U.S. attorney general will be. But I know I pity that person. Restoring the Justice Department’s reputation in the wake of Eric Holder’s tenure will take a lot of work.
You can find out just how big a task it will be in “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department,” a new book by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky. Even at a relatively slim 217 pages, it’s quite a bill of indictment.
It’s one thing to read about certain cases as they pop up in the news cycle -- an article about a civil-rights investigation here, a blog post about Operation Fast and Furious there. It’s another to assemble them in one place and get the big picture in one sitting.
Holder is the first attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress. Considering his behavior toward the legislative branch, it’s not surprising. He stonewalled, for example, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned him about the scandal that erupted when it was revealed that the IRS was targeting conservative organizations.
Or take the testimony he gave the House Judiciary Committee when asked about prosecuting the press over publishing classified material. Holder swore that he had never been involved in that or even thought about doing so.
Yet the committee subsequently learned that Holder had approved a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails by “swearing to a federal court that Mr. Rosen was a co-conspirator in a national security leak investigation.”
How did Holder explain this gap between his answer and the truth when the committee asked about it? He didn’t. He refused to answer.
Then there’s the deplorable way the Civil Rights Division has been run under Holder and Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general from 2009 to 2013.
In their chaper “The (Un)Civil Rights Division,” Fund and von Spakovsky detail numerous instances in which Holder and Perez “pursued a militant civil rights agenda intended to help Democrats win elections and implement …. a socialized America where racial, ethnic, and sexual quotas are required in everything from college admissions to public employment to school discipline.”
But Holder will probably be best known for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious, which put more than 2,000 guns into the hands of a Mexican drug cartel and led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and a U.S. Border Patrol agent. When federal lawmakers began investigating, Holder again opted not to cooperate, but to cover up.
Any claim “that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them to Mexico is false,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in February 2011. “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation into Mexico.”
But nine months later, after weeks of foot-dragging and attempts to find “dirt” on those who had blown the whistle on Fast and Furious, the Justice Department finally came clean. In November 2011, Holder admitted under oath that the gun-walking had, in fact, occurred. The February denial was rescinded.
To some observers, the idea of a truly ethical Justice Department is something of a pipe dream. As far as they’re concerned, the attorney general is nominated by a president who’s either Democrat or Republican, so we shouldn’t be surprised when he conducts business is a partisan manner.
Such a cynical view, though, is unfounded. Many fine attorneys general have served ethically defensible terms under both Republicans and Democrats. The tenures of Edwin Meese under Ronald Reagan and Griffin Bell under Jimmy Carter, for example, prove that the Justice Department can be run in an entirely independent, professional way.
Holder’s term as attorney general represents the other end of the spectrum: driven by politics, tainted by scandal and mired in corruption. The need for an attorney general that will, in fact, uphold the Constitution in a fair, impartial and ethical fashion has never been greater.
THE PARANOIDS ARE BACK
Paul Greenberg
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds." So begins "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a classic work that the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in 1964, another time of deep division and mutual suspicion.
In that essay, he traced the roots of an American style that goes back at least to the late 19th century, when a plethora of mass movements kept finding new candidates for the source of all our troubles. It might be International Bankers one year and the gold standard the next as older scapegoats -- Catholics, immigrants, Masons -- gave way to new ones. Till they in turn were replaced by still others: munitions makers, Wall Street, foreign conspiracies that had infiltrated the very top levels of our own government ... you name it.
As an example of this paranoid delusion, the historian quoted a classic piece of demagoguery from Joe McCarthy, a senator whose very name became synonymous with conspiracy-mongering, as in McCarthyism.
Here is the junior senator from Wisconsin declaiming on the threat posed by traitors in high places:
"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men...."
Now the conspiracy theorists are back (if they ever left) with a new source of all evil. This time it isn't communism but the Common Core, an innocent attempt to set up some national standards for American education. But you might not recognize it as such from this rant against it on the internet:
"Our children will suffer at the hand of a government controlled education system. They will no longer be able to have dreams and goals but only those that the government wishes them to have (UNESCO-A21). If this isn't Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the 'ism's,' I don't know what is. The worst part is they are lying to parents and teachers about what Common Core really is and the effects it will have. Teachers don't even realize that their jobs are in jeopardy for, if they do not conform, they will be removed. But, then again, were not the people of Russia, Germany etc. all deceived until it was too late?"
This kind of hysteria isn't confined to certified nutcases. Fear of Common Core is spreading to perfectly reasonable people who wonder if there might be some real fire behind all this smoking rhetoric. That's how the lunatic fringe of a party becomes its whole warp and woof. Until even its respectable leaders hesitate to come out against this kind of thing, lest they Alienate the Base, which has become the cardinal sin for politicians out to win their primaries.
Just what is this bugaboo that's got these ring-tailed roarers on the Net so upset? Common Core is just shorthand for a set of minimal standards that would apply to basic education all over the country -- instead of the lazy, hazy patchwork of always changing goals set by every state and sometimes every school district in the country.
But all the usual suspects have formed an unholy alliance against filling so clear and obvious a need in American education -- the teachers' unions, the scaremongers on both sides of the political spectrum, the array of vested interests in the status mediocre quo ... and all the forces of inertia in general. Their aim: Dilute, delay and do whatever else they can to sabotage a common core of standards that would apply to all students all across the country.
Given a common core of uniform standards, American students could all take the same tests, and so the progress (or lack of it) of students in, say, Arkansas could be readily compared to how well those in New York or California or Iowa or any other state are doing. Which may be just what bothers those in the education establishment, or just the legion of kibitzers outside it: They don't want to make it easier to hold students, teachers, parents or administrators accountable.
It's so much easier for those in charge of the system to float along as they always have. No matter the result. Which is one reason the country spends so much on public education and gets so little in return.
The notion that every state, or maybe subdivision thereof, should set its own educational standards has some drawbacks -- like being duplicative, wasteful and ineffective. Just to start with. It's also a fine way to bring educational standards down to the lowest common denominator, if not lower.
Why should students in different states be held to different standards -- or be held to any standards at all? Why not just leave things as they unevenly are? Because that approach makes no sense. Does math, say, change every time you cross a state line? Does a well-written English essay in California become unintelligible when read in Maine? Why have different states set different standards for algebra? What sense does that make? Answer: None.
Yet we're told Common Core is some kind of nefarious conspiracy, a clear and ever more present danger to the whole country. The paranoid style is definitely back, and few politicians who want to move up the career ladder may challenge all this scaretalk.
But there's at least one well-known political figure who's an exception to this sad rule. He dares talk sense about Common Core even in these fear-driven times. And he hasn't even declared his candidacy yet for his party's presidential nomination come 2016.
His name is Jeb Bush, and when he's asked about Common Core, he speaks calmly, sensibly, moderately -- while others in his party, even the most respected, rush to misjudgment. Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, who used to note that Common Core "will raise expectations for every child," has switched to comparing it with centralized planning in Russia. The same goes for once sensible GOP leaders like Marco Rubio in Florida and Rick Perry in Texas. The crazies in their party seem to have got them buffaloed.
Jeb Bush is different. When a savvy aide suggested he just avoid the whole touchy subject now that Common Core has become a hot potato, he wouldn't. "I respect those that don't agree with me," he explained. "What I don't accept are dumbing down standards and expectations."
The man's grammar may remain Bushian -- it seems to be a family trait -- but his principles remain intact. Or as he put it, "I just don't feel compelled to run for cover when I think this is the right thing to do for our country." What's this -- a Republican politician with enough character not to pander to the zealots on his party's far right? Even as the far right comes closer and closer to capturing the GOP's center. Or at least intimidating it.
However well Jeb Bush fares in the quadrennial circus known as an American presidential election, he seems to have a higher standard than just winning an election: being true to himself.
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds." So begins "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a classic work that the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in 1964, another time of deep division and mutual suspicion.
In that essay, he traced the roots of an American style that goes back at least to the late 19th century, when a plethora of mass movements kept finding new candidates for the source of all our troubles. It might be International Bankers one year and the gold standard the next as older scapegoats -- Catholics, immigrants, Masons -- gave way to new ones. Till they in turn were replaced by still others: munitions makers, Wall Street, foreign conspiracies that had infiltrated the very top levels of our own government ... you name it.
As an example of this paranoid delusion, the historian quoted a classic piece of demagoguery from Joe McCarthy, a senator whose very name became synonymous with conspiracy-mongering, as in McCarthyism.
Here is the junior senator from Wisconsin declaiming on the threat posed by traitors in high places:
"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men...."
Now the conspiracy theorists are back (if they ever left) with a new source of all evil. This time it isn't communism but the Common Core, an innocent attempt to set up some national standards for American education. But you might not recognize it as such from this rant against it on the internet:
"Our children will suffer at the hand of a government controlled education system. They will no longer be able to have dreams and goals but only those that the government wishes them to have (UNESCO-A21). If this isn't Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the 'ism's,' I don't know what is. The worst part is they are lying to parents and teachers about what Common Core really is and the effects it will have. Teachers don't even realize that their jobs are in jeopardy for, if they do not conform, they will be removed. But, then again, were not the people of Russia, Germany etc. all deceived until it was too late?"
This kind of hysteria isn't confined to certified nutcases. Fear of Common Core is spreading to perfectly reasonable people who wonder if there might be some real fire behind all this smoking rhetoric. That's how the lunatic fringe of a party becomes its whole warp and woof. Until even its respectable leaders hesitate to come out against this kind of thing, lest they Alienate the Base, which has become the cardinal sin for politicians out to win their primaries.
Just what is this bugaboo that's got these ring-tailed roarers on the Net so upset? Common Core is just shorthand for a set of minimal standards that would apply to basic education all over the country -- instead of the lazy, hazy patchwork of always changing goals set by every state and sometimes every school district in the country.
But all the usual suspects have formed an unholy alliance against filling so clear and obvious a need in American education -- the teachers' unions, the scaremongers on both sides of the political spectrum, the array of vested interests in the status mediocre quo ... and all the forces of inertia in general. Their aim: Dilute, delay and do whatever else they can to sabotage a common core of standards that would apply to all students all across the country.
Given a common core of uniform standards, American students could all take the same tests, and so the progress (or lack of it) of students in, say, Arkansas could be readily compared to how well those in New York or California or Iowa or any other state are doing. Which may be just what bothers those in the education establishment, or just the legion of kibitzers outside it: They don't want to make it easier to hold students, teachers, parents or administrators accountable.
It's so much easier for those in charge of the system to float along as they always have. No matter the result. Which is one reason the country spends so much on public education and gets so little in return.
The notion that every state, or maybe subdivision thereof, should set its own educational standards has some drawbacks -- like being duplicative, wasteful and ineffective. Just to start with. It's also a fine way to bring educational standards down to the lowest common denominator, if not lower.
Why should students in different states be held to different standards -- or be held to any standards at all? Why not just leave things as they unevenly are? Because that approach makes no sense. Does math, say, change every time you cross a state line? Does a well-written English essay in California become unintelligible when read in Maine? Why have different states set different standards for algebra? What sense does that make? Answer: None.
Yet we're told Common Core is some kind of nefarious conspiracy, a clear and ever more present danger to the whole country. The paranoid style is definitely back, and few politicians who want to move up the career ladder may challenge all this scaretalk.
But there's at least one well-known political figure who's an exception to this sad rule. He dares talk sense about Common Core even in these fear-driven times. And he hasn't even declared his candidacy yet for his party's presidential nomination come 2016.
His name is Jeb Bush, and when he's asked about Common Core, he speaks calmly, sensibly, moderately -- while others in his party, even the most respected, rush to misjudgment. Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, who used to note that Common Core "will raise expectations for every child," has switched to comparing it with centralized planning in Russia. The same goes for once sensible GOP leaders like Marco Rubio in Florida and Rick Perry in Texas. The crazies in their party seem to have got them buffaloed.
Jeb Bush is different. When a savvy aide suggested he just avoid the whole touchy subject now that Common Core has become a hot potato, he wouldn't. "I respect those that don't agree with me," he explained. "What I don't accept are dumbing down standards and expectations."
The man's grammar may remain Bushian -- it seems to be a family trait -- but his principles remain intact. Or as he put it, "I just don't feel compelled to run for cover when I think this is the right thing to do for our country." What's this -- a Republican politician with enough character not to pander to the zealots on his party's far right? Even as the far right comes closer and closer to capturing the GOP's center. Or at least intimidating it.
However well Jeb Bush fares in the quadrennial circus known as an American presidential election, he seems to have a higher standard than just winning an election: being true to himself.
HIGHWAY AWAY FROM THE BUFFER DANGER ZONE
Kathryn Lopez
Beware the old woman offering you love.
That summed up some of the reaction to the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that struck down Massachusetts' buffer-zone law which kept women and men seeking to offer help, counsel, and prayer to women entering abortion clinics 35 feet away from the facilities.
"Every news story I've seen about Eleanor McCullen, the 77-year-old lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, refers to her as a grandmotherly type, cheery and sweet," one Boston Globe columnist wrote in reaction to the Court's decision. But, the writer concluded: "If your grandmother stands -- literally -- in the way of your right to get health care, your grandmother still needs to be stopped."
McCullen, who has spent almost 14 years devoted to helping women know they have alternatives to abortion, is, indeed, a grandmother with a wonderful smile. McCullen doesn't stand in the way of anyone's health care. She offers a choice that a woman may not have known that she had.
But that's not the way everyone sees it. "They make something that is already an emotional and horrific thing that is hard to choose to do, even harder," one woman who lives near the Boston clinic told a reporter.
This assertion underscores a point that Justice Antonin Scalia made in his concurring opinion: "Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks."
It's naive to believe that women walk into abortion clinics knowing all their options or that they can choose to protect the life of their unborn children in an environment of support and love. Such women need to hear the message that McCullen brings.
Counter to the accusation that pro-lifers don't care about children after they are born, Eleanor becomes a real, supportive presence in these women's lives. Her husband, Joe, says that she's on call as if she were an emergency-room doctor. An entire room in the couple's house is full of baby clothes and toys, all donated. She'll provide rent and support, help mothers and fathers get jobs and the skills they need.
"We help people and that's all I'm trying to do -- help someone that's desperate and abandoned," McCullen has said.
Asked to describe her work, McCullen said: "I see myself as a compassionate counselor, helping women. I don't know these women, but I know they're upset. They're abandoned. They're alone." Her method is to say: "Don't rush in. You can't reverse this. Just wait."
"I talk about adoption ... We help with medical. We help with housing ... We have some resources. We take them to the Archdiocese of Boston and we have resources," McCullen says.
Currently, I'm writing from the National Right to Life Convention in Louisville, Kentucky. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., is here on her life's work of marching for the civil rights of the unborn. But as is evident throughout the exhibit halls and speeches, this is about human life and dignity, period.
"I used to talk about how we were treating our old people. Now I'm 64 and I'm really worried," King says. The question remains: Are we a people who respect life? We do have the right to choose. And perhaps some sidewalk counseling -- whether outside a Boston abortion clinic or on the steps of the Supreme Court -- might help us see a better way. The walk McCullen is now free to take with women is a step in the direction of building a culture of life, resting on the pillars of charity and sacrifice, away from the rotting foundation of convenience and indifference we've become all too accustomed to.
Beware the old woman offering you love.
That summed up some of the reaction to the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that struck down Massachusetts' buffer-zone law which kept women and men seeking to offer help, counsel, and prayer to women entering abortion clinics 35 feet away from the facilities.
"Every news story I've seen about Eleanor McCullen, the 77-year-old lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, refers to her as a grandmotherly type, cheery and sweet," one Boston Globe columnist wrote in reaction to the Court's decision. But, the writer concluded: "If your grandmother stands -- literally -- in the way of your right to get health care, your grandmother still needs to be stopped."
McCullen, who has spent almost 14 years devoted to helping women know they have alternatives to abortion, is, indeed, a grandmother with a wonderful smile. McCullen doesn't stand in the way of anyone's health care. She offers a choice that a woman may not have known that she had.
But that's not the way everyone sees it. "They make something that is already an emotional and horrific thing that is hard to choose to do, even harder," one woman who lives near the Boston clinic told a reporter.
This assertion underscores a point that Justice Antonin Scalia made in his concurring opinion: "Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks."
It's naive to believe that women walk into abortion clinics knowing all their options or that they can choose to protect the life of their unborn children in an environment of support and love. Such women need to hear the message that McCullen brings.
Counter to the accusation that pro-lifers don't care about children after they are born, Eleanor becomes a real, supportive presence in these women's lives. Her husband, Joe, says that she's on call as if she were an emergency-room doctor. An entire room in the couple's house is full of baby clothes and toys, all donated. She'll provide rent and support, help mothers and fathers get jobs and the skills they need.
"We help people and that's all I'm trying to do -- help someone that's desperate and abandoned," McCullen has said.
Asked to describe her work, McCullen said: "I see myself as a compassionate counselor, helping women. I don't know these women, but I know they're upset. They're abandoned. They're alone." Her method is to say: "Don't rush in. You can't reverse this. Just wait."
"I talk about adoption ... We help with medical. We help with housing ... We have some resources. We take them to the Archdiocese of Boston and we have resources," McCullen says.
Currently, I'm writing from the National Right to Life Convention in Louisville, Kentucky. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., is here on her life's work of marching for the civil rights of the unborn. But as is evident throughout the exhibit halls and speeches, this is about human life and dignity, period.
"I used to talk about how we were treating our old people. Now I'm 64 and I'm really worried," King says. The question remains: Are we a people who respect life? We do have the right to choose. And perhaps some sidewalk counseling -- whether outside a Boston abortion clinic or on the steps of the Supreme Court -- might help us see a better way. The walk McCullen is now free to take with women is a step in the direction of building a culture of life, resting on the pillars of charity and sacrifice, away from the rotting foundation of convenience and indifference we've become all too accustomed to.
THAW IN CHINA-US TENSIONS?
Vijay Sakhuja
Last week, Hawaii witnessed one of the largest assemblies of Navies for the biennial Rim of the Pacific Exercises (RIMPAC) hosted by the Commander, US Pacific Fleet (PACFLT). Nearly 50 warships, half a dozen submarines, over 200 aircraft from Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and the US were involved in the exercises. RIMPAC began in 1971 during the Cold War and was targeted against the Soviet Union. Over the years, the participation, philosophy and content of the exercises has changed giving RIMPAC a global flavour. The interest in RIMPAC has grown steadily from 14 countries participating in 2010, 22 in 2012 and 23 in 2014 which is an encouraging sign. It does not appear to be targeted against any one power and the participants now address a number of maritime security threats and challenges which range from sea lane security to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
RIMPAC 2014 witnessed three new entrants- Brunei Darussalam, China and Norway; but Russia, which made its debut in 2012 RIMPAC, was conspicuously absent from this year’s exercises suggesting that the shadow of Russia’s actions in Ukraine had stretched as far as the Pacific.
Among the new participants, China appears to have attracted maximum attention. Since 2010, the US had been urging China to participate in the RIMPAC. There were a number of reasons for the US to encourage China to join the RIMPAC; first, the US wants to dispel any notion of containment among the Chinese which has been lingering since the 2008 RIMPAC in which China and Russia had been excluded raising speculations that the exercises were targeted against China.
Second, the US Navy hopes to enhance engagements with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). There have been a number of incidents at sea between the two forces despite the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) signed in 1998. Significantly, incidents involving the USS Kitty Hawk (1992), EP-3 incident (2001), USS Impeccable (2009) and USS Cowpen (2013) continue to loom large in the minds of the Chinese who feel that the US is challenging China’s rise in the region and its growing naval power.
Third, the US is encouraging the Chinese side to be more transparent about its military spending, long term naval plans, strategy and intentions in the Asia Pacific region particularly in the South China Sea and the East China Sea which witnessed a number of incidents.
Fourth, the US Navy hopes to enmesh the Chinese into multilateral naval engagements. It may be mentioned that the PLA Navy is not new to multilateral naval exercises since it has been participating in biennial ‘Aman’ series of naval exercises hosted by the Pakistan Navy. In recent times, it has sent multiple task forces to the Gulf of Aden and actively participated in anti piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. Also, China has proactively engaged other navies during the ADMM Plus exercises in Brunei late last year.
The Chinese do not appear to be quite impressed by the US overtures partly due to their belief that the US will continue to contain China. Further, they are suspicious of the US motivations and intentions on account of its ‘pivot’ or ‘rebalance’ to the Asia Pacific which involves shifting about 60 per cent of US naval forces in the region by 2020.
But the Chinese do believe that by excluding themselves from the regional maritime and naval cooperative structures, they may accentuate the ‘China threat’ perception which pervades across the region. In that context, the endorsement of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) agreement on procedures for ‘conduct at sea’ during un-alerted meetings/sightings between warships of the member countries is noteworthy. They see cooperative engagements as opportunities to work together with regional countries to address non-traditional security threats across the maritime commons.
However, the question still remains whether participation in the RIMPAC would add to transparency (for the US) and dispel containment (for the Chinese). It would be fair to argue that the RIMPAC is a worthwhile tool for constructive engagement between the PLA Navy and the US Navy which can offer good dividends but to expect it to transform their relationship is rather ambitious. This is also applicable to other participating navies particularly the Japanese and the Indian navies who see the modernization of the Chinese Navy as a threat.
The PLA Navy’s participation in the RIMPAC may not serve the purpose of cooling tensions in the region, but it can potentially help mend fences between China and the US particularly after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel’s remarks at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore accusing China of ‘destabilizing’ and the PLA deputy chief of staff counter-accusing Pentagon of ‘stoking fires’ in the region.
Last week, Hawaii witnessed one of the largest assemblies of Navies for the biennial Rim of the Pacific Exercises (RIMPAC) hosted by the Commander, US Pacific Fleet (PACFLT). Nearly 50 warships, half a dozen submarines, over 200 aircraft from Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America and the US were involved in the exercises. RIMPAC began in 1971 during the Cold War and was targeted against the Soviet Union. Over the years, the participation, philosophy and content of the exercises has changed giving RIMPAC a global flavour. The interest in RIMPAC has grown steadily from 14 countries participating in 2010, 22 in 2012 and 23 in 2014 which is an encouraging sign. It does not appear to be targeted against any one power and the participants now address a number of maritime security threats and challenges which range from sea lane security to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
RIMPAC 2014 witnessed three new entrants- Brunei Darussalam, China and Norway; but Russia, which made its debut in 2012 RIMPAC, was conspicuously absent from this year’s exercises suggesting that the shadow of Russia’s actions in Ukraine had stretched as far as the Pacific.
Among the new participants, China appears to have attracted maximum attention. Since 2010, the US had been urging China to participate in the RIMPAC. There were a number of reasons for the US to encourage China to join the RIMPAC; first, the US wants to dispel any notion of containment among the Chinese which has been lingering since the 2008 RIMPAC in which China and Russia had been excluded raising speculations that the exercises were targeted against China.
Second, the US Navy hopes to enhance engagements with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). There have been a number of incidents at sea between the two forces despite the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA) signed in 1998. Significantly, incidents involving the USS Kitty Hawk (1992), EP-3 incident (2001), USS Impeccable (2009) and USS Cowpen (2013) continue to loom large in the minds of the Chinese who feel that the US is challenging China’s rise in the region and its growing naval power.
Third, the US is encouraging the Chinese side to be more transparent about its military spending, long term naval plans, strategy and intentions in the Asia Pacific region particularly in the South China Sea and the East China Sea which witnessed a number of incidents.
Fourth, the US Navy hopes to enmesh the Chinese into multilateral naval engagements. It may be mentioned that the PLA Navy is not new to multilateral naval exercises since it has been participating in biennial ‘Aman’ series of naval exercises hosted by the Pakistan Navy. In recent times, it has sent multiple task forces to the Gulf of Aden and actively participated in anti piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. Also, China has proactively engaged other navies during the ADMM Plus exercises in Brunei late last year.
The Chinese do not appear to be quite impressed by the US overtures partly due to their belief that the US will continue to contain China. Further, they are suspicious of the US motivations and intentions on account of its ‘pivot’ or ‘rebalance’ to the Asia Pacific which involves shifting about 60 per cent of US naval forces in the region by 2020.
But the Chinese do believe that by excluding themselves from the regional maritime and naval cooperative structures, they may accentuate the ‘China threat’ perception which pervades across the region. In that context, the endorsement of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) agreement on procedures for ‘conduct at sea’ during un-alerted meetings/sightings between warships of the member countries is noteworthy. They see cooperative engagements as opportunities to work together with regional countries to address non-traditional security threats across the maritime commons.
However, the question still remains whether participation in the RIMPAC would add to transparency (for the US) and dispel containment (for the Chinese). It would be fair to argue that the RIMPAC is a worthwhile tool for constructive engagement between the PLA Navy and the US Navy which can offer good dividends but to expect it to transform their relationship is rather ambitious. This is also applicable to other participating navies particularly the Japanese and the Indian navies who see the modernization of the Chinese Navy as a threat.
The PLA Navy’s participation in the RIMPAC may not serve the purpose of cooling tensions in the region, but it can potentially help mend fences between China and the US particularly after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel’s remarks at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore accusing China of ‘destabilizing’ and the PLA deputy chief of staff counter-accusing Pentagon of ‘stoking fires’ in the region.
27 Jun 2014
ARMAGEDDON, ACT 1
Paul Greenberg
It started as a day like any other a hundred years ago, but before it was out, it would have ushered in a century of war, revolution, terror and mass murder like no other.
For today, June 28th, is a dark centennial. It's the 100th anniversary of the day the world ended, or at least the ever more progressive world that was almost taken for granted back then. For every day in every way we were getting better and better! Till it was only a matter of time till before we were the best! The future beckoned like a golden dream. A dream made of fool's gold.
Today, June 28th, is the unbelievable day the dream would start to turn into dust and ashes -- and blood. It happened in a provincial capital called Sarajevo in what was then the Austro-Hungarian empire -- the second largest in Europe after Russia, and another realm that, like yesterday, is no more.
The archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was in town and all was festive. He and Duchess Sophie rode in an open car through streets that echoed with cheers -- and where a series of assassins, six in all, waited along their route to do the bidding of a Serbian terrorist organization, the Black Hand. (Al-Qaida was scarcely the first terrorist threat in history to set off a war.) One terrorist who threw a bomb missed, but another took deadly aim with a semi-automatic pistol, a Fabrique Nationale Model 1910, first hitting the archduke in the jugular, then the duchess in the abdomen. And the bloody deed was done. Both would be dead before they could be brought to the governor's residence for medical treatment.
It was a tragedy, but no one expected it would lead to war. There had been other notable assassinations in those years, and they weren't confined to Europe. See the assassination of an American president, William McKinley, at the turn of the century. But a war? Especially a world war? Unimaginable.
The news scarcely made an impression even in Austria. That night the usual crowds in Vienna listened to waltzes as they drank wine. It was just one more assassination. No one could have foreseen the worldwide cataclysm it would unleash. Yet as the days passed and negotiations sputtered, mobilizations replaced them, and one led to another as each took its place in the simmering chain of events, like assassins along a road, or sticks of dynamite planted in a row. And the unimaginable became the all too actual.
What was first called the Great War, for there had been no greater till then, proved only the first and lesser introduction to a whole century of war, revolution, terror and mass murder. As great a tragedy as the First World War was, it would be followed by an even more disastrous Second. And it would bring the old, and even then only perilously stable civilization of the preceding centuries to a terrible end. That terrible century marked the end of any illusion that man's progress is inevitable, automatic, a sure progression. Or it should have.
Now a new world disorder takes inchoate shape under leaders who won't lead. And as America withdraws from the world, the world still declines to withdraw from us. And there can be no more certainty about the results now than there was on June 28th a century ago.
The war that began a hundred years ago today brought with it a flight from any idea not just of meaningful progress but a flight from meaning itself. For men took refuge in nihilism, in non-meaning, (Sound familiar? See this era's craze for po-mo, or postmodernism.) Others took up one fanatical ideology or another in place of philosophy. And each claimed it was The Wave of the Future -- foreordained, sure, and violent. The war that began a hundred years ago today would give birth to monstrous mass movements like fascism and communism, which were so alike while proclaiming their difference and even mutual hostility.
The 20th century would see another, and by now familiar flight -- a flight from God. It was George Orwell who observed that the great difference between the years before and after the First War was a loss of everyday belief.
It started as a day like any other a hundred years ago, but before it was out, it would have ushered in a century of war, revolution, terror and mass murder like no other.
For today, June 28th, is a dark centennial. It's the 100th anniversary of the day the world ended, or at least the ever more progressive world that was almost taken for granted back then. For every day in every way we were getting better and better! Till it was only a matter of time till before we were the best! The future beckoned like a golden dream. A dream made of fool's gold.
Today, June 28th, is the unbelievable day the dream would start to turn into dust and ashes -- and blood. It happened in a provincial capital called Sarajevo in what was then the Austro-Hungarian empire -- the second largest in Europe after Russia, and another realm that, like yesterday, is no more.
The archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was in town and all was festive. He and Duchess Sophie rode in an open car through streets that echoed with cheers -- and where a series of assassins, six in all, waited along their route to do the bidding of a Serbian terrorist organization, the Black Hand. (Al-Qaida was scarcely the first terrorist threat in history to set off a war.) One terrorist who threw a bomb missed, but another took deadly aim with a semi-automatic pistol, a Fabrique Nationale Model 1910, first hitting the archduke in the jugular, then the duchess in the abdomen. And the bloody deed was done. Both would be dead before they could be brought to the governor's residence for medical treatment.
It was a tragedy, but no one expected it would lead to war. There had been other notable assassinations in those years, and they weren't confined to Europe. See the assassination of an American president, William McKinley, at the turn of the century. But a war? Especially a world war? Unimaginable.
The news scarcely made an impression even in Austria. That night the usual crowds in Vienna listened to waltzes as they drank wine. It was just one more assassination. No one could have foreseen the worldwide cataclysm it would unleash. Yet as the days passed and negotiations sputtered, mobilizations replaced them, and one led to another as each took its place in the simmering chain of events, like assassins along a road, or sticks of dynamite planted in a row. And the unimaginable became the all too actual.
What was first called the Great War, for there had been no greater till then, proved only the first and lesser introduction to a whole century of war, revolution, terror and mass murder. As great a tragedy as the First World War was, it would be followed by an even more disastrous Second. And it would bring the old, and even then only perilously stable civilization of the preceding centuries to a terrible end. That terrible century marked the end of any illusion that man's progress is inevitable, automatic, a sure progression. Or it should have.
Now a new world disorder takes inchoate shape under leaders who won't lead. And as America withdraws from the world, the world still declines to withdraw from us. And there can be no more certainty about the results now than there was on June 28th a century ago.
The war that began a hundred years ago today brought with it a flight from any idea not just of meaningful progress but a flight from meaning itself. For men took refuge in nihilism, in non-meaning, (Sound familiar? See this era's craze for po-mo, or postmodernism.) Others took up one fanatical ideology or another in place of philosophy. And each claimed it was The Wave of the Future -- foreordained, sure, and violent. The war that began a hundred years ago today would give birth to monstrous mass movements like fascism and communism, which were so alike while proclaiming their difference and even mutual hostility.
The 20th century would see another, and by now familiar flight -- a flight from God. It was George Orwell who observed that the great difference between the years before and after the First War was a loss of everyday belief.
WHY BANKS ARE ROBBED
Bill Tatro
Willie Sutton was once asked why he robs banks. His response was simple “Because that’s where the money is!”
Given the infinite wisdom of Senator Max Baucus, Representative Charlie Rangel, and Senator Harry Reid we are about to embark on a world wide search for money.
Introduced to Congress on October 27, 2009 and signed into law on March 18, 2010, The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is about to impose penalties for noncompliance beginning July 1st, 2014.
This has the distinct smell of a new agency, such as the Energy Department, which will employ thousands and become mired in a governmental process for decades to come.
In search of funds to redeploy in our governmental giveaways and our military adventures, we are requiring foreign financial institutions including banks to identify, report and even collect taxes due on deposits, investments, etc. by US citizens (I am most certain that Vladimir Putin will be overly cooperative with this plan).
This program is the typical program the governmental bureaucrats love to extol. The revenue believed to be raised will be approximately 800 million dollars per year for the US Treasury, not even a weeks worth of TAPER. However, the cost of people, technology, travel expenses, investigative follow-up, etc. etc. etc., all government documented of course, has been estimated to be over 10 billion dollars. Money coming in versus money going out. Another governmental winner right out of the chute. After all we will go to the ends of the earth to find tax revenue whether we know it’s there or not.
Willie Sutton had a better way. He didn’t think the money was there (in the banks) he knew it was there.
Therefore, the common sense thing to do is not to create another bureaucratic agency costing billions of dollars, accomplishing nothing and creating more international intrigue on the ifcome that money is there. The simple answer is to impose a flat tax on all corporations irrespective of where their money is domiciled because that money we know is there.
Apple and others would not have to borrow funds to buy back shares to support their stock prices. They would simply use the cash available after they’ve paid the tax man. This approach would make GE and others start actually paying on what they’ve earned. A novel concept.
As for a new agency it would not be necessary. After all if the IRS has time to focus on conservative/tea party groups then it should have more than enough time to collect from the corporations who have told us exactly how much money is overseas. This kind of tax reform makes total sense but does create one problem. The politicians on both sides of the aisle would stir the ire of the corporate CEOs and more than likely see a dramatic falloff in their campaign contributions.
Given the potential of all this happening is somewhere between slim and none, no one should hold their breath in anticipation of real corporate tax reform.
Willie Sutton is rolling over in his grave. He would tell Harry and the boys “go where the money is”. But of course that won’t happen, therefore:
Let the game of hide and seek (FATCA) begin!
Willie Sutton was once asked why he robs banks. His response was simple “Because that’s where the money is!”
Given the infinite wisdom of Senator Max Baucus, Representative Charlie Rangel, and Senator Harry Reid we are about to embark on a world wide search for money.
Introduced to Congress on October 27, 2009 and signed into law on March 18, 2010, The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is about to impose penalties for noncompliance beginning July 1st, 2014.
This has the distinct smell of a new agency, such as the Energy Department, which will employ thousands and become mired in a governmental process for decades to come.
In search of funds to redeploy in our governmental giveaways and our military adventures, we are requiring foreign financial institutions including banks to identify, report and even collect taxes due on deposits, investments, etc. by US citizens (I am most certain that Vladimir Putin will be overly cooperative with this plan).
This program is the typical program the governmental bureaucrats love to extol. The revenue believed to be raised will be approximately 800 million dollars per year for the US Treasury, not even a weeks worth of TAPER. However, the cost of people, technology, travel expenses, investigative follow-up, etc. etc. etc., all government documented of course, has been estimated to be over 10 billion dollars. Money coming in versus money going out. Another governmental winner right out of the chute. After all we will go to the ends of the earth to find tax revenue whether we know it’s there or not.
Willie Sutton had a better way. He didn’t think the money was there (in the banks) he knew it was there.
Therefore, the common sense thing to do is not to create another bureaucratic agency costing billions of dollars, accomplishing nothing and creating more international intrigue on the ifcome that money is there. The simple answer is to impose a flat tax on all corporations irrespective of where their money is domiciled because that money we know is there.
Apple and others would not have to borrow funds to buy back shares to support their stock prices. They would simply use the cash available after they’ve paid the tax man. This approach would make GE and others start actually paying on what they’ve earned. A novel concept.
As for a new agency it would not be necessary. After all if the IRS has time to focus on conservative/tea party groups then it should have more than enough time to collect from the corporations who have told us exactly how much money is overseas. This kind of tax reform makes total sense but does create one problem. The politicians on both sides of the aisle would stir the ire of the corporate CEOs and more than likely see a dramatic falloff in their campaign contributions.
Given the potential of all this happening is somewhere between slim and none, no one should hold their breath in anticipation of real corporate tax reform.
Willie Sutton is rolling over in his grave. He would tell Harry and the boys “go where the money is”. But of course that won’t happen, therefore:
Let the game of hide and seek (FATCA) begin!
USURPING POWER
Linda Chavez
House Speaker John Boehner has had enough of executive usurpation of power. He announced this week that he will ask the House of Representatives to file suit against President Obama for ignoring laws the president doesn't like and for using agency rule-making, executive orders, memoranda and even simple letters to accomplish that on which the president can't get Congress to act.
When our framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they envisioned a separation of powers between the three branches of government that would prevent any one branch from becoming all-powerful. Congress enacts laws that govern the nation, with the Senate advising and consenting on presidential appointments and ratifying treaties, and the House initiating bills to raise revenues. The president faithfully executes the laws, appoints officials to serve in executive and judicial roles with the advice and consent of the Senate, negotiates treaties, and acts as commander in chief. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
This separation of powers has always caused conflicts, especially between the executive and legislative branches, each jealous of its own prerogatives. But Obama seems to have taken his assertion of executive power to a new level and exerted it in a broad range of areas. The president got his Affordable Care Act passed just as he wanted it, with no Republican input. But because the law was so complex and hardly anyone seemed to have read the whole thing before it went into effect, the president found it wasn't quite what he wanted. So he unilaterally adopted nearly two-dozen changes to the law without bothering to go back to Congress.
He's done the same thing on environmental law, immigration, education and drug enforcement. And of course, he ignored the clear obligation under the law to notify Congress before releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo, as he did last month when he released five high-ranking Taliban officials to obtain a captive U.S. soldier's release. In each case, the president and his appointees behaved as if they were entitled to do so because Congress wouldn't give them what they wanted the constitutionally established way.
Sure, passing legislation is messy and requires both compromise and cooperation -- neither of which is a strong suit for Obama or some Republicans in Congress. But our system of government requires it -- and when the system breaks down or a president simply flouts it, real harm occurs. This is not a political problem but a real assault on our form of government.
Boehner is right to attack the problem by taking the House's constitutional grievances to the courts. Democrats, predictably, are claiming the suit is a desperate gesture by a do-nothing Republican-controlled House. But it's nothing of the sort. These clashes have come up before -- and they were settled in ways that we don't blink an eye at but were very controversial at the time.
Take the landmark Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. The specifics of the case are less important than the principle the case established, namely judicial review of the constitutionality of laws written by Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which stated: "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently considered by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society."
A future U.S. House of Representatives v. Obama case may establish a similarly dramatic precedent: Just because you're president and elected by a majority of American voters doesn't mean you get to pick and choose which of the laws passed by Congress you want to enforce. It is no less repugnant that Obama believes he has the power to change law with a mere stroke of the pen.
House Speaker John Boehner has had enough of executive usurpation of power. He announced this week that he will ask the House of Representatives to file suit against President Obama for ignoring laws the president doesn't like and for using agency rule-making, executive orders, memoranda and even simple letters to accomplish that on which the president can't get Congress to act.
When our framers wrote the U.S. Constitution, they envisioned a separation of powers between the three branches of government that would prevent any one branch from becoming all-powerful. Congress enacts laws that govern the nation, with the Senate advising and consenting on presidential appointments and ratifying treaties, and the House initiating bills to raise revenues. The president faithfully executes the laws, appoints officials to serve in executive and judicial roles with the advice and consent of the Senate, negotiates treaties, and acts as commander in chief. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
This separation of powers has always caused conflicts, especially between the executive and legislative branches, each jealous of its own prerogatives. But Obama seems to have taken his assertion of executive power to a new level and exerted it in a broad range of areas. The president got his Affordable Care Act passed just as he wanted it, with no Republican input. But because the law was so complex and hardly anyone seemed to have read the whole thing before it went into effect, the president found it wasn't quite what he wanted. So he unilaterally adopted nearly two-dozen changes to the law without bothering to go back to Congress.
He's done the same thing on environmental law, immigration, education and drug enforcement. And of course, he ignored the clear obligation under the law to notify Congress before releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo, as he did last month when he released five high-ranking Taliban officials to obtain a captive U.S. soldier's release. In each case, the president and his appointees behaved as if they were entitled to do so because Congress wouldn't give them what they wanted the constitutionally established way.
Sure, passing legislation is messy and requires both compromise and cooperation -- neither of which is a strong suit for Obama or some Republicans in Congress. But our system of government requires it -- and when the system breaks down or a president simply flouts it, real harm occurs. This is not a political problem but a real assault on our form of government.
Boehner is right to attack the problem by taking the House's constitutional grievances to the courts. Democrats, predictably, are claiming the suit is a desperate gesture by a do-nothing Republican-controlled House. But it's nothing of the sort. These clashes have come up before -- and they were settled in ways that we don't blink an eye at but were very controversial at the time.
Take the landmark Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. The specifics of the case are less important than the principle the case established, namely judicial review of the constitutionality of laws written by Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which stated: "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently considered by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society."
A future U.S. House of Representatives v. Obama case may establish a similarly dramatic precedent: Just because you're president and elected by a majority of American voters doesn't mean you get to pick and choose which of the laws passed by Congress you want to enforce. It is no less repugnant that Obama believes he has the power to change law with a mere stroke of the pen.
6 TRUTHS ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY
Matt Barber
The Bible is the “word of truth.” It’s mankind’s user manual. It’s the blueprint, even in suffering, for a joyful and fulfilled existence in this life, and an incomprehensibly glorious eternity in the next. The total truths and precepts inherent within the Judeo-Christian scriptures are both timeless and universally applicable to all people and peoples across the globe, be they Christian, Jew or pagan.
Obviously, neither pornography nor pornography use, in the modern sense, was around during ancient biblical times. Still, since all time is biblical time, and since the Bible transcends time and space, God, in His boundless love and wisdom, has given us specific truths that directly apply to the use and abuse of modern pornography in all its ugly forms.
Studies indicate that at least 70 percent of American men and 30 percent of American women regularly view online pornography. The numbers aren’t much better among Christians with a 2011 ChristiaNet survey finding that 50 percent of Christian men and 20 percent of Christian women regularly use porn.
The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis of the devastating medical, mental, spiritual and societal pitfalls associated with porn use. Neither is it a complete examination of what the Holy Scriptures have to say on the subject. Still, here are six specific truths, from the word of truth, about pornography use:
1) Pornography use is always wrong.
Like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other forms of sexual immorality, the use of pornography, too, is sin.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 admonishes us to “abstain from every form of evil.” As we will further develop in the subsequent “porn truths” below, porn use is evil. “Do not desire her beauty in your heart, nor let her capture you with her eyelids” (Proverbs 6:25).
“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality …” (Galatians 5:19).
When you use pornography, you engage “the deeds of the flesh” and grieve the Holy Spirit. “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).
2) Married? Pornography use is adultery. Not married? Pornography use is fornication.
“[B]ut I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Husbands, I realize that you tell yourself, “I’d never cheat on my wife.”
Using pornography?
You already have.
You also don’t have much sense.
“The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; He who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Proverbs 6:32-33).
Using porn? Knock it off, repent and ask God’s forgiveness. You’re destroying yourself and your marriage.
“Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
Hear that, single guys? If you’re using porn, you’re committing fornication. You’re sinning against God, your future wife and God’s precious daughters featured in the images after which you lust.
Again, knock it off, repent and ask God’s forgiveness. Then save yourself, from now on, for your wife. That’s what your Creator both expects and demands.
3) Pornography use leads to death.
“But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:14-15).
People often say that pornography use is a “victimless crime.” Nonsense. Both the subjects of pornography, the men, women and children featured in it and objectified through it, as well as those who consume it, are hurt by pornography.
Pornography use is a cancerous epidemic in America. It’s destroying lives, souls, children, marriages and families.
It’s also destroying our culture.
Porn use leads to death – spiritual, emotional, marital, familial and societal death.
4) Pornography use is demonic.
“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 John 2:16).
Porn use typifies all of this and more. Porn is “of the world.”
Scripture calls Satan the “prince of the world” and the “father of lies.”
Pornography, which is “from the world,” is the wicked, destructive, deceptive and deadly brainchild of the “prince of the world.”
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-12).
5) You must flee pornography.
“Flee [sexual] immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Flee pornography while you still can. You will be discovered. Many falsely believe that porn use is a personal, harmless form of entertainment. They think that what they do, they do in secret. Nothing is done in secret. More often than not, your loved ones will discover you. As scripture warns: “[Y]ou may be sure that your sin will find you out.”
Either way, God knows.
6) You can be free from pornography use.
“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
The way of escape is available in and through the person of Jesus Christ, His holy word, the Holy Spirit and the full armor of God:
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:13-18).
Try this: Every time you’re tempted to return to your computer for porn, pick up a Bible instead. Or go to BibleGateway.com.
Begin reading.
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments” (Psalms 119:9-10).
I second the Apostle Peter’s plea: “Dear friends, I urge you … to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11).
Even if you feel you cannot stop using pornography under your own power, you can stop under the power of the Holy Spirit. Ask Jesus – keep asking Jesus – and He will help you.
If you screw up, then stop, ask His forgiveness and then ask Him again for help.
Because a soul is a terrible thing to waste.
The Bible is the “word of truth.” It’s mankind’s user manual. It’s the blueprint, even in suffering, for a joyful and fulfilled existence in this life, and an incomprehensibly glorious eternity in the next. The total truths and precepts inherent within the Judeo-Christian scriptures are both timeless and universally applicable to all people and peoples across the globe, be they Christian, Jew or pagan.
Obviously, neither pornography nor pornography use, in the modern sense, was around during ancient biblical times. Still, since all time is biblical time, and since the Bible transcends time and space, God, in His boundless love and wisdom, has given us specific truths that directly apply to the use and abuse of modern pornography in all its ugly forms.
Studies indicate that at least 70 percent of American men and 30 percent of American women regularly view online pornography. The numbers aren’t much better among Christians with a 2011 ChristiaNet survey finding that 50 percent of Christian men and 20 percent of Christian women regularly use porn.
The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis of the devastating medical, mental, spiritual and societal pitfalls associated with porn use. Neither is it a complete examination of what the Holy Scriptures have to say on the subject. Still, here are six specific truths, from the word of truth, about pornography use:
1) Pornography use is always wrong.
Like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other forms of sexual immorality, the use of pornography, too, is sin.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 admonishes us to “abstain from every form of evil.” As we will further develop in the subsequent “porn truths” below, porn use is evil. “Do not desire her beauty in your heart, nor let her capture you with her eyelids” (Proverbs 6:25).
“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality …” (Galatians 5:19).
When you use pornography, you engage “the deeds of the flesh” and grieve the Holy Spirit. “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).
2) Married? Pornography use is adultery. Not married? Pornography use is fornication.
“[B]ut I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Husbands, I realize that you tell yourself, “I’d never cheat on my wife.”
Using pornography?
You already have.
You also don’t have much sense.
“The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; He who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Proverbs 6:32-33).
Using porn? Knock it off, repent and ask God’s forgiveness. You’re destroying yourself and your marriage.
“Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
Hear that, single guys? If you’re using porn, you’re committing fornication. You’re sinning against God, your future wife and God’s precious daughters featured in the images after which you lust.
Again, knock it off, repent and ask God’s forgiveness. Then save yourself, from now on, for your wife. That’s what your Creator both expects and demands.
3) Pornography use leads to death.
“But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:14-15).
People often say that pornography use is a “victimless crime.” Nonsense. Both the subjects of pornography, the men, women and children featured in it and objectified through it, as well as those who consume it, are hurt by pornography.
Pornography use is a cancerous epidemic in America. It’s destroying lives, souls, children, marriages and families.
It’s also destroying our culture.
Porn use leads to death – spiritual, emotional, marital, familial and societal death.
4) Pornography use is demonic.
“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world” (1 John 2:16).
Porn use typifies all of this and more. Porn is “of the world.”
Scripture calls Satan the “prince of the world” and the “father of lies.”
Pornography, which is “from the world,” is the wicked, destructive, deceptive and deadly brainchild of the “prince of the world.”
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-12).
5) You must flee pornography.
“Flee [sexual] immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Flee pornography while you still can. You will be discovered. Many falsely believe that porn use is a personal, harmless form of entertainment. They think that what they do, they do in secret. Nothing is done in secret. More often than not, your loved ones will discover you. As scripture warns: “[Y]ou may be sure that your sin will find you out.”
Either way, God knows.
6) You can be free from pornography use.
“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).
The way of escape is available in and through the person of Jesus Christ, His holy word, the Holy Spirit and the full armor of God:
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:13-18).
Try this: Every time you’re tempted to return to your computer for porn, pick up a Bible instead. Or go to BibleGateway.com.
Begin reading.
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments” (Psalms 119:9-10).
I second the Apostle Peter’s plea: “Dear friends, I urge you … to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11).
Even if you feel you cannot stop using pornography under your own power, you can stop under the power of the Holy Spirit. Ask Jesus – keep asking Jesus – and He will help you.
If you screw up, then stop, ask His forgiveness and then ask Him again for help.
Because a soul is a terrible thing to waste.
THE PORNIFICATION OF YOUNG GIRL FASHION
Suzanne Fields
Dov Charney was called the CEO of Sleezecake, responsible for the heightened pornification of fashion advertisements aimed at very young women, and he remained king of the mountain at American Apparel as long as the heap he was sitting on was green, as in money. For a while, it was.
But last week, the board of directors of the company he created fired him and the reign of Dov Charney, came to an end. He still owns 27 percent of the company, and he's fighting the sacking. For anyone unfamiliar with fashion-trade gossip, American Apparel offered a mixed bag of messages. The self-made founder, who emigrated to Los Angeles from Montreal, was an iconoclastic entrepreneur who championed American labor (no outsourcing), paid his workers good wages for making the cotton basics that added sex appeal to the preppy image. He made casual cotton cool, worn by gays, geeks, nerds, hip girls and boys, urban women and metrosexuals.
But the man had major flaws. He was sued by employees for sexual harassment and was known to attend in-house business meetings in his underwear. Sordid stories about his behavior became expensive with increased litigation and defense costs, severance packages and settlement payments. The company stock fell. His lurid personal behavior was accompanied by adverts of vulnerable-looking models in see-through leotards and scant panties, which came close to suggesting child porn.
He knew he was his own worst enemy, but he thought it important for fashion to extend the sexual boundaries of style when he opened his first store in Los Angeles in 2003. There's a long history of chic outrage in fashion, and his audience was ever more accepting after Brooke Shields at the age of 15 whispered seductively in a famous commercial that "there's nothing between me and my Calvins." (She's 49 now, and there's not so much interest in her Calvins.)
Apart from Dov Charney's personal extravagances, his demise coincides with a renewed questioning of our sexualized culture and its impact on the younger generations among us. A new low in an American Apparel ad showed the back of a young girl in miniskirt, bending over with the camera focused on her panties. This was less about selling the miniskirt than it was about a pubescent-shock sexual image.
This is not what feminists meant when they assured women that "You've come a long way, baby."
Common sense needs no psychological studies to affirm that adult fashion trends affect the way little girls see themselves, and there are ample examples examining the way little girls connect sexiness with popularity and self-perception. Tight leggings, skinny jeans, short shorts, tiny bikinis are big business in the pubescent set.
"Today's canny girls, emboldened by the hashtag "YesAllWomen" Twitter culture, scold their elders -- 'Don't tell us what to wear; teach the boys not to stare,'" Peggy Orenstein writes in The New York Times. "They are correct: Addressing leering or harassment will challenge young men's assumptions."
Actually, they're wrong. It may challenge some young men, but it won't change all of them, because such expectations ignore the fundamental and enduring differences between the sexes. Young women are learning this on college campuses, where mixed messages have made a mess of male-female relationships.
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard, describes how feminists have failed to bring men up to a higher standard, and instead sink to the level of men. "It's not the fault of men that women want to join them in excess rather than calm them down," he writes in The Weekly Standard, "for men, too, are victims of the rape culture." He cites the false cues, driven by drunkenness, that men take in the campus hook-up culture.
The Harvard campus is roiled in the wake of a sexual assault on a young woman, described in her widely circulated letter in the student Harvard Crimson. She tells (anonymously) of her "hopeless, powerless, reaction" to an encounter in a dorm with a friend when she was drunk. Harvard, in response to this one accusation, assigned a "coordinator" with a staff to deal with the incident and its aftermath, and the federal government has sprung to action to combat the "hostile environments" on campuses, offering "significant guidance" for what it deems "appropriate" behavior between men and women. Nanny government now replaces in locos parentis.
Rape is a crime, but it becomes a harder call currently as the ambiguous "hook-up" rules muddle sexual foreplay. Gender neutrality in rhetoric does not trump biological nature in action. Here's an idea: What about a renewed appreciation for differences, adding a little feminine modesty to engender male restraint? We could start with what American apparel we encourage our young girls to wear.
Dov Charney was called the CEO of Sleezecake, responsible for the heightened pornification of fashion advertisements aimed at very young women, and he remained king of the mountain at American Apparel as long as the heap he was sitting on was green, as in money. For a while, it was.
But last week, the board of directors of the company he created fired him and the reign of Dov Charney, came to an end. He still owns 27 percent of the company, and he's fighting the sacking. For anyone unfamiliar with fashion-trade gossip, American Apparel offered a mixed bag of messages. The self-made founder, who emigrated to Los Angeles from Montreal, was an iconoclastic entrepreneur who championed American labor (no outsourcing), paid his workers good wages for making the cotton basics that added sex appeal to the preppy image. He made casual cotton cool, worn by gays, geeks, nerds, hip girls and boys, urban women and metrosexuals.
But the man had major flaws. He was sued by employees for sexual harassment and was known to attend in-house business meetings in his underwear. Sordid stories about his behavior became expensive with increased litigation and defense costs, severance packages and settlement payments. The company stock fell. His lurid personal behavior was accompanied by adverts of vulnerable-looking models in see-through leotards and scant panties, which came close to suggesting child porn.
He knew he was his own worst enemy, but he thought it important for fashion to extend the sexual boundaries of style when he opened his first store in Los Angeles in 2003. There's a long history of chic outrage in fashion, and his audience was ever more accepting after Brooke Shields at the age of 15 whispered seductively in a famous commercial that "there's nothing between me and my Calvins." (She's 49 now, and there's not so much interest in her Calvins.)
Apart from Dov Charney's personal extravagances, his demise coincides with a renewed questioning of our sexualized culture and its impact on the younger generations among us. A new low in an American Apparel ad showed the back of a young girl in miniskirt, bending over with the camera focused on her panties. This was less about selling the miniskirt than it was about a pubescent-shock sexual image.
This is not what feminists meant when they assured women that "You've come a long way, baby."
Common sense needs no psychological studies to affirm that adult fashion trends affect the way little girls see themselves, and there are ample examples examining the way little girls connect sexiness with popularity and self-perception. Tight leggings, skinny jeans, short shorts, tiny bikinis are big business in the pubescent set.
"Today's canny girls, emboldened by the hashtag "YesAllWomen" Twitter culture, scold their elders -- 'Don't tell us what to wear; teach the boys not to stare,'" Peggy Orenstein writes in The New York Times. "They are correct: Addressing leering or harassment will challenge young men's assumptions."
Actually, they're wrong. It may challenge some young men, but it won't change all of them, because such expectations ignore the fundamental and enduring differences between the sexes. Young women are learning this on college campuses, where mixed messages have made a mess of male-female relationships.
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard, describes how feminists have failed to bring men up to a higher standard, and instead sink to the level of men. "It's not the fault of men that women want to join them in excess rather than calm them down," he writes in The Weekly Standard, "for men, too, are victims of the rape culture." He cites the false cues, driven by drunkenness, that men take in the campus hook-up culture.
The Harvard campus is roiled in the wake of a sexual assault on a young woman, described in her widely circulated letter in the student Harvard Crimson. She tells (anonymously) of her "hopeless, powerless, reaction" to an encounter in a dorm with a friend when she was drunk. Harvard, in response to this one accusation, assigned a "coordinator" with a staff to deal with the incident and its aftermath, and the federal government has sprung to action to combat the "hostile environments" on campuses, offering "significant guidance" for what it deems "appropriate" behavior between men and women. Nanny government now replaces in locos parentis.
Rape is a crime, but it becomes a harder call currently as the ambiguous "hook-up" rules muddle sexual foreplay. Gender neutrality in rhetoric does not trump biological nature in action. Here's an idea: What about a renewed appreciation for differences, adding a little feminine modesty to engender male restraint? We could start with what American apparel we encourage our young girls to wear.
OBAMA IS NOT FINISHED
David Limbaugh
More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America's decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he's deliberately or even directly causing it.
You have to admit that it's outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many of us have been warning about it for years now. It is gratifying that others -- albeit belatedly -- are waking up.
There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?
As for the first, many get hung up on the semantics of whether Obama is trying to destroy America. Few are willing to believe anything so sinister of a twice-elected president. It's an easier sell to say that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or decries the very idea of nationalism and prefers to consider us all citizens of the world. He believes that capitalism yields unfair results, which leads him to desire a redistribution of our resources within the United States -- and from the United States to the rest of the world. So he is pursuing an agenda that will bring America into line with the rest of the world, which is to say, he is making us weaker and less prosperous.
I also happen to believe he has a grudge against America and wants to bring us down to size. But in his bizarro world, that's not destroying America; it's making it fairer and more just.
Concerning the second issue -- whether Obama's presidency is falling apart -- it's important that we are clear on what we mean by this. Most seem to agree that Obama's honeymoon with the American people has degenerated into serious marital difficulties, as evidenced by his nose dive in approval polls. Some consider this data, along with his multitudinous scandals, and conclude, "His presidency is imploding."
I believe that's correct only in the limited sense that he has lost the good will to accomplish much more of his agenda through proper constitutional channels. But I don't believe that it means he will be unable to accomplish anything for the remainder of this term. He has already proved that he is fully able and willing to act unilaterally on a wide range of issues, both domestic and foreign, with or without constitutional authority or congressional approval.
He wasn't just bluffing when he smugly declared, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." He was expressing his frustration with his political opponents' sometimes refusal to roll over to his dictates and his resolve to circumvent them every time he gets a chance.
This was nothing new. He and his advisers had said many times that he intended to liberally use executive orders and other tricks to advance his agenda at every opportunity. He's also made clear his willingness to act lawlessly and encouraged his administrative agencies to do likewise. Nor will anything deter his enabling Democrats in Congress to assist and provide him cover every chance they get. Just watch the congressional hearings involving the Internal Revenue Service scandal if you want to understand how national Democrats invariably place their party's interests above those of the nation -- and above the law.
As for his propensity for lawless unilateral action, remember when he admitted he didn't have the authority to pass the DREAM Act on his own and then two weeks later went ahead and issued an executive order implementing important provisions of it? Everyone has watched his whimsical, arbitrary and capricious granting of Obamacare exemptions. He intervened militarily in Libya without even consulting Congress, much less obtaining its approval. His Environmental Protection Agency, doing his bidding, has issued far-reaching emissions standards. The IRS was fulfilling his aims in criminally targeting conservative groups for punitive treatment under the tax code. His subordinates Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were carrying out his direct orders in falsely blaming an Internet video for the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Oh, yes, and he abused his recess appointment power to appoint a National Labor Relations Board president when the Senate wasn't in recess, for which the Supreme Court surprisingly slapped his hand. I could continue.
So if you choose to believe that Obama's presidency is imploding, I hope you understand that this doesn't mean he no longer represents a threat to America as founded or is impotent to do any further damage.
It's silly to write this all off with a wave of a hand, saying, "This is America. One man can't do that much damage." If you don't believe enormous damage has already been done in the past six years, we are on different planets. Look at the latest quarterly economic report, which shows a 2.9 percent shrinkage in the gross domestic product, with no end in sight. The number of people on food stamps and dependent on other government programs. The labor participation rate. The debt. The explosive costs and abominable failures of Obamacare. The state of the Middle East and the explosive rise in Islamic jihad.
Regardless of whether Obama has the political clout to pass major legislation now or in the remaining 2 1/2 years, his executive powers alone -- including those he has usurped -- are enough to keep us on this downward spiral. Even without any further executive power usurpations, we are already on autopilot to spend ourselves into bankruptcy.
More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America's decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he's deliberately or even directly causing it.
You have to admit that it's outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many of us have been warning about it for years now. It is gratifying that others -- albeit belatedly -- are waking up.
There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?
As for the first, many get hung up on the semantics of whether Obama is trying to destroy America. Few are willing to believe anything so sinister of a twice-elected president. It's an easier sell to say that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or decries the very idea of nationalism and prefers to consider us all citizens of the world. He believes that capitalism yields unfair results, which leads him to desire a redistribution of our resources within the United States -- and from the United States to the rest of the world. So he is pursuing an agenda that will bring America into line with the rest of the world, which is to say, he is making us weaker and less prosperous.
I also happen to believe he has a grudge against America and wants to bring us down to size. But in his bizarro world, that's not destroying America; it's making it fairer and more just.
Concerning the second issue -- whether Obama's presidency is falling apart -- it's important that we are clear on what we mean by this. Most seem to agree that Obama's honeymoon with the American people has degenerated into serious marital difficulties, as evidenced by his nose dive in approval polls. Some consider this data, along with his multitudinous scandals, and conclude, "His presidency is imploding."
I believe that's correct only in the limited sense that he has lost the good will to accomplish much more of his agenda through proper constitutional channels. But I don't believe that it means he will be unable to accomplish anything for the remainder of this term. He has already proved that he is fully able and willing to act unilaterally on a wide range of issues, both domestic and foreign, with or without constitutional authority or congressional approval.
He wasn't just bluffing when he smugly declared, "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." He was expressing his frustration with his political opponents' sometimes refusal to roll over to his dictates and his resolve to circumvent them every time he gets a chance.
This was nothing new. He and his advisers had said many times that he intended to liberally use executive orders and other tricks to advance his agenda at every opportunity. He's also made clear his willingness to act lawlessly and encouraged his administrative agencies to do likewise. Nor will anything deter his enabling Democrats in Congress to assist and provide him cover every chance they get. Just watch the congressional hearings involving the Internal Revenue Service scandal if you want to understand how national Democrats invariably place their party's interests above those of the nation -- and above the law.
As for his propensity for lawless unilateral action, remember when he admitted he didn't have the authority to pass the DREAM Act on his own and then two weeks later went ahead and issued an executive order implementing important provisions of it? Everyone has watched his whimsical, arbitrary and capricious granting of Obamacare exemptions. He intervened militarily in Libya without even consulting Congress, much less obtaining its approval. His Environmental Protection Agency, doing his bidding, has issued far-reaching emissions standards. The IRS was fulfilling his aims in criminally targeting conservative groups for punitive treatment under the tax code. His subordinates Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were carrying out his direct orders in falsely blaming an Internet video for the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Oh, yes, and he abused his recess appointment power to appoint a National Labor Relations Board president when the Senate wasn't in recess, for which the Supreme Court surprisingly slapped his hand. I could continue.
So if you choose to believe that Obama's presidency is imploding, I hope you understand that this doesn't mean he no longer represents a threat to America as founded or is impotent to do any further damage.
It's silly to write this all off with a wave of a hand, saying, "This is America. One man can't do that much damage." If you don't believe enormous damage has already been done in the past six years, we are on different planets. Look at the latest quarterly economic report, which shows a 2.9 percent shrinkage in the gross domestic product, with no end in sight. The number of people on food stamps and dependent on other government programs. The labor participation rate. The debt. The explosive costs and abominable failures of Obamacare. The state of the Middle East and the explosive rise in Islamic jihad.
Regardless of whether Obama has the political clout to pass major legislation now or in the remaining 2 1/2 years, his executive powers alone -- including those he has usurped -- are enough to keep us on this downward spiral. Even without any further executive power usurpations, we are already on autopilot to spend ourselves into bankruptcy.
NASTY PLAYING CARDS AND APOLOGIES
Brent Bozell
There's a new card game making the rounds that's designed to offend. What does it say about our culture that this marketing strategy actually works?
"Cards Against Humanity is a party game for horrible people," reads the game's website. "Unlike most of the party games you've played before, Cards Against Humanity is as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."
The game's concept is simple: A dealer issues a black fill-in-the-blank card, and using their a handful of white answer cards, players try to come up with the funniest (and often most offensive-sounding) combinations. The player who accomplishes that wins the round.
For example, a typical black card begins, "The class field trip was completely ruined by -- ." The white cards offer answers, including famous people: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and then more colorful attacks. The deck includes both "Glenn Beck being harried by a swarm of buzzards," and "Glenn Beck catching his scrotum on a curtain hook."
You can also try the religion-mocking cards, including "The Pope," "The Jews," "The Holy Bible" and even "Muhammad (Praise Be Unto Him)."
Don't bother complaining. The game's rules manual ends with the request to send all complaints to Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute offices in Washington, D.C.
Oh, wait. Max Temkin, the creator of this new sensation in rudeness, found one group he felt he had to apologize for including. It wasn't "elderly Japanese men." It wasn't the cards unleashing laughs about "a robust mongoloid" or "kids with ass cancer." It wasn't even "Two midgets s--tting into a bucket."
Ready? It was "passable transvestites." Nineteen-year-old Jonah Miller, who "identifies as transgender," lit the card on fire, posting a photo to his Tumblr and Instagram accounts with the caption "DEATH TO TRANSPHOBIA."
This apparently required Temkin to confess: "I regret writing this card. It was a mean, cheap joke. We took it out of the game a while ago." Here's a game designed to be "despicable," and yet Temkin found just one card that was a "mean, cheap joke"?
Disgraced bicyclist Lance Armstrong tweeted about the card that says "Lance Armstrong's missing testicle," the one he lost to cancer. Temkin didn't pull that card or apologize.
But Armstrong is a straight white male. Temkin has proclaimed he doesn't want to "victimize people in marginalized groups." He wants to make fun of "power structures," so "Making jokes about rapes, making jokes about trans people, they don't have the same cultural power."
Obviously, "trans people" are making it quite clear they're beginning to pack a wallop of cultural power. Temkin boasts of adding cards that mock "heteronormativity," "the patriarchy" and "white privilege."
Don't worry. You can still combine cards for the concept "What am I giving up for Lent? ... Altar boys." You can still enjoy combining "In the new Disney Channel Original Movie, Hannah Montana struggles with ... Stifling a giggle at the mention of Hutus and Tutsis."
Because apparently nothing is funnier than a Rwandan genocide.
Or "Instead of coal, Santa now gives children ... Pac-Man uncontrollably guzzling (semen)." And "I drink to forget ... (masturbating) into a pool of children's tears." You can still enjoy the combo "Life for American Indians was forever changed when the White Man introduced them to ... Firing a rifle into the air while balls deep into a squealing hog."
But the "passable transvestites" have been spared. They hold the privileged place of sacredness, free from mockery. Thank G-d for standards.
There's a new card game making the rounds that's designed to offend. What does it say about our culture that this marketing strategy actually works?
"Cards Against Humanity is a party game for horrible people," reads the game's website. "Unlike most of the party games you've played before, Cards Against Humanity is as despicable and awkward as you and your friends."
The game's concept is simple: A dealer issues a black fill-in-the-blank card, and using their a handful of white answer cards, players try to come up with the funniest (and often most offensive-sounding) combinations. The player who accomplishes that wins the round.
For example, a typical black card begins, "The class field trip was completely ruined by -- ." The white cards offer answers, including famous people: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and then more colorful attacks. The deck includes both "Glenn Beck being harried by a swarm of buzzards," and "Glenn Beck catching his scrotum on a curtain hook."
You can also try the religion-mocking cards, including "The Pope," "The Jews," "The Holy Bible" and even "Muhammad (Praise Be Unto Him)."
Don't bother complaining. The game's rules manual ends with the request to send all complaints to Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute offices in Washington, D.C.
Oh, wait. Max Temkin, the creator of this new sensation in rudeness, found one group he felt he had to apologize for including. It wasn't "elderly Japanese men." It wasn't the cards unleashing laughs about "a robust mongoloid" or "kids with ass cancer." It wasn't even "Two midgets s--tting into a bucket."
Ready? It was "passable transvestites." Nineteen-year-old Jonah Miller, who "identifies as transgender," lit the card on fire, posting a photo to his Tumblr and Instagram accounts with the caption "DEATH TO TRANSPHOBIA."
This apparently required Temkin to confess: "I regret writing this card. It was a mean, cheap joke. We took it out of the game a while ago." Here's a game designed to be "despicable," and yet Temkin found just one card that was a "mean, cheap joke"?
Disgraced bicyclist Lance Armstrong tweeted about the card that says "Lance Armstrong's missing testicle," the one he lost to cancer. Temkin didn't pull that card or apologize.
But Armstrong is a straight white male. Temkin has proclaimed he doesn't want to "victimize people in marginalized groups." He wants to make fun of "power structures," so "Making jokes about rapes, making jokes about trans people, they don't have the same cultural power."
Obviously, "trans people" are making it quite clear they're beginning to pack a wallop of cultural power. Temkin boasts of adding cards that mock "heteronormativity," "the patriarchy" and "white privilege."
Don't worry. You can still combine cards for the concept "What am I giving up for Lent? ... Altar boys." You can still enjoy combining "In the new Disney Channel Original Movie, Hannah Montana struggles with ... Stifling a giggle at the mention of Hutus and Tutsis."
Because apparently nothing is funnier than a Rwandan genocide.
Or "Instead of coal, Santa now gives children ... Pac-Man uncontrollably guzzling (semen)." And "I drink to forget ... (masturbating) into a pool of children's tears." You can still enjoy the combo "Life for American Indians was forever changed when the White Man introduced them to ... Firing a rifle into the air while balls deep into a squealing hog."
But the "passable transvestites" have been spared. They hold the privileged place of sacredness, free from mockery. Thank G-d for standards.
PRESERVING POWER AT ANY COST
Erick Erickson
Last Tuesday in Mississippi, incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran beat his challenger, State Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a Republican runoff. There is no dispute that Cochran won by bringing thousands of Democrats into the Republican runoff to support him.
Cochran's victory, if left unaddressed by conservatives, will set a dangerous precedent within Republican primaries. Republican PACs, national Republican political operatives and the Republican establishment collaborated to accuse conservative and tea party activists of racism. These Republicans painted their very base as the second coming on the KKK and Hitler.
These groups accused Chris McDaniel of being a neo-confederate and claimed that any group that supported him was supporting a racist. They passed out flyers designed to scare and intimidate black voters into voting for Cochran. One of the flyers had scenes of the civil rights struggle on it and declared Chris McDaniel would take away the right to vote.
It was all hysterical nonsense, but it worked. This is a tactic Democrats have used in the past to generate black turnout. In Georgia in 1998, flyers appeared in black neighborhoods in Atlanta with pictures of burning crosses and hooded Klansmen. The flyers urged black voters to go stop Republican gubernatorial candidate Guy Millner, lest all the advances of the civil rights movement be undone.
In Louisiana in 2003, Democrats in northern Louisiana passed out flyers to white Democrats that darkened Republican Bobby Jindal's skin color, making him look like a black man. The flyers encouraged white Democrats to go stop Jindal's election. It worked, but Jindal won the Governor's Mansion in 2007 with the votes of many who had opposed him after those voters saw just how incompetent Governor Kathleen Blanco was in office.
Democrats excel at this level of racial politics. But last Tuesday in Mississippi, it was Republicans doing it. National Republicans and their local allies in Mississippi made those attacks on their own base. They painted their own voters as crazy, bigoted racists. They were willing to do it to keep Thad Cochran, a man who has been in the Senate since 1978 and in Washington since 1973, in office.
Why Republicans were willing to attack their own base so savagely is eye opening. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left the Governor's Mansion and returned to his former career as a lobbyist. He ran of the key super PAC's supporting Cochran. Many lobbyists in Washington have, for years, used Thad Cochran as a marionette, pulling his strings and getting him to spread American tax dollars around.
Years ago, when a Jack Abramoff associate complained that Ann Copland, Cochran's executive assistant of 29 years, demanded too many things, i.e. tickets to see Paul McCartney and Green Day, Abramoff replied back, "She gets everything she wants." Abramoff and Copland both went off to jail. Cochran stayed, and the money flowed in other directions.
The Republican establishment in Washington no longer has core principles and values. It has a list of corporate donors and rich men with business interests. The party keeps its elderly leaders in the House and Senate to send American tax dollars to their preferred donors. In fact, all the Republican Party stands for at the moment is telling President Barack Obama "no" and rewarding large donors with tax breaks, government contracts, and our tax dollars.
But this becomes a problem for the Republican Party. Its core activists hate its leadership more and more. But its leadership are dependent more and more on large check writers to keep their power. Those large check writers are further and further removed from the interests of both the base of the party and Main Street.
To keep power, the GOP focuses more and more on a smaller and smaller band of puppeteers to keep their marionettes upright. At some point, there will be more people with knives out to cut the strings than there will be puppeteers with checkbooks. And at some point those people with knives become more intent on cutting the strings than taking the place of the marionettes.
Last Tuesday in Mississippi, incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran beat his challenger, State Sen. Chris McDaniel, in a Republican runoff. There is no dispute that Cochran won by bringing thousands of Democrats into the Republican runoff to support him.
Cochran's victory, if left unaddressed by conservatives, will set a dangerous precedent within Republican primaries. Republican PACs, national Republican political operatives and the Republican establishment collaborated to accuse conservative and tea party activists of racism. These Republicans painted their very base as the second coming on the KKK and Hitler.
These groups accused Chris McDaniel of being a neo-confederate and claimed that any group that supported him was supporting a racist. They passed out flyers designed to scare and intimidate black voters into voting for Cochran. One of the flyers had scenes of the civil rights struggle on it and declared Chris McDaniel would take away the right to vote.
It was all hysterical nonsense, but it worked. This is a tactic Democrats have used in the past to generate black turnout. In Georgia in 1998, flyers appeared in black neighborhoods in Atlanta with pictures of burning crosses and hooded Klansmen. The flyers urged black voters to go stop Republican gubernatorial candidate Guy Millner, lest all the advances of the civil rights movement be undone.
In Louisiana in 2003, Democrats in northern Louisiana passed out flyers to white Democrats that darkened Republican Bobby Jindal's skin color, making him look like a black man. The flyers encouraged white Democrats to go stop Jindal's election. It worked, but Jindal won the Governor's Mansion in 2007 with the votes of many who had opposed him after those voters saw just how incompetent Governor Kathleen Blanco was in office.
Democrats excel at this level of racial politics. But last Tuesday in Mississippi, it was Republicans doing it. National Republicans and their local allies in Mississippi made those attacks on their own base. They painted their own voters as crazy, bigoted racists. They were willing to do it to keep Thad Cochran, a man who has been in the Senate since 1978 and in Washington since 1973, in office.
Why Republicans were willing to attack their own base so savagely is eye opening. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left the Governor's Mansion and returned to his former career as a lobbyist. He ran of the key super PAC's supporting Cochran. Many lobbyists in Washington have, for years, used Thad Cochran as a marionette, pulling his strings and getting him to spread American tax dollars around.
Years ago, when a Jack Abramoff associate complained that Ann Copland, Cochran's executive assistant of 29 years, demanded too many things, i.e. tickets to see Paul McCartney and Green Day, Abramoff replied back, "She gets everything she wants." Abramoff and Copland both went off to jail. Cochran stayed, and the money flowed in other directions.
The Republican establishment in Washington no longer has core principles and values. It has a list of corporate donors and rich men with business interests. The party keeps its elderly leaders in the House and Senate to send American tax dollars to their preferred donors. In fact, all the Republican Party stands for at the moment is telling President Barack Obama "no" and rewarding large donors with tax breaks, government contracts, and our tax dollars.
But this becomes a problem for the Republican Party. Its core activists hate its leadership more and more. But its leadership are dependent more and more on large check writers to keep their power. Those large check writers are further and further removed from the interests of both the base of the party and Main Street.
To keep power, the GOP focuses more and more on a smaller and smaller band of puppeteers to keep their marionettes upright. At some point, there will be more people with knives out to cut the strings than there will be puppeteers with checkbooks. And at some point those people with knives become more intent on cutting the strings than taking the place of the marionettes.
THE CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRAQ
John Nantz
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. Lord Palmerston
Thanks to Barack Obama Iraq is burning. ISIS forces rampage as Iraqi forces crumble before the onslaught of fanatical Islamists. As Iraq burns and smolders, Obama’s foreign policy proceeds and America’s national interest is again sacrificed to Obama’s new world order. But what is “national interest” and what, if any, interest do we, as a nation, have in far away Iraq?
National interest must be defined as any circumstance that affects the security, prosperity, and prestige of our sovereign nation.
The most basic purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. Therefore, anything that threatens our security becomes a keen national interest. Our response to national security threats must be swift and unambiguous. When American lives are threatened at home and abroad, there should be a powerful military response and a projection of power which culminates in absolute victory. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the American people and of its military. As Reagan put it, our power of defense should be unassailable. Peace can only be maintained through the deterrent effect of a vastly superior military force. Maintaining the status of the world’s only superpower should be America’s primary national interest.
American economic interests must be guarded by an administration which is committed to a philosophy of American exceptionalism. This means that foreign policy must be pursued to advantage American economic interests to the exclusion of competing international powers. This may strike many in academe as a novel idea, but when America prospers the world prospers. We see the effects of Obama’s administration which views our economic interests with disdain, despising our capitalist system yet all too willing to enjoy the fruits of capitalist prosperity. Obama’s marxism is antithetical to the capitalism of our founders. Our economy languishes while Obama favors not our interests but those of the third world and European powers. Obama delights in drawing comparisons with France and models his economy after the socialist continental nations.
Reagan was a master at illuminating American power and achievement, drawing nations to wonder at the “shining city on a hill.” Obama embarks on European and Middle East apology junkets and bemoans his fictions of American injustices domestically and imperialism abroad. Where Reagan extolled the virtues of a nation which has produced the greatest social compact in human history, Obama can only carp and unravel the magnificent tapestry of the Constitution. Again, Obama betrays the national interest.
Though America has been the most compassionate country in the world, national interest does not include notions of meddling in the affairs of other nations, so long as their operations serve our interest. This may include cooperation with and support of dictatorial powers that pursue outcomes that are parallel to our own. As a free people, we desire to see the rest of humanity freed from the bonds of servitude, however, our resources are not infinite and must be put to the service of our own sovereign national interests.
Barack Obama has ignored the dictates of national interest in favor of seeking parity or even disparity in relation to the world’s nations. Obama views our actions, regardless of their merit, as meddling, imperialist, and predatory. This is why he leaves the fate of the Iraqi people to ravening wolves who hoist the black flag on their standard. There is no American exceptionalism for Obama, there is only America standing uneasily among peers in a global community.
Our policy must reject the notion of parity with a global community of nations and recognize American sovereignty and exceptionality. A sound foreign policy seeks our own interest and our own advantage among a dysfunctional community of often hostile nations. Americans need a new view of sovereignty, of an America that flourishes and seeks its own best advantage.
do not seek friendships and democracy is an aberration in the brutal totalitarian history of man. If America is not aggressive in its defense of its sovereignty it will fall prey to the eternal predations of aggressor nations. Make no mistake, we are swimming in an international tank filled with sharks, sniffing for blood.
Iraq does represent a national interest that impacts directly on national security since the cancerous spread of fascistic Mohammadism is an ever present threat to citizens domestically and abroad. We need only make reference to the attacks on 9/11 to make a case for national security concerns. Our national interest is also implicated through the deaths of 4,500 American soldiers during the Iraq war—no stronger case for implicating national interest could be made. Additionally, our national interest is impacted by virtue of the mountains of national treasure expended in Iraq. Also, America’s prestige is marred by the capitulation of Obama in Iraq, having left a power vacuum that ISIS has been most happy to fill. Obama has, in essence, provided a training camp for future terrorists that could not have been imagined in Osama Bin Laden’s wildest dream.
However, given the incompetence, disregard, and unpatriotic sentiments of Barack Obama it cannot be a conscientious conservatives position to return to Iraq. Simply put, our military men and women deserve better than Obama. And, until the American people can supply a President who is also a statesman and patriot, we have no business sending troops into harms way.
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. Lord Palmerston
Thanks to Barack Obama Iraq is burning. ISIS forces rampage as Iraqi forces crumble before the onslaught of fanatical Islamists. As Iraq burns and smolders, Obama’s foreign policy proceeds and America’s national interest is again sacrificed to Obama’s new world order. But what is “national interest” and what, if any, interest do we, as a nation, have in far away Iraq?
National interest must be defined as any circumstance that affects the security, prosperity, and prestige of our sovereign nation.
The most basic purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. Therefore, anything that threatens our security becomes a keen national interest. Our response to national security threats must be swift and unambiguous. When American lives are threatened at home and abroad, there should be a powerful military response and a projection of power which culminates in absolute victory. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the American people and of its military. As Reagan put it, our power of defense should be unassailable. Peace can only be maintained through the deterrent effect of a vastly superior military force. Maintaining the status of the world’s only superpower should be America’s primary national interest.
American economic interests must be guarded by an administration which is committed to a philosophy of American exceptionalism. This means that foreign policy must be pursued to advantage American economic interests to the exclusion of competing international powers. This may strike many in academe as a novel idea, but when America prospers the world prospers. We see the effects of Obama’s administration which views our economic interests with disdain, despising our capitalist system yet all too willing to enjoy the fruits of capitalist prosperity. Obama’s marxism is antithetical to the capitalism of our founders. Our economy languishes while Obama favors not our interests but those of the third world and European powers. Obama delights in drawing comparisons with France and models his economy after the socialist continental nations.
Reagan was a master at illuminating American power and achievement, drawing nations to wonder at the “shining city on a hill.” Obama embarks on European and Middle East apology junkets and bemoans his fictions of American injustices domestically and imperialism abroad. Where Reagan extolled the virtues of a nation which has produced the greatest social compact in human history, Obama can only carp and unravel the magnificent tapestry of the Constitution. Again, Obama betrays the national interest.
Though America has been the most compassionate country in the world, national interest does not include notions of meddling in the affairs of other nations, so long as their operations serve our interest. This may include cooperation with and support of dictatorial powers that pursue outcomes that are parallel to our own. As a free people, we desire to see the rest of humanity freed from the bonds of servitude, however, our resources are not infinite and must be put to the service of our own sovereign national interests.
Barack Obama has ignored the dictates of national interest in favor of seeking parity or even disparity in relation to the world’s nations. Obama views our actions, regardless of their merit, as meddling, imperialist, and predatory. This is why he leaves the fate of the Iraqi people to ravening wolves who hoist the black flag on their standard. There is no American exceptionalism for Obama, there is only America standing uneasily among peers in a global community.
Our policy must reject the notion of parity with a global community of nations and recognize American sovereignty and exceptionality. A sound foreign policy seeks our own interest and our own advantage among a dysfunctional community of often hostile nations. Americans need a new view of sovereignty, of an America that flourishes and seeks its own best advantage.
do not seek friendships and democracy is an aberration in the brutal totalitarian history of man. If America is not aggressive in its defense of its sovereignty it will fall prey to the eternal predations of aggressor nations. Make no mistake, we are swimming in an international tank filled with sharks, sniffing for blood.
Iraq does represent a national interest that impacts directly on national security since the cancerous spread of fascistic Mohammadism is an ever present threat to citizens domestically and abroad. We need only make reference to the attacks on 9/11 to make a case for national security concerns. Our national interest is also implicated through the deaths of 4,500 American soldiers during the Iraq war—no stronger case for implicating national interest could be made. Additionally, our national interest is impacted by virtue of the mountains of national treasure expended in Iraq. Also, America’s prestige is marred by the capitulation of Obama in Iraq, having left a power vacuum that ISIS has been most happy to fill. Obama has, in essence, provided a training camp for future terrorists that could not have been imagined in Osama Bin Laden’s wildest dream.
However, given the incompetence, disregard, and unpatriotic sentiments of Barack Obama it cannot be a conscientious conservatives position to return to Iraq. Simply put, our military men and women deserve better than Obama. And, until the American people can supply a President who is also a statesman and patriot, we have no business sending troops into harms way.
YOUTH AND JIHAD IN KASHMIR
Shujaat Bukhari
Last year when I wrote about the boys who had graduated in different streams and joined the “Jehad” in Kashmir and the increasing number of people joining their funeral prayers, many “analysts” responded by saying that it was “a mere exaggeration”. But the killing of a young boy in Sopore on Monday stands testimony to the fact how the Kashmir society, particularly the youth, are identifying themselves with the renewed phase of militancy. The boy—Arshad Ahmad was not part of a group that was demonstrating against the breakdown in power supply, nor was he among those agitating for a Tehsil or a Block. He was part of the group that was protesting against the killing of a local militant in an encounter with forces a few hours before.
His killing is a grim reminder about how the state has lost control over its forces.
Once known as “Capital of Militancy”, Sopore has a long history of being at forefront to voice the dissent. Notwithstanding the fact that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held the first meeting of the then converted Muslim Conference into National Conference in Sopore only after he faced resentment in Srinagar, the town has emerged as symbol of resistance for many decades now. It has paid the price for being anti-establishment as it voted the fire brand Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani to Assembly at least three times, thus rejecting the traditional National Conference. When armed rebellion broke out in 1989, Sopore was leading the movement and one of the formidable organisation’s – Hizbul Mujahideen’s – base outfit Tehreek e Jehadi Islami was born here only. For being on the opposite side, Sopore has been neglected in development as compared to other towns. It records almost zero polling so the attention towards the development is well understood.
The incident on Monday refreshes our memory not only about the town but also the renewed phase of youth opting for violence to fight for their political rights. Some may call them misguided or paid, but the fact is that there are lots who choose this dangerous path with a conviction. According to outgoing General Officer Commanding (GoC) Lt Gen Gurmit Singh, the number of militants killed since 2013 in Valley is 102.
By any assessment and analysis this is a big number keeping in view the statements from the government that the militancy was waning and it should be considered as “residual”. If the official sources are to be believed the number of local boys in the ranks has now crossed 50 percent. The militant groups also get the support at the ground level. In Sopore area alone there have been number of encounters in the recent past which suggests that the trend of “foreigners dominating militant ranks” is now reversing.
Not only are more boys turning to militancy as symbol of resistance but the public at large and their families have also openly glorified them. In a society of contrasts called Kashmir, there are people who queue up for voting, attend public meetings of mainstream parties but this stark reality also exists on ground that they have not “divorced” the militants. Thousands are seen chanting pro freedom slogans and women paying tributes by singing traditional wedding songs when the body of a militant is taken away to graveyard. When three militants were killed in an encounter in Tral last week, their families did not mourn but told journalists that they were “proud” of their children. Adil Mir (26) was the son of 55-year-old Bashir Ahmad Mir.
In March 2009 his eldest son, Naeem Mir, left home for the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), Awantipora, but did not return. A final year student of B. Tech (Food Technology) at IUST, Naeem, joined Hizb and was killed in an encounter in September 2010. Exactly 21 days after his killing, Adil left home. Mir said the motivation for his sons has been religion, “Both of them followed religion in a steadfast manner and this is the only thing that motivated them to take up arms.” I am very proud of my sons,” says Mir. One may not generalize this phenomenon but there is surely a change in the society. After 2010 unrest in which 120 civilians were killed, the mode of agitation in Kashmir has been taking this route. Complete absence of political engagement and recognizing the fact that the distances between Srinagar and Delhi particularly among youth were increasing obviously has this route to take. Continued denial about aspirations of people only throws the space out for violence. Peace has not been allowed to substitute the violence even as it has created a conducive environment with two parallel engagements viz Srinagar-New Delhi and New Delhi-Islamabad for about five years from 2003. But with Mumbai coming in its way, New Delhi and Islamabad did not look back and hung their egos with that single happening.
The armed struggle in Kashmir has always had a strong backing of educated people. In 60s Al Fateh was the first armed group, which challenged Indian rule in Kashmir. It was led by qualified people who later on ended up in becoming top-level officers in the government. Similarly in 1989, the first batch of JKLF comprised of fresh college pass outs and later on a number of intellectuals, doctors, lawyers and academicians threw their weight behind the “freedom movement”. It is not pure radicalization among youth that is taking them to this path, that too with a “sanction” from society. It has lot to do with the political reality on ground. Though rejected worldwide as an option to achieve a political goal, this resurgence in Kashmir is surely something that cannot be brushed aside. This amply makes it clear that the constituency of peace has not been capitalized and the political establishment has not recognized the transition from violence to non-violence. People in Kashmir have also shown their penchant against violence, but continued absence of political engagement does add to an atmosphere in which they feel cheated and betrayed. To neutralize the trend of violence again taking over all the spaces, re-opening of the process of dialogue and reconciliation is must, otherwise the youth will further repose their faith in violence irrespective of the results it throws up.
Last year when I wrote about the boys who had graduated in different streams and joined the “Jehad” in Kashmir and the increasing number of people joining their funeral prayers, many “analysts” responded by saying that it was “a mere exaggeration”. But the killing of a young boy in Sopore on Monday stands testimony to the fact how the Kashmir society, particularly the youth, are identifying themselves with the renewed phase of militancy. The boy—Arshad Ahmad was not part of a group that was demonstrating against the breakdown in power supply, nor was he among those agitating for a Tehsil or a Block. He was part of the group that was protesting against the killing of a local militant in an encounter with forces a few hours before.
His killing is a grim reminder about how the state has lost control over its forces.
Once known as “Capital of Militancy”, Sopore has a long history of being at forefront to voice the dissent. Notwithstanding the fact that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held the first meeting of the then converted Muslim Conference into National Conference in Sopore only after he faced resentment in Srinagar, the town has emerged as symbol of resistance for many decades now. It has paid the price for being anti-establishment as it voted the fire brand Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani to Assembly at least three times, thus rejecting the traditional National Conference. When armed rebellion broke out in 1989, Sopore was leading the movement and one of the formidable organisation’s – Hizbul Mujahideen’s – base outfit Tehreek e Jehadi Islami was born here only. For being on the opposite side, Sopore has been neglected in development as compared to other towns. It records almost zero polling so the attention towards the development is well understood.
The incident on Monday refreshes our memory not only about the town but also the renewed phase of youth opting for violence to fight for their political rights. Some may call them misguided or paid, but the fact is that there are lots who choose this dangerous path with a conviction. According to outgoing General Officer Commanding (GoC) Lt Gen Gurmit Singh, the number of militants killed since 2013 in Valley is 102.
By any assessment and analysis this is a big number keeping in view the statements from the government that the militancy was waning and it should be considered as “residual”. If the official sources are to be believed the number of local boys in the ranks has now crossed 50 percent. The militant groups also get the support at the ground level. In Sopore area alone there have been number of encounters in the recent past which suggests that the trend of “foreigners dominating militant ranks” is now reversing.
Not only are more boys turning to militancy as symbol of resistance but the public at large and their families have also openly glorified them. In a society of contrasts called Kashmir, there are people who queue up for voting, attend public meetings of mainstream parties but this stark reality also exists on ground that they have not “divorced” the militants. Thousands are seen chanting pro freedom slogans and women paying tributes by singing traditional wedding songs when the body of a militant is taken away to graveyard. When three militants were killed in an encounter in Tral last week, their families did not mourn but told journalists that they were “proud” of their children. Adil Mir (26) was the son of 55-year-old Bashir Ahmad Mir.
In March 2009 his eldest son, Naeem Mir, left home for the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), Awantipora, but did not return. A final year student of B. Tech (Food Technology) at IUST, Naeem, joined Hizb and was killed in an encounter in September 2010. Exactly 21 days after his killing, Adil left home. Mir said the motivation for his sons has been religion, “Both of them followed religion in a steadfast manner and this is the only thing that motivated them to take up arms.” I am very proud of my sons,” says Mir. One may not generalize this phenomenon but there is surely a change in the society. After 2010 unrest in which 120 civilians were killed, the mode of agitation in Kashmir has been taking this route. Complete absence of political engagement and recognizing the fact that the distances between Srinagar and Delhi particularly among youth were increasing obviously has this route to take. Continued denial about aspirations of people only throws the space out for violence. Peace has not been allowed to substitute the violence even as it has created a conducive environment with two parallel engagements viz Srinagar-New Delhi and New Delhi-Islamabad for about five years from 2003. But with Mumbai coming in its way, New Delhi and Islamabad did not look back and hung their egos with that single happening.
The armed struggle in Kashmir has always had a strong backing of educated people. In 60s Al Fateh was the first armed group, which challenged Indian rule in Kashmir. It was led by qualified people who later on ended up in becoming top-level officers in the government. Similarly in 1989, the first batch of JKLF comprised of fresh college pass outs and later on a number of intellectuals, doctors, lawyers and academicians threw their weight behind the “freedom movement”. It is not pure radicalization among youth that is taking them to this path, that too with a “sanction” from society. It has lot to do with the political reality on ground. Though rejected worldwide as an option to achieve a political goal, this resurgence in Kashmir is surely something that cannot be brushed aside. This amply makes it clear that the constituency of peace has not been capitalized and the political establishment has not recognized the transition from violence to non-violence. People in Kashmir have also shown their penchant against violence, but continued absence of political engagement does add to an atmosphere in which they feel cheated and betrayed. To neutralize the trend of violence again taking over all the spaces, re-opening of the process of dialogue and reconciliation is must, otherwise the youth will further repose their faith in violence irrespective of the results it throws up.
DHAKA AS THE GATEWAY TO INDIA'S LOOK EAST POLICY
D Suba Chandran
The visit of the new External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka is timely and of importance. If pursued with the right spirit sustained momentum, Bangladesh has the potential of becoming a huge success story for the new government’s approach towards its neighbourhood.
Consider the current strategic environment in this part of the region. It is positive, despite minor setbacks, and has the potential to take bilateral relations to a new level. The government in Dhaka may not be totally pro-India but is certainly not anti-India. Even the public attitude towards India in Bangladesh has remained positive in the last few years. At the external level, the proposed BCIM corridor with Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar is bound to bring Dhaka closer and open new vistas in bilateral relations relating to trade and movement of goods. It is unfortunate that the previous government could not make use of this positive environment and convert it into a success story for New Delhi in the neighbourhood.
The High Commissioner of Bangladesh in New Delhi has been earnestly campaigning to keep the momentum going between the two governments in Delhi and Dhaka. Unfortunately, New Delhi during the last phase of Manmohan Singh’s leadership let the momentum slow down. Mamata Banerjee was made a scapegoat - although did play a role in being a spoilsport, Manmohan Singh could have taken the relationship forward despite it if he was serious. This should be the first approach that Sushma Swaraj ensures in terms of regaining the momentum with Bangladesh and bulldozing bilateral relations forward.
Such a regaining of momentum could be done by engaging Dhaka in a constructive roadmap and making it a gateway for India’s Look East Policy (LEP). That could be the second approach for the new government towards Bangladesh. For a long time, New Delhi has been talking about its Look East policy, with Myanmar and India’s Northeast as gateways. Geographically and strategically, Dhaka should be the gateway for India’s LEP. Land and maritime access and trade and travel routes have to criss-cross eastern India comprising West Bengal and the Northeast and Bangladesh before entering Myanmar and progressing further east.
Like India, Bangladesh also has a serious stake in looking east. The ongoing Rohingya crisis and the violence against Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State has dented Bangladesh-Myanmar relations; worse was the recent firing and subsequent killing of a Bangladeshi soldier by Myanmarese guards along the border which has galvanised anti-Myanmar sentiment within Bangladesh. Despite this, Dhaka has to look east for it makes much economic sense in terms of trade and even the movement of Bangladeshi labour to ASEAN countries, especially Singapore and Malaysia. This provides an opportunity for India and Bangladesh to work together; in fact, New Delhi and Dhaka could Look East together.
In order to ensure that Dhaka is willing to be India’s gateway, the new government has to constructively engage Bangladesh in multiple sub-regional forums and institutions. If the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation (BCIM) offers one such opportunity, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) which is older than the former, offers another opening to work with other countries in the region, which include Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and Thailand. While the first one would provide a great opportunity in terms of establishing infrastructure for trade and movement of goods, the second would be greatly beneficial in integrating the eastern part of the region.
Obviously, there have been issues over bilateral trade between the two countries despite the multiple agreements. Sharing of river waters will be another serious issue, given the alarming use of water war bogeys in the sub-continent and the emotionalism attached to it. Both could be over come if India and Bangladesh are integrated with the rest of the region. In fact, such an approach would even provide much needed space for the government in Delhi from its anti-India detractors and opposition.
The third and equally important approach is to use India’s border with Bangladesh as a bridge between the two countries. Bangladesh is not ‘India-locked’ but surrounded by West Bengal and the Northeast. What is generally referred as an ‘India lock’ is in fact always open, all along the border, despite the fencing. The illegal movement of people, goods and cattle mocks the entire concept of Bangladesh being ‘India-locked’. While it is a political issue, the hard reality also is that there is a market for this movement, and a regional economy within India thriving on this illegal border crossing of people, goods and even cattle.
New Delhi will have to provide some space to the regional states, as Beijing provides to Yunnan and Sichuan, in reaching out to the region. It is by no means an argument asking for the decentralisation of foreign policy, but only a petition to listen to the regional voices and use the border as a bridge to integrate Bangladesh better with West Bengal and the Northeast. Instead of looking only through the prism of bilateral trade and illegal migration, other innovative means could be used to help such a process of integration. There are ample means for the legal movement of people for different purposes – from conferences to football matches to more border haats - to bring the two civil societies together, especially along the borders of India.
Finally, the new government will have to engage in a charm offensive; the much debated but least used ‘soft power’ of India could very well part of such an engagement. While the reservations and restrictions imposed by the Home Ministry in this context is understandable, the PMO should allow the Foreign Ministry to have a larger role in deciding the movement of people, especially students, journalists, teachers, members of the strategic, business and fine arts communities etc. By no means are these people going to be a threat to India and are bound to return to Bangladesh as India’s unofficial ambassadors. In fact, New Delhi should provide multiple entry visas to a broad category of people and allow the foreign ministry to decide this movement. By not allowing this movement, we are not only choking bilateral relations but also our own voice in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh under the present government in Dhaka provides a huge opportunity. The new government in New Delhi should make use of this momentum and take the process forward in making Dhaka India’s gateway towards the East.
The visit of the new External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka is timely and of importance. If pursued with the right spirit sustained momentum, Bangladesh has the potential of becoming a huge success story for the new government’s approach towards its neighbourhood.
Consider the current strategic environment in this part of the region. It is positive, despite minor setbacks, and has the potential to take bilateral relations to a new level. The government in Dhaka may not be totally pro-India but is certainly not anti-India. Even the public attitude towards India in Bangladesh has remained positive in the last few years. At the external level, the proposed BCIM corridor with Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar is bound to bring Dhaka closer and open new vistas in bilateral relations relating to trade and movement of goods. It is unfortunate that the previous government could not make use of this positive environment and convert it into a success story for New Delhi in the neighbourhood.
The High Commissioner of Bangladesh in New Delhi has been earnestly campaigning to keep the momentum going between the two governments in Delhi and Dhaka. Unfortunately, New Delhi during the last phase of Manmohan Singh’s leadership let the momentum slow down. Mamata Banerjee was made a scapegoat - although did play a role in being a spoilsport, Manmohan Singh could have taken the relationship forward despite it if he was serious. This should be the first approach that Sushma Swaraj ensures in terms of regaining the momentum with Bangladesh and bulldozing bilateral relations forward.
Such a regaining of momentum could be done by engaging Dhaka in a constructive roadmap and making it a gateway for India’s Look East Policy (LEP). That could be the second approach for the new government towards Bangladesh. For a long time, New Delhi has been talking about its Look East policy, with Myanmar and India’s Northeast as gateways. Geographically and strategically, Dhaka should be the gateway for India’s LEP. Land and maritime access and trade and travel routes have to criss-cross eastern India comprising West Bengal and the Northeast and Bangladesh before entering Myanmar and progressing further east.
Like India, Bangladesh also has a serious stake in looking east. The ongoing Rohingya crisis and the violence against Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State has dented Bangladesh-Myanmar relations; worse was the recent firing and subsequent killing of a Bangladeshi soldier by Myanmarese guards along the border which has galvanised anti-Myanmar sentiment within Bangladesh. Despite this, Dhaka has to look east for it makes much economic sense in terms of trade and even the movement of Bangladeshi labour to ASEAN countries, especially Singapore and Malaysia. This provides an opportunity for India and Bangladesh to work together; in fact, New Delhi and Dhaka could Look East together.
In order to ensure that Dhaka is willing to be India’s gateway, the new government has to constructively engage Bangladesh in multiple sub-regional forums and institutions. If the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation (BCIM) offers one such opportunity, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) which is older than the former, offers another opening to work with other countries in the region, which include Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and Thailand. While the first one would provide a great opportunity in terms of establishing infrastructure for trade and movement of goods, the second would be greatly beneficial in integrating the eastern part of the region.
Obviously, there have been issues over bilateral trade between the two countries despite the multiple agreements. Sharing of river waters will be another serious issue, given the alarming use of water war bogeys in the sub-continent and the emotionalism attached to it. Both could be over come if India and Bangladesh are integrated with the rest of the region. In fact, such an approach would even provide much needed space for the government in Delhi from its anti-India detractors and opposition.
The third and equally important approach is to use India’s border with Bangladesh as a bridge between the two countries. Bangladesh is not ‘India-locked’ but surrounded by West Bengal and the Northeast. What is generally referred as an ‘India lock’ is in fact always open, all along the border, despite the fencing. The illegal movement of people, goods and cattle mocks the entire concept of Bangladesh being ‘India-locked’. While it is a political issue, the hard reality also is that there is a market for this movement, and a regional economy within India thriving on this illegal border crossing of people, goods and even cattle.
New Delhi will have to provide some space to the regional states, as Beijing provides to Yunnan and Sichuan, in reaching out to the region. It is by no means an argument asking for the decentralisation of foreign policy, but only a petition to listen to the regional voices and use the border as a bridge to integrate Bangladesh better with West Bengal and the Northeast. Instead of looking only through the prism of bilateral trade and illegal migration, other innovative means could be used to help such a process of integration. There are ample means for the legal movement of people for different purposes – from conferences to football matches to more border haats - to bring the two civil societies together, especially along the borders of India.
Finally, the new government will have to engage in a charm offensive; the much debated but least used ‘soft power’ of India could very well part of such an engagement. While the reservations and restrictions imposed by the Home Ministry in this context is understandable, the PMO should allow the Foreign Ministry to have a larger role in deciding the movement of people, especially students, journalists, teachers, members of the strategic, business and fine arts communities etc. By no means are these people going to be a threat to India and are bound to return to Bangladesh as India’s unofficial ambassadors. In fact, New Delhi should provide multiple entry visas to a broad category of people and allow the foreign ministry to decide this movement. By not allowing this movement, we are not only choking bilateral relations but also our own voice in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh under the present government in Dhaka provides a huge opportunity. The new government in New Delhi should make use of this momentum and take the process forward in making Dhaka India’s gateway towards the East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)