Thomas Sowell
Whenever Democrats are in real trouble
politically, the Republicans seem to come up
with something new that distracts the public's
attention from the Democrats' problems. Who
says Republicans are not compassionate?
With public opinion polls showing President
Obama's sinking approval rate, in the wake of
his administration's multiple fiascoes and
scandals -- the disgraceful treatment of
veterans who need medical care, the Internal
Revenue Service coverups, the tens of
thousands of children flooding across our open
border -- Republicans have created two new
distractions that may yet draw attention away
from the Democrats' troubles.
From the Republican establishment, Speaker of
the House John Boehner has announced plans
to sue Barack Obama for exceeding his
authority. And from the Tea Party wing of the
Republicans, former Governor Sarah Palin has
called for impeachment of the president.
Does President Obama deserve to be sued or
impeached? Yes! Is there a snowball's chance
in hell that either the lawsuit or an
impeachment will succeed? No!
Barack Obama's repeated disregard of the laws
that he is supposed to follow, and his blatantly
changing these laws passed by Congress, are a
threat to the whole Constitutional form of
government, on which all our freedoms
depend.
Once a president -- any president -- can create
his own laws unilaterally, we are on our way
to becoming a banana republic, where
arbitrary rule from the top replaces
representative government by "we the people."
Why not sue Barack Obama then, or impeach
him?
For the simplest of all reasons: Neither of
these actions is going to do anything to stop
Obama, or even discredit him -- and both can
create a distraction that draws attention away
from the Democrats' disasters during an
election year.
Either the lawsuit or an impeachment -- or
both -- can hurt the Republicans, by making it
look like they are playing Mickey Mouse
politics during an election year. President
Obama is already making a joke out of Speaker
Boehner's threatened lawsuit by saying, "So
sue me!"
Courts don't like to get involved in cases
where one branch of government is suing
another -- and the Supreme Court does not
have to take any case that it does not want to
take. Even a lower court can throw out
Boehner's lawsuit as a political issue that does
not belong in court. Then it will be the
Republicans who will have egg on their faces.
As for impeachment, the House of
Representatives can impeach any president
they want to. But an impeachment is
essentially just an indictment that leaves it up
to the Senate to decide whether to vote to
remove the president from office.
So long as the Democrats control the Senate,
impeachment of Barack Obama is guaranteed
to lose. And this too would leave the
Republicans with egg on their faces during an
election year.
The political fate of the Republican Party is not
something that those of us who are not
Republicans need to worry about. If they want
to shoot themselves in the foot again, so be it.
But all Americans have to worry -- and worry
big time -- about the fate of this country if
Republicans blow their chances of taking
control of the Senate.
If Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid continues his iron control, President
Obama can nominate whatever kinds of federal
judges he wants to, knowing that they will be
confirmed by the Senate.
Since federal judges have lifetime tenure, this
would in effect extend the Obama
administration long past the point when
Barack Obama leaves the White House. All he
needs to do is pack the federal courts with
judges who share his contempt for the
Constitution and his zeal to impose a far-left
agenda at all costs.
This year's elections -- especially the Senate
elections -- can decide the fate of this country
for a long time to come. That is why
Republicans' launching of foredoomed
symbolic actions like lawsuits and
impeachment is such an irresponsible self-
indulgence.
When the country is at a historic crossroads is
not the time for futile gestures like this, which
can create bigger disasters than we already
have.
15 Jul 2014
FDI IN INDIAN DEFENCE : IMPLICATIONS OF RAISE IN THE CAP
Radhakrishna Rao
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.he May 2014 change in the Indian leadership
where the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge signalled a vastly stepped-up
commitment to India’s crisis prone defence sector with particular reference to attaining self reliance in the defence manufacturing. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) election manifesto had made a strong and specific commitment to end India’s dependence imported arms and ammunition
by boosting domestic production of high
performance fighting equipment. Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) is already considered one of the ‘game changers’ for boosting India’s home-grown capability in the production of state-of-the art combat systems. In fact, the 26% FDI cap on defence sector that former Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had failed to upwardly revise was considered far from an attractive proposition for the global defence and aerospace conglomerates to invest in India’s defence production sector. But then whether hiking the FDI cap to 49% by the NDA government in its maiden budget presented in the Indian parliament on 10 July would prod foreign investors to pass on their
latest genre technologies to Indian partners is not an easy guess at this moment.
Far from being a magic wand to help India build a home-grown defence industry based on indigenous expertise, an increased FDI could be considered no more than a catalyst for the Indian defence producers to face the challenges of designing and developing high-end, complex fighting equipment with domestic resources. In this context, Rahul Gangal, Principal, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants says, “I think this is a positive step though it may not be as much of a move forward as everyone was hoping. The treatment of the balance 51% will be critical .The earlier policy at 26% FDI required 51% to be held by one resident Indian entity. It would be interesting to note what the change in that is, if any.”
Indian Finance Minister and Defence Minister Arun
Jaitley, while presenting the budget for 2014-15,
did admit to the ignominious distinction India has
achieved as the ‘largest importer’ of arms and
fighting systems. That a country which has sent
probes to Moon and Mars continues to meet 2/3rd
of its defence requirements via imports stands out
as a far from edifying testimony to its “poor state
of defence industrial infrastructure,” said Jaitely.
“We are buying a substantial portion of our
defence requirements directly from foreign players.
Companies controlled by foreign governments and
foreign private sectors are supplying our defence
requirements to us at a considerable outflow of
foreign exchange,” he added.
Significantly, it has also been decided to continue
with the policy of permitting higher FDI cap beyond
the stipulated 49% in the event of a foreign investor
willing to part with the latest genre technologies at
his command. This, however, would be subject to
approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security on
a case-to-case basis. For quite some time now,
industry and trade bodies in India have been
lobbying for facilitating an increased FDI inflow in
the defence production sector. It was in 2001 that
India opened its defence production sector to
private participation. However, the view of the
Indian industrial sector active in defence
production is that it would be naïve to expect high
technology to flow into Indian industry simply
because foreign firms can invest more and
repatriate profits. One would therefore need to wait
and watch.
India should go about building a military-industrial
complex based on its long term strategic needs. At
present, much of the defence production activities
in India are centred on the facilities of the Defence
Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories
Board (OFB). Lack of direction and motivation as
well as interference meant that they could come
out with very few new and innovative products
featuring state of the art technologies. Conversely,
private sector companies, that have made a
modest foray into the defence production sector,
are not enthusiastic about investing in research
and development to build high-end fighting
systems. As such, the private sector in India’s
defence manufacturing would need to be
encouraged and incentivised to invest in research
and development through a slew of proactive
measures.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.he May 2014 change in the Indian leadership
where the National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge signalled a vastly stepped-up
commitment to India’s crisis prone defence sector with particular reference to attaining self reliance in the defence manufacturing. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) election manifesto had made a strong and specific commitment to end India’s dependence imported arms and ammunition
by boosting domestic production of high
performance fighting equipment. Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) is already considered one of the ‘game changers’ for boosting India’s home-grown capability in the production of state-of-the art combat systems. In fact, the 26% FDI cap on defence sector that former Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had failed to upwardly revise was considered far from an attractive proposition for the global defence and aerospace conglomerates to invest in India’s defence production sector. But then whether hiking the FDI cap to 49% by the NDA government in its maiden budget presented in the Indian parliament on 10 July would prod foreign investors to pass on their
latest genre technologies to Indian partners is not an easy guess at this moment.
Far from being a magic wand to help India build a home-grown defence industry based on indigenous expertise, an increased FDI could be considered no more than a catalyst for the Indian defence producers to face the challenges of designing and developing high-end, complex fighting equipment with domestic resources. In this context, Rahul Gangal, Principal, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants says, “I think this is a positive step though it may not be as much of a move forward as everyone was hoping. The treatment of the balance 51% will be critical .The earlier policy at 26% FDI required 51% to be held by one resident Indian entity. It would be interesting to note what the change in that is, if any.”
Indian Finance Minister and Defence Minister Arun
Jaitley, while presenting the budget for 2014-15,
did admit to the ignominious distinction India has
achieved as the ‘largest importer’ of arms and
fighting systems. That a country which has sent
probes to Moon and Mars continues to meet 2/3rd
of its defence requirements via imports stands out
as a far from edifying testimony to its “poor state
of defence industrial infrastructure,” said Jaitely.
“We are buying a substantial portion of our
defence requirements directly from foreign players.
Companies controlled by foreign governments and
foreign private sectors are supplying our defence
requirements to us at a considerable outflow of
foreign exchange,” he added.
Significantly, it has also been decided to continue
with the policy of permitting higher FDI cap beyond
the stipulated 49% in the event of a foreign investor
willing to part with the latest genre technologies at
his command. This, however, would be subject to
approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security on
a case-to-case basis. For quite some time now,
industry and trade bodies in India have been
lobbying for facilitating an increased FDI inflow in
the defence production sector. It was in 2001 that
India opened its defence production sector to
private participation. However, the view of the
Indian industrial sector active in defence
production is that it would be naïve to expect high
technology to flow into Indian industry simply
because foreign firms can invest more and
repatriate profits. One would therefore need to wait
and watch.
India should go about building a military-industrial
complex based on its long term strategic needs. At
present, much of the defence production activities
in India are centred on the facilities of the Defence
Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories
Board (OFB). Lack of direction and motivation as
well as interference meant that they could come
out with very few new and innovative products
featuring state of the art technologies. Conversely,
private sector companies, that have made a
modest foray into the defence production sector,
are not enthusiastic about investing in research
and development to build high-end fighting
systems. As such, the private sector in India’s
defence manufacturing would need to be
encouraged and incentivised to invest in research
and development through a slew of proactive
measures.
There is a need for in depth evaluation of the
possible long term political, geostrategic and
security fallouts of an increased FDI cap in the
defence production sector.
Specifically, the trade sanction and technological
embargo emanating from the US and its western
allies could deal a paralysing blow to a joint
venture involving a partnership of a US-based
defence company. Sufficient strategic safeguards
should need to be built into joint ventures involving
foreign participation. Otherwise the entire exercise
of enhancing FDI cap in India’s defence production
sector could prove counterproductive, with serious
consequences for the combat-readiness of the
Indian defence forces. Self reliance in defence
production should revolve round a long-term vision
of the security threat perception faced by the
country.
14 Jul 2014
THE REVOLUTIONS OF JULY
David Stokes
On July 14, 1789, Thomas Jefferson was
serving as America’s Ambassador to France.
The author of the Declaration of Independence
in another July, thirteen-years earlier, was an
eyewitness to the political unrest leading to
the storming of a political prison called The
Bastille . Though the fortress housed only
seven inmates at the moment, including four
forgers, it remains the iconic symbol of the
beginning of The French Revolution.
Our Constitution had been ratified a year
earlier, and George Washington had recently
been inaugurated as our first President, so
there was great interest in America about
what was going on in France 225 years ago.
After all, the French had been extremely
helpful to us during our successful struggle to,
as Jefferson phrased it, “dissolve the political
bands” that connected us to the British
monarchy. Americans were therefore
understandably sympathetic with a movement
against monarchial tyranny in France.
The American and French Revolutions are
linked in history largely because of
chronology, but they were vastly different
affairs. One led to a new birth of freedom—the
other to terror and tyranny, becoming the
prototype for unspeakable horrors to come.
Most Americans are familiar with a phrase
from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on
January 20, 1961—that whole “Ask not…”
thing. But I think the most important thing JFK
said that day was this: “And yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe—the
belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of
God. We dare not forget today that we are the
heirs of that first revolution.” [Emphasis
added]
But what is happening in our nation right now
may resemble what happened in France in
1789 more than what happened in
Philadelphia in 1776. For many Americans,
especially those on the left, the cry of “Liberty
– Equality – Fraternity” is much more resonant
than the one about “Life – Liberty – and the
Pursuit of Happiness.”
It is in the parsing of those vitally important
words that we find the keys to understanding
where we came from, where we are, and
where we are going. One revolution was about
individual rights and dreams. The other was
about “the people” as a group and the highest
virtue being “the greater good.”
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the
Declaration of Independence, he was
borrowing from 17th century English
philosopher John Locke who wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of property.” Jefferson’s
use of this language was clearly designed to
describe the rights of individual people to live
free, be free, and pursue their dreams in a free
marketplace. Those thoughts were very much
present in that Philadelphia birthing room.
The French Revolution, on the other hand—
though similar to what happened here in
America, in the sense of changing things and
breaking free from an old order—had little to
do with individual rights.
It was all about collectivism .
And in many ways, the French Revolution is
the ancestor of all totalitarian systems to
follow. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Lenin, and
all other political gangsters were heirs of
Robespierre, and later Napoleon. Those
tyrannical manifestations were not misguided
aberrations—distortions of something that
started out good (as in, “Lenin was cool, too
bad Stalin messed it all up”)—the seeds of the
horror were present at the beginning. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, 18th century Enlightenment
philosopher, wrote about volonté générale or
“general will,” and the Jacobins, followed by
others, ran with it. In their thinking, “the will
of the people” could only be expressed by
enlightened leaders.
Yes, our revolution indeed drew a measure of
strength from the Enlightenment, but it was of
the earlier Lockean variety. America’s use of
Enlightenment concepts was tempered by
something else; something that set it apart
from what happened in France—a spiritual
foundation.
Vive la revolution - Vive la difference .
The French not only declared war on the
monarchy, they also attacked Christianity,
replacing it with a religion of the state and
introducing the worship of secularism. Sound
familiar?
In America, it was very different. I am not one
of those who spends a lot of time trying to
prove the Christian bona fides of every
founding father, but I do believe that the
influence of what was called The Great
Awakening, which ended about twenty years
before the shot heard around the world was
fired, was still very much a part of our
national fabric.
And another such movement, often referred to
as the Second Great Awakening, began while
the French were unsuccessfully trying to
figure out how to be free. To ignore those
religious and cultural movements in America is
to miss an important piece of the puzzle. The
very concepts of liberty, equality, and
fraternity sound nice and make for great
propaganda. But in the end, without virtue
born of something deeper and greater, even
the best rhetoric is mocked by what actually
happens when human nature runs amuck. This
is why all totalitarian regimes like to call their
realms things like The People’s Republic of
China , or Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, or The People’s Commonwealth of
Massachusetts .
We need to beware of those who share our
vocabulary but use a different dictionary.
The reason it has all worked and endured so
well in this land is because we are a nation
“under God.” There, I said it. There is no real
liberty without that. All attempts at actual
freedom end up moving toward tyranny
without some sense of higher purpose and
power. I believe firmly in the separation of
church and state. But minus positive religious
influence, a nation cannot long remain free.
C. S. Lewis said it very well in The Screwtape
Letters 70 years ago: “Hidden in the heart of
this striving for Liberty there was also a deep
hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable
man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect
democracy, only the state religion is permitted,
slavery is restored, and the individual is told
that he has really willed (though he didn't
know it) whatever the Government tells him to
do. From that starting point, via Hegel
(another indispensable propagandist on our
side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and
the Communist state. Even in England we
were pretty successful. I heard the other day
that in that country a man could not, without
a permit, cut down his own tree with his own
axe, make it into planks with his own saw,
and use the planks to build a tool shed in his
own garden.”
Sound familiar?
On July 14, 1789, Thomas Jefferson was
serving as America’s Ambassador to France.
The author of the Declaration of Independence
in another July, thirteen-years earlier, was an
eyewitness to the political unrest leading to
the storming of a political prison called The
Bastille . Though the fortress housed only
seven inmates at the moment, including four
forgers, it remains the iconic symbol of the
beginning of The French Revolution.
Our Constitution had been ratified a year
earlier, and George Washington had recently
been inaugurated as our first President, so
there was great interest in America about
what was going on in France 225 years ago.
After all, the French had been extremely
helpful to us during our successful struggle to,
as Jefferson phrased it, “dissolve the political
bands” that connected us to the British
monarchy. Americans were therefore
understandably sympathetic with a movement
against monarchial tyranny in France.
The American and French Revolutions are
linked in history largely because of
chronology, but they were vastly different
affairs. One led to a new birth of freedom—the
other to terror and tyranny, becoming the
prototype for unspeakable horrors to come.
Most Americans are familiar with a phrase
from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on
January 20, 1961—that whole “Ask not…”
thing. But I think the most important thing JFK
said that day was this: “And yet the same
revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe—the
belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of
God. We dare not forget today that we are the
heirs of that first revolution.” [Emphasis
added]
But what is happening in our nation right now
may resemble what happened in France in
1789 more than what happened in
Philadelphia in 1776. For many Americans,
especially those on the left, the cry of “Liberty
– Equality – Fraternity” is much more resonant
than the one about “Life – Liberty – and the
Pursuit of Happiness.”
It is in the parsing of those vitally important
words that we find the keys to understanding
where we came from, where we are, and
where we are going. One revolution was about
individual rights and dreams. The other was
about “the people” as a group and the highest
virtue being “the greater good.”
When Thomas Jefferson wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the
Declaration of Independence, he was
borrowing from 17th century English
philosopher John Locke who wrote about “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of property.” Jefferson’s
use of this language was clearly designed to
describe the rights of individual people to live
free, be free, and pursue their dreams in a free
marketplace. Those thoughts were very much
present in that Philadelphia birthing room.
The French Revolution, on the other hand—
though similar to what happened here in
America, in the sense of changing things and
breaking free from an old order—had little to
do with individual rights.
It was all about collectivism .
And in many ways, the French Revolution is
the ancestor of all totalitarian systems to
follow. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Lenin, and
all other political gangsters were heirs of
Robespierre, and later Napoleon. Those
tyrannical manifestations were not misguided
aberrations—distortions of something that
started out good (as in, “Lenin was cool, too
bad Stalin messed it all up”)—the seeds of the
horror were present at the beginning. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, 18th century Enlightenment
philosopher, wrote about volonté générale or
“general will,” and the Jacobins, followed by
others, ran with it. In their thinking, “the will
of the people” could only be expressed by
enlightened leaders.
Yes, our revolution indeed drew a measure of
strength from the Enlightenment, but it was of
the earlier Lockean variety. America’s use of
Enlightenment concepts was tempered by
something else; something that set it apart
from what happened in France—a spiritual
foundation.
Vive la revolution - Vive la difference .
The French not only declared war on the
monarchy, they also attacked Christianity,
replacing it with a religion of the state and
introducing the worship of secularism. Sound
familiar?
In America, it was very different. I am not one
of those who spends a lot of time trying to
prove the Christian bona fides of every
founding father, but I do believe that the
influence of what was called The Great
Awakening, which ended about twenty years
before the shot heard around the world was
fired, was still very much a part of our
national fabric.
And another such movement, often referred to
as the Second Great Awakening, began while
the French were unsuccessfully trying to
figure out how to be free. To ignore those
religious and cultural movements in America is
to miss an important piece of the puzzle. The
very concepts of liberty, equality, and
fraternity sound nice and make for great
propaganda. But in the end, without virtue
born of something deeper and greater, even
the best rhetoric is mocked by what actually
happens when human nature runs amuck. This
is why all totalitarian regimes like to call their
realms things like The People’s Republic of
China , or Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, or The People’s Commonwealth of
Massachusetts .
We need to beware of those who share our
vocabulary but use a different dictionary.
The reason it has all worked and endured so
well in this land is because we are a nation
“under God.” There, I said it. There is no real
liberty without that. All attempts at actual
freedom end up moving toward tyranny
without some sense of higher purpose and
power. I believe firmly in the separation of
church and state. But minus positive religious
influence, a nation cannot long remain free.
C. S. Lewis said it very well in The Screwtape
Letters 70 years ago: “Hidden in the heart of
this striving for Liberty there was also a deep
hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable
man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect
democracy, only the state religion is permitted,
slavery is restored, and the individual is told
that he has really willed (though he didn't
know it) whatever the Government tells him to
do. From that starting point, via Hegel
(another indispensable propagandist on our
side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and
the Communist state. Even in England we
were pretty successful. I heard the other day
that in that country a man could not, without
a permit, cut down his own tree with his own
axe, make it into planks with his own saw,
and use the planks to build a tool shed in his
own garden.”
Sound familiar?
BIAFRA INDEPENDENCE 2014
Terry Paulson
What would you say to the Founding Fathers
who gathered in Philadelphia to craft the
Declaration of Independence knowing that it
would mean war with England? Would you
have told them to wait, to keep trying
diplomacy, or to wait for England to leave
them alone? Would you support their taking
up arms to protect their people and their
rights? Thank God, they justified and
supported the war for independence that made
America free.
While the world is once again preoccupied
with tensions in the Middle East and in the
Ukraine, there is a growing call for
independence for Biafra. Nnamdi Kanu , the
Director of Radio Biafra, is the world-wide
voice for the indigenous people of Biafra
(IPOB) in the south and southeast of Nigeria.
They are weary of seeing their women raped,
their churches burned, and their villages
bombed and terrorized.
They remember the 1967-1970 Biafra-Nigeria
Civil War that resulted in the genocide of over
3 million IPOB Christians while the world was
focused on Vietnam and the conflict in the
Middle East. Once again, they're seeing buses
of Muslim terrorists/cattle herdsmen
vandalizing their farms and villages.
Thankfully, six have been arrested when two
bombs were found and defused at the Living
Faith Church,popularly known as Winners'
Chapel, in Owerri, Nigeria.
Enough is enough. The IPOB are ready to
defend themselves. To the largely Christian
population in Biafra, the concept of a Holy
War is not a theoretical discussion; it is a
matter of survival and freedom from the
Islamic Caliphate that is sweeping the Middle
East and Africa. But they know that any
declaration of Independence is but a piece of
paper; independence must be earned.
Why focus on Nigeria when ISIS has
aggressively secured a beachhead in Syria and
Iraq for their self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate
united under Sharia Law? The Middle East is
but the tip of the iceberg in the drive for an
Islamic caliphate. For years, Africa has been a
target of the extremists' dream of a unified
Africaunder Islamic control.
The brazen attacks on Christians and moderate
Muslims by Boko Haram in Nigeria have been
happening for years. In 2012, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton had been reluctant to
label them a Foreign Terrorist Organization
(FTO) for fear of cutting them off from
diplomatic contact.
Only the reported abduction and threat to sell
200 young Nigerian women into slavery or
forced marriage has awakened the western
media. The comments by video in May of Boko
Haram's leader, Imam Abubakar Shekau ,
speaks of their all too public mission:
"You infidels of the world, you have met a
trouble, we must follow Allah, and you should
die with bitterness. Brethren cut out infidels
from their necks, brothers you should capture
slaves; just because I took girls in western
school they are worried. I said they should
even desert the school, they should go and
marry. Nonsense, I am the one that captured
your girls and I will sell them in the market. I
have my own market of selling people; it is the
owner that instructed me to sell. Yes, I will
sell the girls people, I am selling the girls like
Allah said until we soak the ground of Nigeria
with infidels blood and so called Muslims
contradicting Islam. After we have killed,
killed, killed and get fatigue and wondering on
what to do with smelling of their corpses,
smelling of Obama, Bush, Putin and Jonathan
worried us then we will open prison and be
imprisoned the rest. Infidels have no value. It
is Jonathan's daughter that I will imprison;
nothing will stop this until you convert. If you
turn to Islam then you will be saved."
When Britain laid out the borders in Africa for
the breakup of its empire, countries were not
formed to help build viable nations. Nigeria
was formed as a dysfunctional colony that
combined naturally competing peoples in a
way that would sow perpetual discord and
allow Western companies to freely take
advantage of the natural resources they
treasured.
As Nigerian Ambassador Bola Dada asserted,
"Our problem is not leadership, it's our weak
foundation. No one can govern Nigeria
successfully now because of the faulty
foundation. So the foundation has to be pulled
down before we can see any way out."
The current Christian President, Goodluck
Jonathan, has been neutered. He wants a
united Nigeria, but he has no real power.
Under the alleged support of sponsors like
General Babangida, known as IBB, Islamic
extremists have infiltrated the armed services,
police departments and the political
administration. Their mission is clear--protect
Islamic extremists and Boko Haram. It's no
wonder that Islamic terrorists are expanding
their attacks throughout Nigeria.
This demand for the independence of Biafra is
far from new. In March 2008, 145 countries
voted to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People . Although not supported by President
George W. Bush, President Obama endorsed
UNDRIP in 2010.
The people of Biafra want independence and
are asking for help around the world. The IPOB
can trace their roots in Judeo-Christian
heritage to the lineage of Jacob, one of the
founding patriarchs of both faith communities.
The fight for Biafra independence provides a
tangible way to thwart the drive for an Islamic
caliphate in Africa. It's time once again to
support a people whose time for independence
has come. It's not our fight, but, with UN
justification, it's a fight we should support.
What would you say to the Founding Fathers
who gathered in Philadelphia to craft the
Declaration of Independence knowing that it
would mean war with England? Would you
have told them to wait, to keep trying
diplomacy, or to wait for England to leave
them alone? Would you support their taking
up arms to protect their people and their
rights? Thank God, they justified and
supported the war for independence that made
America free.
While the world is once again preoccupied
with tensions in the Middle East and in the
Ukraine, there is a growing call for
independence for Biafra. Nnamdi Kanu , the
Director of Radio Biafra, is the world-wide
voice for the indigenous people of Biafra
(IPOB) in the south and southeast of Nigeria.
They are weary of seeing their women raped,
their churches burned, and their villages
bombed and terrorized.
They remember the 1967-1970 Biafra-Nigeria
Civil War that resulted in the genocide of over
3 million IPOB Christians while the world was
focused on Vietnam and the conflict in the
Middle East. Once again, they're seeing buses
of Muslim terrorists/cattle herdsmen
vandalizing their farms and villages.
Thankfully, six have been arrested when two
bombs were found and defused at the Living
Faith Church,popularly known as Winners'
Chapel, in Owerri, Nigeria.
Enough is enough. The IPOB are ready to
defend themselves. To the largely Christian
population in Biafra, the concept of a Holy
War is not a theoretical discussion; it is a
matter of survival and freedom from the
Islamic Caliphate that is sweeping the Middle
East and Africa. But they know that any
declaration of Independence is but a piece of
paper; independence must be earned.
Why focus on Nigeria when ISIS has
aggressively secured a beachhead in Syria and
Iraq for their self-proclaimed Islamic caliphate
united under Sharia Law? The Middle East is
but the tip of the iceberg in the drive for an
Islamic caliphate. For years, Africa has been a
target of the extremists' dream of a unified
Africaunder Islamic control.
The brazen attacks on Christians and moderate
Muslims by Boko Haram in Nigeria have been
happening for years. In 2012, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton had been reluctant to
label them a Foreign Terrorist Organization
(FTO) for fear of cutting them off from
diplomatic contact.
Only the reported abduction and threat to sell
200 young Nigerian women into slavery or
forced marriage has awakened the western
media. The comments by video in May of Boko
Haram's leader, Imam Abubakar Shekau ,
speaks of their all too public mission:
"You infidels of the world, you have met a
trouble, we must follow Allah, and you should
die with bitterness. Brethren cut out infidels
from their necks, brothers you should capture
slaves; just because I took girls in western
school they are worried. I said they should
even desert the school, they should go and
marry. Nonsense, I am the one that captured
your girls and I will sell them in the market. I
have my own market of selling people; it is the
owner that instructed me to sell. Yes, I will
sell the girls people, I am selling the girls like
Allah said until we soak the ground of Nigeria
with infidels blood and so called Muslims
contradicting Islam. After we have killed,
killed, killed and get fatigue and wondering on
what to do with smelling of their corpses,
smelling of Obama, Bush, Putin and Jonathan
worried us then we will open prison and be
imprisoned the rest. Infidels have no value. It
is Jonathan's daughter that I will imprison;
nothing will stop this until you convert. If you
turn to Islam then you will be saved."
When Britain laid out the borders in Africa for
the breakup of its empire, countries were not
formed to help build viable nations. Nigeria
was formed as a dysfunctional colony that
combined naturally competing peoples in a
way that would sow perpetual discord and
allow Western companies to freely take
advantage of the natural resources they
treasured.
As Nigerian Ambassador Bola Dada asserted,
"Our problem is not leadership, it's our weak
foundation. No one can govern Nigeria
successfully now because of the faulty
foundation. So the foundation has to be pulled
down before we can see any way out."
The current Christian President, Goodluck
Jonathan, has been neutered. He wants a
united Nigeria, but he has no real power.
Under the alleged support of sponsors like
General Babangida, known as IBB, Islamic
extremists have infiltrated the armed services,
police departments and the political
administration. Their mission is clear--protect
Islamic extremists and Boko Haram. It's no
wonder that Islamic terrorists are expanding
their attacks throughout Nigeria.
This demand for the independence of Biafra is
far from new. In March 2008, 145 countries
voted to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People . Although not supported by President
George W. Bush, President Obama endorsed
UNDRIP in 2010.
The people of Biafra want independence and
are asking for help around the world. The IPOB
can trace their roots in Judeo-Christian
heritage to the lineage of Jacob, one of the
founding patriarchs of both faith communities.
The fight for Biafra independence provides a
tangible way to thwart the drive for an Islamic
caliphate in Africa. It's time once again to
support a people whose time for independence
has come. It's not our fight, but, with UN
justification, it's a fight we should support.
INDIA - BANGLADESH: UNCLOS AND THE SEA BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Harun ur Rashid
Bangladesh went to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on 08 October
2009 seeking judgment under the dispute clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The submission of documents and oral hearings from both India and Bangladesh was concluded in December 2013 and the Court
officially conveyed the result to both parties on 7
July 2014.
The judgment is final and cannot be appealed
against. Among the five arbitrators only the Indian
arbitrator delivered a dissenting judgment. India
accepted the judgment and reportedly said that the
judgment would further enhance goodwill between
the two countries by putting an end to a long
standing issue. It went in favour of Bangladesh
because Bangladesh has been awarded 19,467 sq
km of the total 25,602 sq km sea area (76 per
cent), leaving 6,135 sq km (24 per cent) to India.
The judgment also allows Bangladesh a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile economic zone and access to
the open sea, thus preventing it from turning into a
‘sea-locked country’. Bangladesh’s awarded area
reportedly includes 10 off-shore blocs in the west
which were in dispute with India; 10 per cent of the
six blocs went to India. It is noted that the disputed
maritime area of 25,602 sq km in the Bay of
Bengal with Bangladesh constitutes probably only
about 3-5 per cent of the maritime area of India’s
vast coastline, stretching east from the Bay of
Bengal, the Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Sea in
the west. For Bangladesh, the area in the west with
India is 100 per cent because there is no other
maritime area available for Bangladesh to its west
and it is vital for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal
to have this area under its jurisdiction.
The first session on Indo-Bangladesh sea boundary
talks took place in 1974 in Dhaka at the official
level. Later, several meetings took place at the
level of Foreign Secretaries. When the Foreign
Secretaries could not resolve the differences
because of the methods of delimiting the boundary
between the two sides, it was elevated to the
Foreign Ministers’ level in 1975 but remained
inconclusive. It was reported that at the
Commonwealth Summit in Jamaica in May 1975,
Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
proposed arbitration to resolve the issue to Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi but India rejected it.
Although the sea boundary talks were renewed in
1978, 1982, 2008 (under the caretaker
government), and in March 2009 under the Hasina
government, it could not be resolved because of
the differences over boundary delimitations. When
the Hasina government found that the talks had
stalled, it had no option but to look out for the
involvement of a third party to resolve the dispute.
Finally the Hasina government decided to lodge the
dispute with the Court of Arbitration under Article
287 (the dispute machinery clause) of UNCLOS.
India had ratified the UN Convention in 1995 and
Bangladesh in 2001, and are both therefore bound
by the provisions of the UNCLOS.
The judgment stands out for several following
reasons. First, both Bangladesh and India have
settled the maritime boundary through the legal
mechanism under the UNCLOS, which
demonstrates that the two countries are committed
to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is not a
complete victory for Bangladesh because India has
won on some issues. It is however a victory for
fairness and justice. The judgment is a win for
international law which both countries have always
respected. Second, the judgment substantially
contributes to the development of maritime
international law. There was an apprehension
among some jurists that judgment by the Court of
Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the
fragmentation of maritime law, but this has been
found to be unfounded. Rather, the judgment
reflects the great advantages of consistency and
transparency by adhering to judicial precedents.
Third, the peaceful and amicable settlement of the
maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India
could be an example in the international arena at a
time when in many parts of the world maritime
disputes are emerging as major flash points. For
example, in the South China Sea, disputed maritime
boundaries between China and its neighbours,
Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, and in the
East China Sea, between South Korea and Japan
and Japan and China, are causing grave tension.
Finally, the judgment may assist Bangladesh to
concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of
Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BIG-B) initiative
with India and Myanmar for Japanese trade and
investment. It can usher in a new era of
cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal.
Bangladesh went to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on 08 October
2009 seeking judgment under the dispute clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The submission of documents and oral hearings from both India and Bangladesh was concluded in December 2013 and the Court
officially conveyed the result to both parties on 7
July 2014.
The judgment is final and cannot be appealed
against. Among the five arbitrators only the Indian
arbitrator delivered a dissenting judgment. India
accepted the judgment and reportedly said that the
judgment would further enhance goodwill between
the two countries by putting an end to a long
standing issue. It went in favour of Bangladesh
because Bangladesh has been awarded 19,467 sq
km of the total 25,602 sq km sea area (76 per
cent), leaving 6,135 sq km (24 per cent) to India.
The judgment also allows Bangladesh a 200-mile
exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf
beyond the 200-mile economic zone and access to
the open sea, thus preventing it from turning into a
‘sea-locked country’. Bangladesh’s awarded area
reportedly includes 10 off-shore blocs in the west
which were in dispute with India; 10 per cent of the
six blocs went to India. It is noted that the disputed
maritime area of 25,602 sq km in the Bay of
Bengal with Bangladesh constitutes probably only
about 3-5 per cent of the maritime area of India’s
vast coastline, stretching east from the Bay of
Bengal, the Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Sea in
the west. For Bangladesh, the area in the west with
India is 100 per cent because there is no other
maritime area available for Bangladesh to its west
and it is vital for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal
to have this area under its jurisdiction.
The first session on Indo-Bangladesh sea boundary
talks took place in 1974 in Dhaka at the official
level. Later, several meetings took place at the
level of Foreign Secretaries. When the Foreign
Secretaries could not resolve the differences
because of the methods of delimiting the boundary
between the two sides, it was elevated to the
Foreign Ministers’ level in 1975 but remained
inconclusive. It was reported that at the
Commonwealth Summit in Jamaica in May 1975,
Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
proposed arbitration to resolve the issue to Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi but India rejected it.
Although the sea boundary talks were renewed in
1978, 1982, 2008 (under the caretaker
government), and in March 2009 under the Hasina
government, it could not be resolved because of
the differences over boundary delimitations. When
the Hasina government found that the talks had
stalled, it had no option but to look out for the
involvement of a third party to resolve the dispute.
Finally the Hasina government decided to lodge the
dispute with the Court of Arbitration under Article
287 (the dispute machinery clause) of UNCLOS.
India had ratified the UN Convention in 1995 and
Bangladesh in 2001, and are both therefore bound
by the provisions of the UNCLOS.
The judgment stands out for several following
reasons. First, both Bangladesh and India have
settled the maritime boundary through the legal
mechanism under the UNCLOS, which
demonstrates that the two countries are committed
to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is not a
complete victory for Bangladesh because India has
won on some issues. It is however a victory for
fairness and justice. The judgment is a win for
international law which both countries have always
respected. Second, the judgment substantially
contributes to the development of maritime
international law. There was an apprehension
among some jurists that judgment by the Court of
Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the
fragmentation of maritime law, but this has been
found to be unfounded. Rather, the judgment
reflects the great advantages of consistency and
transparency by adhering to judicial precedents.
Third, the peaceful and amicable settlement of the
maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India
could be an example in the international arena at a
time when in many parts of the world maritime
disputes are emerging as major flash points. For
example, in the South China Sea, disputed maritime
boundaries between China and its neighbours,
Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, and in the
East China Sea, between South Korea and Japan
and Japan and China, are causing grave tension.
Finally, the judgment may assist Bangladesh to
concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of
Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BIG-B) initiative
with India and Myanmar for Japanese trade and
investment. It can usher in a new era of
cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal.
STRIFE ON THE GLOBAL COMMONS
Vijay Shankar
The run up to the Peloponnesian War (431-404
BC) was marked by a debate held in Sparta
amongst the Peloponnesian allies to determine
whether war against the aggressive seapower
Athens and the maritime Delian League was to be waged. The leadership of the war-like alliance lay with the powerful yet reluctant Spartan king Archidamus, a man of both intelligence and moderation. He questioned, “What sort of a war, then, are we going to fight? If we can neither defeat them at sea nor control the resources on which their navy depends, we shall do ourselves more harm than good.” To Archidamus, clearly, the inability to access and control the Global Commons of his era presaged defeat.
Global Commons is a term typically used to
describe international, supranational, and global
common pool resource domains. Global Commons
include the earth's shared resources, such as the
oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and the Polar
Regions. Cyberspace also meets the definition, but
for this examination will focus on the hydrosphere.
The parameters for enquiry necessarily include
physical tangibles of height, width, depth and the
awkward intangible of human history.
Mahan in “The Influence of Seapower upon
History” underscored three prescient perspectives
relating to the Commons. First, competition for
materials and markets is intrinsic to an ever
trussed global system. Second, the collaborative
nature of commerce on the one hand deters war,
while on the other engenders friction. Third, the
Global Commons require to be secured against
disruption and rapacious exploitation.
An understanding of the Commons must not suffer
from any delusions that explicit and recognised
conventions have evolved over the centuries. On
the contrary, till the middle of the last century what
passed for a principle was Hugo Grotius’ 1609
notion of Mare Liberum ; freedom of the seas. The
concept that the sea was international territory and
all nations were free to use it. The free-for-all
state of the Commons becomes evident in the fact
of the seaward limit of national sovereignty being
defined by the cannon-shot decree which would
suggest that it was the ability to control that
defined dominio n. By the middle of the twentieth
century the collapse of colonial empires and the
birth of new nations set into motion a dynamic that
demanded a change from cannon-shot rules and
lawlessness to equitability and responsibilities in
the Commons along with demarcation of territorial
and economic zones. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II &
III) met 1954 to 1982 to hammer out and define
rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of
the world’s oceans. The deliberations concluded in
1982 and became functional in 1994. Recognising
that that the sea bed is the repository of vast and
unguaged quantities of minerals, the Convention
provided for a regime relating to minerals on the
seabed outside any state's territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone. It established an
International Seabed Authority to regulate seabed
mining and control distribution of royalties. To date
it has been ratified by 165 nations. Significantly,
the US Senate has snubbed the UNCLOS. What
critically mars the compact is its imprecision, its
illusory demand for the supranational and the
absence of a structure to secure the Global
Commons against disruption and rapacious
exploitation.
The current distressed state of the Commons is
discernible by the impact that globalisation has
had; strains of multi-polarity, anarchy of
expectations and the increasing tensions between
the demands for economic integration and the
stresses of fractured political divisions are
symptoms. Nations are persistently confronted by
the need to reconcile internal pressures with
intrusive external impulses at a time when the
efficacy of Power to bring on political outcomes is
in question. While most nations have sought
resolution and correctives within the framework of
the existing international order, China emerges as
an irony that has angled for and conspired to re-
write the rule book.
China’s rising comprehensive power has generated
an internal impulse to military growth and
unilateral intervention in its immediate
neighbourhood in the South and East China Sea
and its extended regions of economic interests. It
has developed and put in place strategies that
target the Commons to assure a favourable
consequence to what it perceives to be a strategic
competition for resources and control of the
seaways that enable movement. The consequences
of China activising artifices such as the Anti-
Access and Area Denial strategy and geo-political manoeuvres to establish the String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean Region evokes increasing shared anxieties and resistance by players in the same strategic milieu. Particularly at a time when the North Eastern Passage through the Arctic is emerging as receding ice cuts the Asia-Europe route via the Suez by half (from 23000 km to 11500 km) and technology opens the Antarctic to economic exploitation. The paradoxical effects of China’s contrivances are to undermine its own strategic standing, hasten counter-balancing alignments and urge a global logic of cooperative politics over imperious strategies.
The run up to the Peloponnesian War (431-404
BC) was marked by a debate held in Sparta
amongst the Peloponnesian allies to determine
whether war against the aggressive seapower
Athens and the maritime Delian League was to be waged. The leadership of the war-like alliance lay with the powerful yet reluctant Spartan king Archidamus, a man of both intelligence and moderation. He questioned, “What sort of a war, then, are we going to fight? If we can neither defeat them at sea nor control the resources on which their navy depends, we shall do ourselves more harm than good.” To Archidamus, clearly, the inability to access and control the Global Commons of his era presaged defeat.
Global Commons is a term typically used to
describe international, supranational, and global
common pool resource domains. Global Commons
include the earth's shared resources, such as the
oceans, the atmosphere, outer space and the Polar
Regions. Cyberspace also meets the definition, but
for this examination will focus on the hydrosphere.
The parameters for enquiry necessarily include
physical tangibles of height, width, depth and the
awkward intangible of human history.
Mahan in “The Influence of Seapower upon
History” underscored three prescient perspectives
relating to the Commons. First, competition for
materials and markets is intrinsic to an ever
trussed global system. Second, the collaborative
nature of commerce on the one hand deters war,
while on the other engenders friction. Third, the
Global Commons require to be secured against
disruption and rapacious exploitation.
An understanding of the Commons must not suffer
from any delusions that explicit and recognised
conventions have evolved over the centuries. On
the contrary, till the middle of the last century what
passed for a principle was Hugo Grotius’ 1609
notion of Mare Liberum ; freedom of the seas. The
concept that the sea was international territory and
all nations were free to use it. The free-for-all
state of the Commons becomes evident in the fact
of the seaward limit of national sovereignty being
defined by the cannon-shot decree which would
suggest that it was the ability to control that
defined dominio n. By the middle of the twentieth
century the collapse of colonial empires and the
birth of new nations set into motion a dynamic that
demanded a change from cannon-shot rules and
lawlessness to equitability and responsibilities in
the Commons along with demarcation of territorial
and economic zones. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, II &
III) met 1954 to 1982 to hammer out and define
rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of
the world’s oceans. The deliberations concluded in
1982 and became functional in 1994. Recognising
that that the sea bed is the repository of vast and
unguaged quantities of minerals, the Convention
provided for a regime relating to minerals on the
seabed outside any state's territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone. It established an
International Seabed Authority to regulate seabed
mining and control distribution of royalties. To date
it has been ratified by 165 nations. Significantly,
the US Senate has snubbed the UNCLOS. What
critically mars the compact is its imprecision, its
illusory demand for the supranational and the
absence of a structure to secure the Global
Commons against disruption and rapacious
exploitation.
The current distressed state of the Commons is
discernible by the impact that globalisation has
had; strains of multi-polarity, anarchy of
expectations and the increasing tensions between
the demands for economic integration and the
stresses of fractured political divisions are
symptoms. Nations are persistently confronted by
the need to reconcile internal pressures with
intrusive external impulses at a time when the
efficacy of Power to bring on political outcomes is
in question. While most nations have sought
resolution and correctives within the framework of
the existing international order, China emerges as
an irony that has angled for and conspired to re-
write the rule book.
China’s rising comprehensive power has generated
an internal impulse to military growth and
unilateral intervention in its immediate
neighbourhood in the South and East China Sea
and its extended regions of economic interests. It
has developed and put in place strategies that
target the Commons to assure a favourable
consequence to what it perceives to be a strategic
competition for resources and control of the
seaways that enable movement. The consequences
of China activising artifices such as the Anti-
Access and Area Denial strategy and geo-political manoeuvres to establish the String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean Region evokes increasing shared anxieties and resistance by players in the same strategic milieu. Particularly at a time when the North Eastern Passage through the Arctic is emerging as receding ice cuts the Asia-Europe route via the Suez by half (from 23000 km to 11500 km) and technology opens the Antarctic to economic exploitation. The paradoxical effects of China’s contrivances are to undermine its own strategic standing, hasten counter-balancing alignments and urge a global logic of cooperative politics over imperious strategies.
U.S. IN SOUTH ASIA: DECLINING INFLUENCE
Chintamani Mahapatra
The US’ influence in South Asia is fast diminishing
and this trend is likely to continue deep into the
future. In the aftermath of World War II, South Asia
was considered a strategic backwater by the US
policymakers. Additionally, South Asia offered little
economic opportunities to the US corporate sector.
With the solitary exception of turning Pakistan into
an alliance partner, the US cared little about this
region.
Even in the realm of alliance politics, the US had
little to offer Pakistan. Pakistan’s membership in
the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the
Central Treaty Organization, and the US’ military
assistance to Pakistan was ineffective during
Pakistan’s military misadventures against India. It
was only after the late 1970s’ Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan that Washington got
critically involved in South Asia.
The US’ interest in South Asia deepened in the
post-Cold War era in view of Indian economic
reforms, nuclearisation of the region and the
pivotal role Afghanistan played in the terrorist
attack on the US in September 2001. As the US
once again turned Pakistan into an alliance partner
in the war against terrorism and established an
extraordinary strategic understanding with India,
South Asia occupied substantial priority in the US
national security agenda.
The US’ war in Afghanistan that began in 2001 is
about to come to a close. The US troop withdrawal
from this country is indisputable. Irrespective of
debates over the probable level of US engagement
in Afghan affairs post 2014, it is almost certain
that the closure of billions of dollars worth of war
in Afghanistan will trim Washington’s influence in
South Asia. The resilience of the Afghan Taliban
and limitation of a superpower’s abilities to
confront non-state-actors will question the US’
credibility in the region.
Secondly, the US leverage over Pakistan in the
post-Afghan war phase will dry down with an
almost automatic cut in the US military and
economic assistance to Islamabad. History will
unquestionably repeat and the US-Pakistan alliance
will terminate, as was the case after the Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.
Thirdly, the US’ influence over India, resulting from
an innovative “strategic partnership” project during
former US President George Bush’s era may not
survive his successor Barack Obama’s
administration. The enthusiasm of the first Obama
administration to further elevate this partnership
was short-lived and the second Obama
administration has paid less than modest attention
to India.
There is no doubt that the election victory of the
Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of now
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a strong
popular mandate, has generated sizeable
excitement in Washington. Hope of revival of the
earlier impetus in the Indo-US strategic partnership
has been rekindled. Obama’s invitation to Modi to
visit Washington, Assistant Secretary of State
Nisha Biswal Desai’s trip to India soon after the
new government assumed office, visits by
influential Senator John McCain and Deputy
Secretary of State William J Burns to prepare the
ground for the Indo-US strategic dialogue between
Secretary of State John Kerry and Indian Foreign
Minister Sushma Swaraj are all signals of
Obama’s renewed interest in India.
But Prime Minister Modi appears less animated to
visit the US, more involved in constructing a
peaceful neighbourhood, more focused on reviving
the national economy and less enthralled to project
India as a global leader. About ten months have
passed since the Devyani Khobragade episode
begot a psychological divide in the New Delhi-
Washington bond. Repairing the mind-set is not
going to be easy even for the new Indian
government.
The Obama administration’s relationships with
other smaller South Asian countries – especially
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – have also soured in
the recent years. Washington was hesitant to do
business with the Awami League government after
the January 2014 elections, criticised Dhaka’s
handling of human trafficking problems, and
reduced import of garments after a deadly fire in a
garment factory.
The US’ efforts to hold the Sri Lankan government
responsible for severe human rights violations
during the closing weeks of anti-Liberation Tigers
of the Tamil Eelam operations have widened the
political divide between Colombo and Washington.
The Sri Lankan government has demonstrated
bitterness over the US double standard in
combating terrorism—one standard for itself and
another for other countries.
Significantly, India’s smaller South Asian
neighbours are fast moving towards developing
closer relationships with China. Although this is
generally perceived as an anti-India phenomenon,
the reality is that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
looking up to China as a new guarantor of help in
the face of the US’ heavy-handed approach
towards them.
It is also a fact that the US has enhanced its
engagement with Nepal in response to fast growing
Chinese economic presence and political influence
in that country. But compared to China,
Washington’s influence in Nepal is minimal. It is
almost certain that the drop in Washington’s
political weight will further augment Chinese
leverage over Islamabad as well. It is time to
ponder over the diminished US and rising Chinese profile in the region.
The US’ influence in South Asia is fast diminishing
and this trend is likely to continue deep into the
future. In the aftermath of World War II, South Asia
was considered a strategic backwater by the US
policymakers. Additionally, South Asia offered little
economic opportunities to the US corporate sector.
With the solitary exception of turning Pakistan into
an alliance partner, the US cared little about this
region.
Even in the realm of alliance politics, the US had
little to offer Pakistan. Pakistan’s membership in
the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the
Central Treaty Organization, and the US’ military
assistance to Pakistan was ineffective during
Pakistan’s military misadventures against India. It
was only after the late 1970s’ Soviet military
intervention in Afghanistan that Washington got
critically involved in South Asia.
The US’ interest in South Asia deepened in the
post-Cold War era in view of Indian economic
reforms, nuclearisation of the region and the
pivotal role Afghanistan played in the terrorist
attack on the US in September 2001. As the US
once again turned Pakistan into an alliance partner
in the war against terrorism and established an
extraordinary strategic understanding with India,
South Asia occupied substantial priority in the US
national security agenda.
The US’ war in Afghanistan that began in 2001 is
about to come to a close. The US troop withdrawal
from this country is indisputable. Irrespective of
debates over the probable level of US engagement
in Afghan affairs post 2014, it is almost certain
that the closure of billions of dollars worth of war
in Afghanistan will trim Washington’s influence in
South Asia. The resilience of the Afghan Taliban
and limitation of a superpower’s abilities to
confront non-state-actors will question the US’
credibility in the region.
Secondly, the US leverage over Pakistan in the
post-Afghan war phase will dry down with an
almost automatic cut in the US military and
economic assistance to Islamabad. History will
unquestionably repeat and the US-Pakistan alliance
will terminate, as was the case after the Soviet
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.
Thirdly, the US’ influence over India, resulting from
an innovative “strategic partnership” project during
former US President George Bush’s era may not
survive his successor Barack Obama’s
administration. The enthusiasm of the first Obama
administration to further elevate this partnership
was short-lived and the second Obama
administration has paid less than modest attention
to India.
There is no doubt that the election victory of the
Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of now
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a strong
popular mandate, has generated sizeable
excitement in Washington. Hope of revival of the
earlier impetus in the Indo-US strategic partnership
has been rekindled. Obama’s invitation to Modi to
visit Washington, Assistant Secretary of State
Nisha Biswal Desai’s trip to India soon after the
new government assumed office, visits by
influential Senator John McCain and Deputy
Secretary of State William J Burns to prepare the
ground for the Indo-US strategic dialogue between
Secretary of State John Kerry and Indian Foreign
Minister Sushma Swaraj are all signals of
Obama’s renewed interest in India.
But Prime Minister Modi appears less animated to
visit the US, more involved in constructing a
peaceful neighbourhood, more focused on reviving
the national economy and less enthralled to project
India as a global leader. About ten months have
passed since the Devyani Khobragade episode
begot a psychological divide in the New Delhi-
Washington bond. Repairing the mind-set is not
going to be easy even for the new Indian
government.
The Obama administration’s relationships with
other smaller South Asian countries – especially
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – have also soured in
the recent years. Washington was hesitant to do
business with the Awami League government after
the January 2014 elections, criticised Dhaka’s
handling of human trafficking problems, and
reduced import of garments after a deadly fire in a
garment factory.
The US’ efforts to hold the Sri Lankan government
responsible for severe human rights violations
during the closing weeks of anti-Liberation Tigers
of the Tamil Eelam operations have widened the
political divide between Colombo and Washington.
The Sri Lankan government has demonstrated
bitterness over the US double standard in
combating terrorism—one standard for itself and
another for other countries.
Significantly, India’s smaller South Asian
neighbours are fast moving towards developing
closer relationships with China. Although this is
generally perceived as an anti-India phenomenon,
the reality is that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are
looking up to China as a new guarantor of help in
the face of the US’ heavy-handed approach
towards them.
It is also a fact that the US has enhanced its
engagement with Nepal in response to fast growing
Chinese economic presence and political influence
in that country. But compared to China,
Washington’s influence in Nepal is minimal. It is
almost certain that the drop in Washington’s
political weight will further augment Chinese
leverage over Islamabad as well. It is time to
ponder over the diminished US and rising Chinese profile in the region.
13 Jul 2014
KILLING JOY
Derek Hunter
Remember when you could have fun at
someone else’s expense? Not in a mean-
spirited way, but in a fun way. Ribbing your
friends, your enemies, and just about anyone
you had a funny comment about was a time-
tested way of having a little fun in life. It
wasn’t personal, and nothing and no one was
off limits. That day is done.
The political correctness movement ruined
honest political discourse, funny movies and
decent sitcoms, and now it’s sucking the joy
out of everyday life for people uninvolved in
any of those things.
It may seem like a lifetime ago, but it was only
the 1970s when “Blazing Saddles” was made
and embraced by a culture simply looking to
laugh. It was offensive. It was silly. But most
of all it was funny. Same goes for “Airplane!”
Richard Pryor and George Carlin were mocking
people and cultures, and it was hilarious. Now
we are no longer ready to laugh; we’re ready
to be offended. No, we seem to crave being
offended.
Maybe there were a bunch of people in the
pre-Internet age with hair-triggers to outrage,
but licking a stamp and the speed of the U.S.
Post Office didn’t allow for them to mobilize
and terrorize people easily enough for it to
matter. But I somehow doubt it. Political
correctness had not yet sucked the fun out of
life, and people could laugh at themselves. But
the Internet has empowered these pathetic
loners to unite, connect with like-minded
parents’- basement dwellers, and form a cabal
of “thought policers” to demand subordination
and get it.
Plus, and most importantly, there wasn’t a
major political philosophy built on the concept
of dividing people to obtain power.
As progressives went from an unwashed few
in coffee shops in Manhattan and Berkeley to
unwashed hordes in elected offices,
newsrooms and tenured professorships, they
forged an Outrage Industrial Complex ready to
be offended on behalf of others. They were
quick to cry racism at any joke that involved
someone with different amounts of melanin.
They were quick to cry homophobia if the
target was gay. Actually, they’re just quick to
cry – and cry loudly enough to scare anyone
who simply heard crying and didn’t want to be
blamed for causing it.
Progressives took a nation that was getting
along pretty well and highlighted differences.
Rather than focus on what we all have in
common, they demanded we “celebrate
diversity. That celebration has mutated into a
club with which to pound anyone who steps
out of the line they’ve placed us in.
Political correctness was weaponized, then
monetized, and now it is the Sword of
Damocles hanging over everyone’s head, ready
to drop if we don’t use their approved
nomenclature.
There is an entire industry in the United States
of people who make a lot of money being
offended on behalf of others. Media Matters
for America employs an army of sad, lonely
people paid to spend their days consuming
media they despise in the hope they can find
something they can twist into a slight against
some victim group progressives have created.
Every ethnicity, sexual proclivity, religion,
body shape, etc., has a well-funded
organization claiming the mantle of leadership
on its behalf ready to jump (and fundraise)
should someone string together words in an
unapproved order. It’s pathetic.
There’s an effort to alter the First Amendment
moving through the Senate right now, but
there’s really no need for it. We, as a society,
have voluntarily forfeited the reason for it
already. The horse is dead; stop kicking it.
If you don’t use the proper hyphenate before
speaking of someone not sharing your skin
tone, you’re worse than Hitler. If you don’t
marinate in guilt over injustices committed
before your birth, and govern your life and
vocabulary accordingly, you might as well
tattoo “History’s Greatest Monster” on your
forehead.
Remember, “live and let live? It’s been
murdered. The “celebrate diversity” crowd
demands conformity of thought and language
and wields enough power to make life hell for
anyone who strays from the reservation.
I don’t hunt, despite my last name. I don’t get
those who do. That’s what grocery stores are
for.
But I respect those who hunt and eat what
they kill. And even though I don’t get it, I
realize I don’t have to. As such, I don’t
understand the idea of big-game hunting. I’ve
never looked at a beautiful animal and
thought, “I want to fly to the other side of the
planet and shoot one.” But again, I’m not
forced to engage in it. But the Outrage
Industrial Complex not only can’t fathom why
other people hunt, it won’t accept that they do
and it demands they stop.
Kendall Jones, a Texas college student, loves
hunting big game and spends a lot of money
flying to Africa to take part. I don’t get it, I’d
never do it, and I think it a rather bizarre
compulsion—even though the meat went to
others. But it’s her life and money.
That didn’t stop others from attacking her for
what she likes to do. They even started a
Facebook page calling for her to be killed . She
exists differently than I do or would, but it
would never occur to me to demand she not
live that way. But I don’t make my living
feigning outrage over things with which I am
not involved.
Axelle Despiegelaere is the latest target of the
Outrage Industrial Complex. She’s not a
politician or public figure, or even an
American. She’s just a Belgian soccer fan. The
attractive 17-year-old was photographed at the
World Cup and landed a modeling contract
with L’Oreal. An amazing story, right?
Well, it was. Now Axelle is yet another
cautionary tale.
Seems the 17-year-old beauty also is a hunter
and posted a picture of her over one of her
conquests to Facebook before the USA vs
Belgium game saying, “ready to hunt
Americans today haha.” Clearly a joke, but
joking isn’t allowed anymore.
The media has always found joy in building
people up, then knocking them down, but
they’ve never done it with such speed. Media-
created “outrage” over the photo already has
cost Axelle her gig with L’Oreal.
Live “wrong” and the Outrage Industrial
Complex will make sure your life is hell. Live
under their boot or else. It’s disgusting but not
at all surprising.
We live in a time of dichotomy. We’ve never
had more access to information and greater
ability to communicate our thoughts, but
we’ve never had more forces aligned against
us ready to destroy us for simply being
individuals.
I suspect this flirtation with fascism will be
temporary, that there will be a line crossed
that will have the vast majority of Americans
rebelling against it in the name of liberty. I
just hope that comes before the Outrage
Industrial Complex does kill the First
Amendment and codifies its will into law.
Remember when you could have fun at
someone else’s expense? Not in a mean-
spirited way, but in a fun way. Ribbing your
friends, your enemies, and just about anyone
you had a funny comment about was a time-
tested way of having a little fun in life. It
wasn’t personal, and nothing and no one was
off limits. That day is done.
The political correctness movement ruined
honest political discourse, funny movies and
decent sitcoms, and now it’s sucking the joy
out of everyday life for people uninvolved in
any of those things.
It may seem like a lifetime ago, but it was only
the 1970s when “Blazing Saddles” was made
and embraced by a culture simply looking to
laugh. It was offensive. It was silly. But most
of all it was funny. Same goes for “Airplane!”
Richard Pryor and George Carlin were mocking
people and cultures, and it was hilarious. Now
we are no longer ready to laugh; we’re ready
to be offended. No, we seem to crave being
offended.
Maybe there were a bunch of people in the
pre-Internet age with hair-triggers to outrage,
but licking a stamp and the speed of the U.S.
Post Office didn’t allow for them to mobilize
and terrorize people easily enough for it to
matter. But I somehow doubt it. Political
correctness had not yet sucked the fun out of
life, and people could laugh at themselves. But
the Internet has empowered these pathetic
loners to unite, connect with like-minded
parents’- basement dwellers, and form a cabal
of “thought policers” to demand subordination
and get it.
Plus, and most importantly, there wasn’t a
major political philosophy built on the concept
of dividing people to obtain power.
As progressives went from an unwashed few
in coffee shops in Manhattan and Berkeley to
unwashed hordes in elected offices,
newsrooms and tenured professorships, they
forged an Outrage Industrial Complex ready to
be offended on behalf of others. They were
quick to cry racism at any joke that involved
someone with different amounts of melanin.
They were quick to cry homophobia if the
target was gay. Actually, they’re just quick to
cry – and cry loudly enough to scare anyone
who simply heard crying and didn’t want to be
blamed for causing it.
Progressives took a nation that was getting
along pretty well and highlighted differences.
Rather than focus on what we all have in
common, they demanded we “celebrate
diversity. That celebration has mutated into a
club with which to pound anyone who steps
out of the line they’ve placed us in.
Political correctness was weaponized, then
monetized, and now it is the Sword of
Damocles hanging over everyone’s head, ready
to drop if we don’t use their approved
nomenclature.
There is an entire industry in the United States
of people who make a lot of money being
offended on behalf of others. Media Matters
for America employs an army of sad, lonely
people paid to spend their days consuming
media they despise in the hope they can find
something they can twist into a slight against
some victim group progressives have created.
Every ethnicity, sexual proclivity, religion,
body shape, etc., has a well-funded
organization claiming the mantle of leadership
on its behalf ready to jump (and fundraise)
should someone string together words in an
unapproved order. It’s pathetic.
There’s an effort to alter the First Amendment
moving through the Senate right now, but
there’s really no need for it. We, as a society,
have voluntarily forfeited the reason for it
already. The horse is dead; stop kicking it.
If you don’t use the proper hyphenate before
speaking of someone not sharing your skin
tone, you’re worse than Hitler. If you don’t
marinate in guilt over injustices committed
before your birth, and govern your life and
vocabulary accordingly, you might as well
tattoo “History’s Greatest Monster” on your
forehead.
Remember, “live and let live? It’s been
murdered. The “celebrate diversity” crowd
demands conformity of thought and language
and wields enough power to make life hell for
anyone who strays from the reservation.
I don’t hunt, despite my last name. I don’t get
those who do. That’s what grocery stores are
for.
But I respect those who hunt and eat what
they kill. And even though I don’t get it, I
realize I don’t have to. As such, I don’t
understand the idea of big-game hunting. I’ve
never looked at a beautiful animal and
thought, “I want to fly to the other side of the
planet and shoot one.” But again, I’m not
forced to engage in it. But the Outrage
Industrial Complex not only can’t fathom why
other people hunt, it won’t accept that they do
and it demands they stop.
Kendall Jones, a Texas college student, loves
hunting big game and spends a lot of money
flying to Africa to take part. I don’t get it, I’d
never do it, and I think it a rather bizarre
compulsion—even though the meat went to
others. But it’s her life and money.
That didn’t stop others from attacking her for
what she likes to do. They even started a
Facebook page calling for her to be killed . She
exists differently than I do or would, but it
would never occur to me to demand she not
live that way. But I don’t make my living
feigning outrage over things with which I am
not involved.
Axelle Despiegelaere is the latest target of the
Outrage Industrial Complex. She’s not a
politician or public figure, or even an
American. She’s just a Belgian soccer fan. The
attractive 17-year-old was photographed at the
World Cup and landed a modeling contract
with L’Oreal. An amazing story, right?
Well, it was. Now Axelle is yet another
cautionary tale.
Seems the 17-year-old beauty also is a hunter
and posted a picture of her over one of her
conquests to Facebook before the USA vs
Belgium game saying, “ready to hunt
Americans today haha.” Clearly a joke, but
joking isn’t allowed anymore.
The media has always found joy in building
people up, then knocking them down, but
they’ve never done it with such speed. Media-
created “outrage” over the photo already has
cost Axelle her gig with L’Oreal.
Live “wrong” and the Outrage Industrial
Complex will make sure your life is hell. Live
under their boot or else. It’s disgusting but not
at all surprising.
We live in a time of dichotomy. We’ve never
had more access to information and greater
ability to communicate our thoughts, but
we’ve never had more forces aligned against
us ready to destroy us for simply being
individuals.
I suspect this flirtation with fascism will be
temporary, that there will be a line crossed
that will have the vast majority of Americans
rebelling against it in the name of liberty. I
just hope that comes before the Outrage
Industrial Complex does kill the First
Amendment and codifies its will into law.
THE LEFT OFFICIALLY DECLARES WAR ON GOD
Steve Deace
The meltdowns, lawlessness, and crises are
coming so “fast and furious” now you can’t
keep track of them all, which is why many of
you probably missed a recent development
that may actually be the biggest threat of them
all to our constitutional republic.
This week, the same people who booed God at
the 2012 Democrat National Convention openly
declared war on their own Maker. For instead
of repenting of their attempted tyranny, the
statist/Marxist Left’s response to last week’s
Supreme Court opinion in favor of Hobby
Lobby (i.e. the First Amendment) was to
remove any pretense whatsoever they still
believe in the U.S. Constitution.
After previously lying…err...claiming that
they’d never do anything to stop you from
practicing your religion in your church “where
it belongs,” the statist/Marxist Left has openly
declared war on God and those who still
believe what the Word of God has to say about
moral matters.
The ACLU and other anti-American groups
announced they are withdrawing their support
for a heinous piece of legislation known as
ENDA. Because with a scant 5-4 majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court still believing in the
First Amendment, it’s obvious to them that
ENDA in its current form wasn’t heinous
enough. ENDA, which stands for the
“Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” is the
unholy grail of the moral depravity lobby. The
immorality peddlers have been peddling
various versions of this bill for years, but the
end result is always the same—you will be
made to care.
The intent of this legislation is for the federal
government to once and for all make
someone’s private sexual behavior a publicly
protected class in all of Obama’s 57 states, and
thus also silence once and for all any moral or
religious dissent to their depravity. Oh, sure,
the version passed out of the Democrat-
controlled U.S. Senate last year included so-
called “religious exemptions.” But absolutely
no one smarter than Joe Biden believes the
same people who think the Feds can order the
“Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-
murder, also believes these people are serious
about protecting religious liberty.
Now that the High Court they’ve relied on so
many times before to impose their statist
edicts on the American people by fiat actually
sided against them for a change, these anti-
American groups on the statist/Marxist Left
aren’t even going to pay lip service to liberty
anymore. So they will no longer support any
legislation that doesn’t tell religious
institutions they have to obey man and not
God.
Nero would be proud.
That means if you’re a Christian school with a
teacher/administrator living an immoral life
that undermines your mission, you can’t fire
them. Like this example courtesy of Denny
Burk at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary:
Last year, Azusa Pacific University (a Christian
school) asked a female theology professor to
leave after she began to assume a transgender
identity. “Gender identity” is protected under
ENDA. If ENDA were the law of the land with
no religious exemptions, then it would have
been illegal for this Christian school to dismiss
this professor. Under ENDA, Azusa would have
been in violation of federal law if they were to
follow Christianity’s teaching about gender.
Burk correctly concludes:
These Leftist groups are pursuing a zero-sum
strategy against religious groups and
individuals. They have declared an all-out
culture war and will offer no quarter to sincere
religious dissenters. They are ready to use the
coercive power of the state to trample the
religious consciences of their countrymen. This
is radical and chilling.
If you’re a Democrat that takes their faith
seriously and you think guys like Burk and I
are taking fringe elements of your party too
seriously, consider the fact the Democrat
majority in the U.S. Senate has “fast-tracked”
legislation that would seek to undo the Hobby
Lobby opinion. The bill would demand a
company pay for abortifacients and baby-
murder as Obamacare originally demanded.
Elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not
the fringe of their party. They are the party.
This is who this party has become.
The decades-long right-of-center/left-of-center
argument we’ve had since the New Deal about
just how much government should be used to
even the odds is over now. When Democrat
Zell Miller got up and spoke at the 2004
Republican National Convention that was
symbolically the end of the old Democrat
Party. A party that once claimed to represent
the values of working-class and middle-class
Americans, as well as ethnic and racial
minorities, who believed they needed
government as a check-and-balance against
corporatism.
The generation of Democrats who gave us the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 20 years
ago, which the Supreme Court used as the
basis for its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, is
mostly gone now. Replaced by what David
Horowitz calls “the New Left.” This “New Left”
is not mere liberals. They are flat-out Leftists.
They don’t want to grow government as much
as they want to change it. They are Social
Reconstructionists, whose goal is to empower
government to replace our Judeo-Christian
ideals of liberty and morality with what
amounts to Cultural Marxism.
And they won’t stop until the American
Exceptionalism they either don’t understand
or loathe is eradicated once and for all. That’s
why their ultimate goal is silencing the church,
as all tyrants in history have tried to do,
because the church has always been the chief
obstacle to statism in a culture.
For the church says that God alone is God, and
government is not.
Not to mention with God out of the way, so
are your God-given rights, which makes you a
de facto ward of the state and not a free
person. As Chesterton once said, “Whenever
the government removes the god the
government then becomes the god.”
You can’t share a culture with people who
won’t share it with you. There is no
negotiating with these people. You can only
convert or defeat them.
The meltdowns, lawlessness, and crises are
coming so “fast and furious” now you can’t
keep track of them all, which is why many of
you probably missed a recent development
that may actually be the biggest threat of them
all to our constitutional republic.
This week, the same people who booed God at
the 2012 Democrat National Convention openly
declared war on their own Maker. For instead
of repenting of their attempted tyranny, the
statist/Marxist Left’s response to last week’s
Supreme Court opinion in favor of Hobby
Lobby (i.e. the First Amendment) was to
remove any pretense whatsoever they still
believe in the U.S. Constitution.
After previously lying…err...claiming that
they’d never do anything to stop you from
practicing your religion in your church “where
it belongs,” the statist/Marxist Left has openly
declared war on God and those who still
believe what the Word of God has to say about
moral matters.
The ACLU and other anti-American groups
announced they are withdrawing their support
for a heinous piece of legislation known as
ENDA. Because with a scant 5-4 majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court still believing in the
First Amendment, it’s obvious to them that
ENDA in its current form wasn’t heinous
enough. ENDA, which stands for the
“Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” is the
unholy grail of the moral depravity lobby. The
immorality peddlers have been peddling
various versions of this bill for years, but the
end result is always the same—you will be
made to care.
The intent of this legislation is for the federal
government to once and for all make
someone’s private sexual behavior a publicly
protected class in all of Obama’s 57 states, and
thus also silence once and for all any moral or
religious dissent to their depravity. Oh, sure,
the version passed out of the Democrat-
controlled U.S. Senate last year included so-
called “religious exemptions.” But absolutely
no one smarter than Joe Biden believes the
same people who think the Feds can order the
“Little Sister of the Poor” to pay for baby-
murder, also believes these people are serious
about protecting religious liberty.
Now that the High Court they’ve relied on so
many times before to impose their statist
edicts on the American people by fiat actually
sided against them for a change, these anti-
American groups on the statist/Marxist Left
aren’t even going to pay lip service to liberty
anymore. So they will no longer support any
legislation that doesn’t tell religious
institutions they have to obey man and not
God.
Nero would be proud.
That means if you’re a Christian school with a
teacher/administrator living an immoral life
that undermines your mission, you can’t fire
them. Like this example courtesy of Denny
Burk at the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary:
Last year, Azusa Pacific University (a Christian
school) asked a female theology professor to
leave after she began to assume a transgender
identity. “Gender identity” is protected under
ENDA. If ENDA were the law of the land with
no religious exemptions, then it would have
been illegal for this Christian school to dismiss
this professor. Under ENDA, Azusa would have
been in violation of federal law if they were to
follow Christianity’s teaching about gender.
Burk correctly concludes:
These Leftist groups are pursuing a zero-sum
strategy against religious groups and
individuals. They have declared an all-out
culture war and will offer no quarter to sincere
religious dissenters. They are ready to use the
coercive power of the state to trample the
religious consciences of their countrymen. This
is radical and chilling.
If you’re a Democrat that takes their faith
seriously and you think guys like Burk and I
are taking fringe elements of your party too
seriously, consider the fact the Democrat
majority in the U.S. Senate has “fast-tracked”
legislation that would seek to undo the Hobby
Lobby opinion. The bill would demand a
company pay for abortifacients and baby-
murder as Obamacare originally demanded.
Elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not
the fringe of their party. They are the party.
This is who this party has become.
The decades-long right-of-center/left-of-center
argument we’ve had since the New Deal about
just how much government should be used to
even the odds is over now. When Democrat
Zell Miller got up and spoke at the 2004
Republican National Convention that was
symbolically the end of the old Democrat
Party. A party that once claimed to represent
the values of working-class and middle-class
Americans, as well as ethnic and racial
minorities, who believed they needed
government as a check-and-balance against
corporatism.
The generation of Democrats who gave us the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act 20 years
ago, which the Supreme Court used as the
basis for its ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, is
mostly gone now. Replaced by what David
Horowitz calls “the New Left.” This “New Left”
is not mere liberals. They are flat-out Leftists.
They don’t want to grow government as much
as they want to change it. They are Social
Reconstructionists, whose goal is to empower
government to replace our Judeo-Christian
ideals of liberty and morality with what
amounts to Cultural Marxism.
And they won’t stop until the American
Exceptionalism they either don’t understand
or loathe is eradicated once and for all. That’s
why their ultimate goal is silencing the church,
as all tyrants in history have tried to do,
because the church has always been the chief
obstacle to statism in a culture.
For the church says that God alone is God, and
government is not.
Not to mention with God out of the way, so
are your God-given rights, which makes you a
de facto ward of the state and not a free
person. As Chesterton once said, “Whenever
the government removes the god the
government then becomes the god.”
You can’t share a culture with people who
won’t share it with you. There is no
negotiating with these people. You can only
convert or defeat them.
THE INVISIBLE EMPLOYEES
Bob Goldman
Do you ever feel people at your job don't know
you exist?
Do you sit through long meetings where no
one asks your opinion? Do you walk through
the halls and no one asks, "How you doing?"
Does workplace life swirl all around you,
leaving you in a vacuum of silence and
isolation?
If you answer, "yes, indeed" to these
questions, I have news for you -- you're not
being ignored or insulted. You, my friend, are
an Invisible.
Invisible, as it turns out, is not a terrible thing
to be. As Richard Eisenberg writes in a recent
article in Forbes, "Invisibles at Work, Take a
Bow," Invisibles may be unseen and
unheralded, but they are important. So
important, in fact, that author David Zweig, a
somewhat shadowy figure himself, has written
an entire book about the subject, "Invisibles:
The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of
Relentless Self-Promotion."
According to Zweig, Invisibles are "highly
regarded people whose work is really critical
to their endeavor." In other words, they're
skilled professionals who are vital to the
successful operation of their companies, yet no
one knows they exist. Nor is anyone likely to
ever know they exist. That's because, for most
Invisibles, "the better they do their job, the
more they disappear. It's only if something
goes wrong that they're ever thought of. If
they do their job perfectly, they are
unnoticed."
Since doing your job perfectly is something
that is never going to happen, it is unlikely you
will always wear that comfy cloak of
invisibility. But should you make total
invisibility a goal? That's an interesting
question. The answer seems to depend on
certain personal beliefs you may or may not
bring to the workplace.
For example, are you one of those weirdoes
who like to get credit for your work? If so, you
are unlikely to enjoy being an Invisible. But
maybe you are wrong about the benefits of
being noticed. As author Zweig writes in
"Invisibles," "receiving outward credit for your
work is overrated." (You wouldn't know
whether this were true or not, since you so
rarely receive credit, outward or inward or
sideways. This is partially because you do so
little work, of course. It is also because your
managers are narcissistic jerks.)
Another important aspect of becoming an
Invisible is a willingness to hop off the self-
promotion bandwagon. Invisibles don't have a
"personal brand." They are not Tiffany & Co.,
and they are not Kmart. They are not tweeting
their brand personality on Twitter. and they
have a negative number of friends on
Facebook. Even people who don't know them
unfriend them!
This makes Invisibles unusual. "We live in a
culture where attention seems to be valued
above everything else," explains Zweig,
"where people are willing to humiliate
themselves to get on a reality TV show."
This is a wonderful insight. Your co-workers
have always wondered why you act so
strangely, and now we know. You're not a
freak; you're auditioning for a spot on "Duck
Dynasty."
Finally, to be an Invisible, you have to be the
kind of person who is satisfied by "intrinsic
rewards." That means you don't care about
getting recognition from your peers, attaboys
from your boss or even receiving big fat raises,
bonuses and over-the-top perks like free, all-
expense weekends living in luxury in the back
seat of your boss's Jaguar.
If you're an Invisible, what gets your juices
flowing is "the value of your work, not the
volume of your praise."
This is a lovely thought, but I think you will
agree that to be an Invisible, you also need an
active fantasy life; the chief fantasy being that,
sooner or later, all the good work you do will
suddenly become recognized, and your
admirable, selfless, invisible self will become
visible.
The authors insist that "the research seems to
show that good work does get recognized," but
in my experience, all those years of Invisibility
can end up in only one way -- with a highly
visible pink slip. Doing all that wonderful
work that nobody notices may be highly
honorable and inwardly rewarding but will
definitely put you in the line of firing the next
time a reduction in staff is contemplated.
Can't you just hear your boss now?
"I have no idea who that person is or what he
does," she is saying as your cloak of invisibility
comes off and you can be seen in all your
selfless wonderfulness. "Let's fire him first."
Do you ever feel people at your job don't know
you exist?
Do you sit through long meetings where no
one asks your opinion? Do you walk through
the halls and no one asks, "How you doing?"
Does workplace life swirl all around you,
leaving you in a vacuum of silence and
isolation?
If you answer, "yes, indeed" to these
questions, I have news for you -- you're not
being ignored or insulted. You, my friend, are
an Invisible.
Invisible, as it turns out, is not a terrible thing
to be. As Richard Eisenberg writes in a recent
article in Forbes, "Invisibles at Work, Take a
Bow," Invisibles may be unseen and
unheralded, but they are important. So
important, in fact, that author David Zweig, a
somewhat shadowy figure himself, has written
an entire book about the subject, "Invisibles:
The Power of Anonymous Work in an Age of
Relentless Self-Promotion."
According to Zweig, Invisibles are "highly
regarded people whose work is really critical
to their endeavor." In other words, they're
skilled professionals who are vital to the
successful operation of their companies, yet no
one knows they exist. Nor is anyone likely to
ever know they exist. That's because, for most
Invisibles, "the better they do their job, the
more they disappear. It's only if something
goes wrong that they're ever thought of. If
they do their job perfectly, they are
unnoticed."
Since doing your job perfectly is something
that is never going to happen, it is unlikely you
will always wear that comfy cloak of
invisibility. But should you make total
invisibility a goal? That's an interesting
question. The answer seems to depend on
certain personal beliefs you may or may not
bring to the workplace.
For example, are you one of those weirdoes
who like to get credit for your work? If so, you
are unlikely to enjoy being an Invisible. But
maybe you are wrong about the benefits of
being noticed. As author Zweig writes in
"Invisibles," "receiving outward credit for your
work is overrated." (You wouldn't know
whether this were true or not, since you so
rarely receive credit, outward or inward or
sideways. This is partially because you do so
little work, of course. It is also because your
managers are narcissistic jerks.)
Another important aspect of becoming an
Invisible is a willingness to hop off the self-
promotion bandwagon. Invisibles don't have a
"personal brand." They are not Tiffany & Co.,
and they are not Kmart. They are not tweeting
their brand personality on Twitter. and they
have a negative number of friends on
Facebook. Even people who don't know them
unfriend them!
This makes Invisibles unusual. "We live in a
culture where attention seems to be valued
above everything else," explains Zweig,
"where people are willing to humiliate
themselves to get on a reality TV show."
This is a wonderful insight. Your co-workers
have always wondered why you act so
strangely, and now we know. You're not a
freak; you're auditioning for a spot on "Duck
Dynasty."
Finally, to be an Invisible, you have to be the
kind of person who is satisfied by "intrinsic
rewards." That means you don't care about
getting recognition from your peers, attaboys
from your boss or even receiving big fat raises,
bonuses and over-the-top perks like free, all-
expense weekends living in luxury in the back
seat of your boss's Jaguar.
If you're an Invisible, what gets your juices
flowing is "the value of your work, not the
volume of your praise."
This is a lovely thought, but I think you will
agree that to be an Invisible, you also need an
active fantasy life; the chief fantasy being that,
sooner or later, all the good work you do will
suddenly become recognized, and your
admirable, selfless, invisible self will become
visible.
The authors insist that "the research seems to
show that good work does get recognized," but
in my experience, all those years of Invisibility
can end up in only one way -- with a highly
visible pink slip. Doing all that wonderful
work that nobody notices may be highly
honorable and inwardly rewarding but will
definitely put you in the line of firing the next
time a reduction in staff is contemplated.
Can't you just hear your boss now?
"I have no idea who that person is or what he
does," she is saying as your cloak of invisibility
comes off and you can be seen in all your
selfless wonderfulness. "Let's fire him first."
OBAMA: MUSLIM HERO
Jeff Crouere
According to a six month Gallup survey,
President Obama is very popular with only one
group of Americans, Muslims, registering an
astounding 72% approval rating. It is a much
different story among all Americans as the
President scores a weak 43% approval rating.
This new data is from a survey of Americans
with religious affiliations that compiled
information from 88,000 interviews over the
January 1-June 30, 2014 time period. Among
all Americans, even Muslims, the President’s
approval rating has dropped between five and
seven percentage points in the past six months
compared to his five year average.
Whereas the vast majority of Muslims love
President Obama, Mormons are very
disapproving of his leadership and give him
only an 18% approval rating. Overall,
Christians are not very supportive of the
President’s agenda with Catholics giving
Obama a 44% approval rating and Protestants
only registering 37% support.
It is a different story with Jewish voters with
55% approving of President Obama. While this
is strong Jewish support, it does reflect a
decline of 7 percentage points from his five
year average.
In general, the President does much better
with non-Christian voters than with Christian
voters. Even though the President has
professed his Christian faith, it is obvious that
many Christians do not believe his policies are
in line with the teachings of their church.
In contrast, Muslims, strongly support the
President, even though he has denied
following Islam. Muslim Americans have seen
the President demonstrate unwavering support
for the Palestinian cause, advocate the Arab
Spring uprising in Egypt and other countries
and show support for the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt.
He clearly supported the overthrow of
American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and
lunatic Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Whereas
the Muslim Brotherhood installed a religious
dictatorship in Egypt and plunged the country
into turmoil, chaos erupted in Libya and the
country is still lawless today.
Muslim Americans have obviously been
heartened by the President’s statements
regarding their faith. During his speech to the
Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, the
President said that, “The United States has
been enriched by Muslim Americans.” On June
4, 2009, the President addressed students at
Cairo University. He said, “I’m a Christian, but
my father came from a Kenyan family that
includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I
spent several years in Indonesia and heard the
call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at
the fall of dusk.” He also remarked that he
knew “Islam on three continents before
coming to the region where it was first
revealed.”
In a 2007 interview with the New York Times ,
Nicholas Kristof wrote that “Mr. Obama
recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.
In a remark that seemed delightfully
uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart
attacks); Mr. Obama described the call to
prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth
at sunset."
Finally, Americans Muslims have surely not
forgotten Obama’s famous speech to the
Sojourners on June 28, 2007. He said that
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a
Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also
a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist
nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of
nonbelievers.”
All together, Barack Obama’s actions, speeches
and interviews paint the picture of a much
different President than this country has ever
known. While Muslims are very supportive of
his policies, a strong majority of Christians are
unhappy. Since America is still 75% Christian,
the President’s overall approval rating will not
improve until he starts to score better with
Christian voters. This rocky relationship does
not show any signs of improving any time
soon.
According to a six month Gallup survey,
President Obama is very popular with only one
group of Americans, Muslims, registering an
astounding 72% approval rating. It is a much
different story among all Americans as the
President scores a weak 43% approval rating.
This new data is from a survey of Americans
with religious affiliations that compiled
information from 88,000 interviews over the
January 1-June 30, 2014 time period. Among
all Americans, even Muslims, the President’s
approval rating has dropped between five and
seven percentage points in the past six months
compared to his five year average.
Whereas the vast majority of Muslims love
President Obama, Mormons are very
disapproving of his leadership and give him
only an 18% approval rating. Overall,
Christians are not very supportive of the
President’s agenda with Catholics giving
Obama a 44% approval rating and Protestants
only registering 37% support.
It is a different story with Jewish voters with
55% approving of President Obama. While this
is strong Jewish support, it does reflect a
decline of 7 percentage points from his five
year average.
In general, the President does much better
with non-Christian voters than with Christian
voters. Even though the President has
professed his Christian faith, it is obvious that
many Christians do not believe his policies are
in line with the teachings of their church.
In contrast, Muslims, strongly support the
President, even though he has denied
following Islam. Muslim Americans have seen
the President demonstrate unwavering support
for the Palestinian cause, advocate the Arab
Spring uprising in Egypt and other countries
and show support for the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt.
He clearly supported the overthrow of
American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and
lunatic Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Whereas
the Muslim Brotherhood installed a religious
dictatorship in Egypt and plunged the country
into turmoil, chaos erupted in Libya and the
country is still lawless today.
Muslim Americans have obviously been
heartened by the President’s statements
regarding their faith. During his speech to the
Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2009, the
President said that, “The United States has
been enriched by Muslim Americans.” On June
4, 2009, the President addressed students at
Cairo University. He said, “I’m a Christian, but
my father came from a Kenyan family that
includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I
spent several years in Indonesia and heard the
call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at
the fall of dusk.” He also remarked that he
knew “Islam on three continents before
coming to the region where it was first
revealed.”
In a 2007 interview with the New York Times ,
Nicholas Kristof wrote that “Mr. Obama
recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.
In a remark that seemed delightfully
uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart
attacks); Mr. Obama described the call to
prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth
at sunset."
Finally, Americans Muslims have surely not
forgotten Obama’s famous speech to the
Sojourners on June 28, 2007. He said that
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a
Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also
a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist
nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of
nonbelievers.”
All together, Barack Obama’s actions, speeches
and interviews paint the picture of a much
different President than this country has ever
known. While Muslims are very supportive of
his policies, a strong majority of Christians are
unhappy. Since America is still 75% Christian,
the President’s overall approval rating will not
improve until he starts to score better with
Christian voters. This rocky relationship does
not show any signs of improving any time
soon.
12 Jul 2014
QUIT PLAYING POLITICS WITH KIDS
Linda Chavez
Some 50,000 unaccompanied minors have
crossed our borders in recent months, and
those capable of helping resolve the crisis
won't even talk to each other much less come
up with a decent plan. This week, President
Obama asked Congress for supplemental
appropriations to deal with processing the
minors and to discourage more from coming,
but House Republicans so far have balked at
considering the request. "We are not giving the
president a blank check," House Speaker John
Boehner declared. Republicans want the
administration to do more to stop the flow of
kids into the U.S., which is reasonable.
So why don't the two men sit down and work
it out? That's their job. Instead, both sides
seem more worried about their political bases
than they do about solving the problem.
Obama worries that if he pushes too tough of a
line by seeking changes to the law that would
allow for expedited removal of the kids, he'll
alienate Hispanic voters. And besides, GOP
recalcitrance to provide money to properly
house these kids makes Republicans look
mean, which helps Democrats with more
moderate voters, especially women, in the
months leading up to the midterm elections.
Republican leaders worry that anything that
looks like being soft on illegal immigration --
even if it means providing decent beds and
meals to little kids -- will enrage the small
fraction of the GOP base that stokes the fires
on this issue. What's more, releasing these
children to relatives in the U.S. while they
await deportation proceedings likely
encourages more kids to come.
Last year, fewer than 4,500 unaccompanied
minors were deported or allowed to leave
voluntarily after hearings before immigration
judges. Republicans argue -- not without
justification -- that the low odds that
unaccompanied minors will be sent home send
the message to families that all they have to do
is get their kids across the border to keep them
safe.
But none of these reasons justifies doing
nothing. Republicans should take up bills to
appropriate money to provide proper shelter to
the kids, as well as to hire more immigration
judges so that their cases can be adjudicated as
required by law. But the administration must
do more to close loopholes in current law that
allow unaccompanied minors from Central
America to be treated differently than Mexican
kids -- who are processed expeditiously and
sent home with the agreement of their
government.
And immigrant advocates need to step up, as
well. The huge influx of unaccompanied
minors this year virtually guaranteed that the
House would not take up sensible changes in
law to admit more immigrants legally.
Immigration opponents have been claiming for
years that our borders are not secure, and this
influx -- erroneously -- seems to prove the
point. Never mind that illegal immigration is
lower now than it has been in decades. Never
mind that the Obama administration has, in
fact, deported more illegal immigrants than
any administration in history. The kids aren't
sneaking across the border; they walk up to
border patrol agents and plead: "Apprehend
me."
Nonetheless, immigration reform advocates --
as I surely am -- need to make it clear that we
want the kids to stop coming. It is dangerous
for them and an unfair burden on American
taxpayers. And, from a purely pragmatic
position, the continued migration makes
comprehensive reform far less likely. The anti-
reform crowd couldn't have come up with a
more effective strategy to derail immigration
reform than to send a children's crusade
across our southern border.
Solving the border crisis is not rocket science.
The long-term solution requires changes to
U.S. law that would allow more immigrants
and guest workers to come here legally. We
need their skills (high and low), they boost our
economy, and it is who we are: a nation built
by immigrants.
But right now, our elected officials need to
quit playing politics. They need to feed, shelter
and care for the kids who are already here in
proper, humanitarian fashion -- as required by
U.S. law. But they must also discourage more
kids from coming, and like it or not, that
means sending the new arrivals home as
quickly (and humanely) as legally feasible.
Both of these actions require the White House
and Congress to work out their differences. It's
time to stop playing politics with the kids.
Some 50,000 unaccompanied minors have
crossed our borders in recent months, and
those capable of helping resolve the crisis
won't even talk to each other much less come
up with a decent plan. This week, President
Obama asked Congress for supplemental
appropriations to deal with processing the
minors and to discourage more from coming,
but House Republicans so far have balked at
considering the request. "We are not giving the
president a blank check," House Speaker John
Boehner declared. Republicans want the
administration to do more to stop the flow of
kids into the U.S., which is reasonable.
So why don't the two men sit down and work
it out? That's their job. Instead, both sides
seem more worried about their political bases
than they do about solving the problem.
Obama worries that if he pushes too tough of a
line by seeking changes to the law that would
allow for expedited removal of the kids, he'll
alienate Hispanic voters. And besides, GOP
recalcitrance to provide money to properly
house these kids makes Republicans look
mean, which helps Democrats with more
moderate voters, especially women, in the
months leading up to the midterm elections.
Republican leaders worry that anything that
looks like being soft on illegal immigration --
even if it means providing decent beds and
meals to little kids -- will enrage the small
fraction of the GOP base that stokes the fires
on this issue. What's more, releasing these
children to relatives in the U.S. while they
await deportation proceedings likely
encourages more kids to come.
Last year, fewer than 4,500 unaccompanied
minors were deported or allowed to leave
voluntarily after hearings before immigration
judges. Republicans argue -- not without
justification -- that the low odds that
unaccompanied minors will be sent home send
the message to families that all they have to do
is get their kids across the border to keep them
safe.
But none of these reasons justifies doing
nothing. Republicans should take up bills to
appropriate money to provide proper shelter to
the kids, as well as to hire more immigration
judges so that their cases can be adjudicated as
required by law. But the administration must
do more to close loopholes in current law that
allow unaccompanied minors from Central
America to be treated differently than Mexican
kids -- who are processed expeditiously and
sent home with the agreement of their
government.
And immigrant advocates need to step up, as
well. The huge influx of unaccompanied
minors this year virtually guaranteed that the
House would not take up sensible changes in
law to admit more immigrants legally.
Immigration opponents have been claiming for
years that our borders are not secure, and this
influx -- erroneously -- seems to prove the
point. Never mind that illegal immigration is
lower now than it has been in decades. Never
mind that the Obama administration has, in
fact, deported more illegal immigrants than
any administration in history. The kids aren't
sneaking across the border; they walk up to
border patrol agents and plead: "Apprehend
me."
Nonetheless, immigration reform advocates --
as I surely am -- need to make it clear that we
want the kids to stop coming. It is dangerous
for them and an unfair burden on American
taxpayers. And, from a purely pragmatic
position, the continued migration makes
comprehensive reform far less likely. The anti-
reform crowd couldn't have come up with a
more effective strategy to derail immigration
reform than to send a children's crusade
across our southern border.
Solving the border crisis is not rocket science.
The long-term solution requires changes to
U.S. law that would allow more immigrants
and guest workers to come here legally. We
need their skills (high and low), they boost our
economy, and it is who we are: a nation built
by immigrants.
But right now, our elected officials need to
quit playing politics. They need to feed, shelter
and care for the kids who are already here in
proper, humanitarian fashion -- as required by
U.S. law. But they must also discourage more
kids from coming, and like it or not, that
means sending the new arrivals home as
quickly (and humanely) as legally feasible.
Both of these actions require the White House
and Congress to work out their differences. It's
time to stop playing politics with the kids.
A WORD FOR THE KURDS
Paul Greenberg
It's an old saying: Be careful what you wish
for; you just might get it. In spades. The latest
illustration of that adage is provided by our
own vice president, for Joe Biden is finally
getting his wish. He made it back in 2006,
another time when Iraq was falling apart in a
swirl of blood and explosions. He was Sen.
Biden back then but already fancied himself
some kind of foreign-policy guru, and his
response to Iraq's collapse that year was
simplicity itself: Just go ahead and let it fall
apart -- one part for each of its ethnic/
religious components: Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds.
The old Iraq would be balkanized, all would
get what they wanted, and peace would reign!
Problem solved.
Now, headline after headline, we're seeing just
how the Biden Plan would have played out as
Iraq slides into the same kind of bloody chaos
that was rampant in 2006 -- before a president
and commander-in-chief named George W.
Bush woke up, fired his secretary of defense,
and got himself a general with a new and this
time effective strategy.
That president's 180-degree turnabout saved
the day -- and Iraq. The new commander in the
field would be David Petraeus, who had pretty
much written the book on what's called
counterinsurgency warfare, and his strategy
was nicknamed The Surge. It proved
surprisingly successful in a surprisingly short
time -- with a surprising minimum of
American casualties. The result: Iraq held
together. Till now.
But this new president and nominal
commander-in-chief decided to abandon Iraq
by 2011, and abandoned it was -- right on
schedule. And right on schedule it's now fallen
apart. Although it might have taken only a
modest American force to keep it together and
stabilized. The same kind of American force --
it's called a deterrent -- that has stood guard in
Europe and on the Korean peninsula for years,
for decades.
Anyone who knew anything about the Middle
East, even a little, could have foreseen what
leaving the Iraqis to their own deeply divisive
devices would lead to: bloody chaos. Which is
just where it now has led.
Welcome to Obamaland, where a president's
fondest dreams can come true -- and be
revealed as cruel illusions.
Barack Obama seems to assume that the world
is the simple place he wants it to be, and not
as it sadly is -- full of treacherous dangers that
defy simple "solutions." His has been the
familiar isolationist dream and lure: All that
America has to do is withdraw from the world,
and we'll live happily forever after. That's not
a foreign policy; it's a fairy tale. And one that
Americans have regularly paid a high price
for. At least since the isolationist Thirties led
predictably enough to the ferocious Forties and
the greatest war in history.
Now, five years into Barack Obama's reset of
American foreign policy, his dream world has
turned into a nightmare scenario -- see
Ukraine and what has happened in Crimea,
and is still happening in Syria and Iraq and
Afghanistan and ... anywhere else this
president has chosen to ignore. A world
without American involvement, it turns out, is
a world without peace.
The whole Arab Spring, once so full of bright
hope, has shriveled and turned into darkest
winter. At this juncture in the creation of
Barack Obama's not so brave new world, it is
too late to restore the old Iraq; not all the
king's men and all the king's armored divisions
can put it back together again. By now it has
broken into at least three parts, each of which
may splinter soon enough.
Told to choose between Sunni and Shi'a in
Iraq, I'd take the Kurds. They've been betrayed
time and again in their tragic history -- at least
since they were promised independence after
the First World War and then denied it by a
succession of imperial, and imperious, world-
shapers. From our own Henry Kissinger,
master of unreal Realpolitik, to both the shah
of Iran and Iraq's late and unlamented Saddam
Hussein. Let's not betray the Kurds yet again.
Now is finally the Kurds' time. Having sided
with a succession of dictators in the Middle
East, why not finally ally ourselves with a long
oppressed people who have built a homeland
of their own where democratic principles are
increasingly honored instead of being trashed
-- including a decent respect for women's
rights, the rule of law and private property.
Even the Turks, the Kurds' old oppressors,
now see the wisdom of supporting them. Why
don't we?
One of the persistent tragedies of modern Arab
history has been that, whenever a budding
moderation has been challenged by the latest
form of Arab fanaticism, the fanatics have a
way of winning out. That fatal flaw in the
nomadic character was noted by the still
redoubtable T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia"), the
Englishman who adopted, maybe even
invented, Arab nationalism. Col. Lawrence
would diagnose that trait in his magnificent,
romantic, poetic, consistently amusing, and
still deeply insightful history of the Arab
Revolt he led with such success, not to
mention élan. He called his book "Seven
Pillars of Wisdom," and here is one of them:
"Arabs could be swung on an idea as on a
cord; for the unpledged allegiance of their
minds made them obedient servants. None of
them would escape the bond till success had
come, and with it responsibility and duty and
engagements. Then the idea was gone and the
work ended -- in ruins.
"Without a creed they could be taken to the
four corners of the world (but not to heaven)
by being shown the riches of earth and the
pleasures of it; but if on the road, led in this
fashion, they met the prophet of an idea, who
had nowhere to lay his head and who
depended for his food on charity or birds, then
they would all leave their wealth for his
inspiration. They were incorrigibly children of
the idea, feckless and color-blind, to whom
body and spirit were forever and inevitably
opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full
of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule,
but with more of ardor and more fertile in
belief than any other in the world. They were
a people of starts, for whom the abstract was
the strongest motive, the process of infinite
courage and variety, and the end nothing."
All around the Middle East, minorities on its
periphery wait to rise and escape the latest
wave of Arab fanaticism, which sweeps over
what used to be Iraq even now as the "Islamic
State of Syria and the Levant" overflows out of
the long-neglected chaos in Syria, and
threatens to swamp not just the unsteady
regime in Baghdad but neighboring Jordan and
everything else in its violent wake.
Christian Maronites in Lebanon and Copts in
Egypt, Jews in Israel and, yes, Kurds in a
reborn Kurdistan are but a few of the groups
that make up the periphery of peoples around
the Arab heartland, and that offer the one
thing the state formerly known as Iraq always
lacked: cohesion. And hope, even the hope of
reasonable rule. Why not give them all a
fighting chance not only to survive in that
dangerous neighborhood but to thrive?
It's an old saying: Be careful what you wish
for; you just might get it. In spades. The latest
illustration of that adage is provided by our
own vice president, for Joe Biden is finally
getting his wish. He made it back in 2006,
another time when Iraq was falling apart in a
swirl of blood and explosions. He was Sen.
Biden back then but already fancied himself
some kind of foreign-policy guru, and his
response to Iraq's collapse that year was
simplicity itself: Just go ahead and let it fall
apart -- one part for each of its ethnic/
religious components: Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds.
The old Iraq would be balkanized, all would
get what they wanted, and peace would reign!
Problem solved.
Now, headline after headline, we're seeing just
how the Biden Plan would have played out as
Iraq slides into the same kind of bloody chaos
that was rampant in 2006 -- before a president
and commander-in-chief named George W.
Bush woke up, fired his secretary of defense,
and got himself a general with a new and this
time effective strategy.
That president's 180-degree turnabout saved
the day -- and Iraq. The new commander in the
field would be David Petraeus, who had pretty
much written the book on what's called
counterinsurgency warfare, and his strategy
was nicknamed The Surge. It proved
surprisingly successful in a surprisingly short
time -- with a surprising minimum of
American casualties. The result: Iraq held
together. Till now.
But this new president and nominal
commander-in-chief decided to abandon Iraq
by 2011, and abandoned it was -- right on
schedule. And right on schedule it's now fallen
apart. Although it might have taken only a
modest American force to keep it together and
stabilized. The same kind of American force --
it's called a deterrent -- that has stood guard in
Europe and on the Korean peninsula for years,
for decades.
Anyone who knew anything about the Middle
East, even a little, could have foreseen what
leaving the Iraqis to their own deeply divisive
devices would lead to: bloody chaos. Which is
just where it now has led.
Welcome to Obamaland, where a president's
fondest dreams can come true -- and be
revealed as cruel illusions.
Barack Obama seems to assume that the world
is the simple place he wants it to be, and not
as it sadly is -- full of treacherous dangers that
defy simple "solutions." His has been the
familiar isolationist dream and lure: All that
America has to do is withdraw from the world,
and we'll live happily forever after. That's not
a foreign policy; it's a fairy tale. And one that
Americans have regularly paid a high price
for. At least since the isolationist Thirties led
predictably enough to the ferocious Forties and
the greatest war in history.
Now, five years into Barack Obama's reset of
American foreign policy, his dream world has
turned into a nightmare scenario -- see
Ukraine and what has happened in Crimea,
and is still happening in Syria and Iraq and
Afghanistan and ... anywhere else this
president has chosen to ignore. A world
without American involvement, it turns out, is
a world without peace.
The whole Arab Spring, once so full of bright
hope, has shriveled and turned into darkest
winter. At this juncture in the creation of
Barack Obama's not so brave new world, it is
too late to restore the old Iraq; not all the
king's men and all the king's armored divisions
can put it back together again. By now it has
broken into at least three parts, each of which
may splinter soon enough.
Told to choose between Sunni and Shi'a in
Iraq, I'd take the Kurds. They've been betrayed
time and again in their tragic history -- at least
since they were promised independence after
the First World War and then denied it by a
succession of imperial, and imperious, world-
shapers. From our own Henry Kissinger,
master of unreal Realpolitik, to both the shah
of Iran and Iraq's late and unlamented Saddam
Hussein. Let's not betray the Kurds yet again.
Now is finally the Kurds' time. Having sided
with a succession of dictators in the Middle
East, why not finally ally ourselves with a long
oppressed people who have built a homeland
of their own where democratic principles are
increasingly honored instead of being trashed
-- including a decent respect for women's
rights, the rule of law and private property.
Even the Turks, the Kurds' old oppressors,
now see the wisdom of supporting them. Why
don't we?
One of the persistent tragedies of modern Arab
history has been that, whenever a budding
moderation has been challenged by the latest
form of Arab fanaticism, the fanatics have a
way of winning out. That fatal flaw in the
nomadic character was noted by the still
redoubtable T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia"), the
Englishman who adopted, maybe even
invented, Arab nationalism. Col. Lawrence
would diagnose that trait in his magnificent,
romantic, poetic, consistently amusing, and
still deeply insightful history of the Arab
Revolt he led with such success, not to
mention élan. He called his book "Seven
Pillars of Wisdom," and here is one of them:
"Arabs could be swung on an idea as on a
cord; for the unpledged allegiance of their
minds made them obedient servants. None of
them would escape the bond till success had
come, and with it responsibility and duty and
engagements. Then the idea was gone and the
work ended -- in ruins.
"Without a creed they could be taken to the
four corners of the world (but not to heaven)
by being shown the riches of earth and the
pleasures of it; but if on the road, led in this
fashion, they met the prophet of an idea, who
had nowhere to lay his head and who
depended for his food on charity or birds, then
they would all leave their wealth for his
inspiration. They were incorrigibly children of
the idea, feckless and color-blind, to whom
body and spirit were forever and inevitably
opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full
of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule,
but with more of ardor and more fertile in
belief than any other in the world. They were
a people of starts, for whom the abstract was
the strongest motive, the process of infinite
courage and variety, and the end nothing."
All around the Middle East, minorities on its
periphery wait to rise and escape the latest
wave of Arab fanaticism, which sweeps over
what used to be Iraq even now as the "Islamic
State of Syria and the Levant" overflows out of
the long-neglected chaos in Syria, and
threatens to swamp not just the unsteady
regime in Baghdad but neighboring Jordan and
everything else in its violent wake.
Christian Maronites in Lebanon and Copts in
Egypt, Jews in Israel and, yes, Kurds in a
reborn Kurdistan are but a few of the groups
that make up the periphery of peoples around
the Arab heartland, and that offer the one
thing the state formerly known as Iraq always
lacked: cohesion. And hope, even the hope of
reasonable rule. Why not give them all a
fighting chance not only to survive in that
dangerous neighborhood but to thrive?
LIKE A COILED SPRING...........
Paul Greenberg
Is there any book so derided as being
antiquated and irrelevant, and that remains so
contemporary and pertinent as the never really
Old Testament? For once again, for the third
time in less than a decade, the Israelis stand at
the gates of Gaza, the ancient capital of the
Philistines, and prepare to invade. Just as its
leader at another time, Samson ben Manoah,
seeing Israel harried by her enemies, finally
chose to take the offensive. You can read all
about it in the Book of Judges. Nothing ever
seems to change, at least not in that part of an
ever uncertain world.
The question by now isn't whether the Israelis
will be coming, but when. The aerial assault
against Gaza has already begun in response to
the rain of rockets that have fallen all over
Israel these past few weeks, penetrating
deeper than ever before. The surest result has
been to put this era's Jewish commonwealth on
a war footing once again.
How can this be? Wasn't this new unified
Palestinian regime in Ramallah, a coalition of
Fatah and Hamas, going to be a new, peaceful
government led by technocrats, not haters?
(Did anybody ever believe that, even those
who said it?) But the only technology this
"new" Palestinian leadership has seemed
determined to practice is firing ever newer
and bigger missiles at Israel. Thanks to that
country's Iron Dome defense, the missiles
haven't caused many if any fatalities, but they
have succeeded in mobilizing tens of
thousands of Israeli reservists, who are now
poised to roll into the Gaza Strip, aka
Hamasland, still again.
According to the latest reports, some 20,000
Israeli reservists have already been called up,
and a total of 40,000 are due to be. How long
can that little country afford to keep that many
reservists under arms without striking? The
aerial assault has already begun on a large
scale as hundreds of sorties prepare the way
for the ground troops expected to follow any
day, any hour. Hospitals on both sides of the
line are girding for the rush of casualties to
come.
To what end? Israel's prime minister, who
now finds himself a wartime leader, promises
that "Hamas will pay a heavy price for firing
at Israeli citizens." Benjamin Netanyahu says
this "operation will expand and continue until
the fire toward our towns stops and quiet
returns." Which makes the objective of Israel's
latest campaign clear enough, but how achieve
it? Questions abound:
Will this be just a partial and temporary
occupation of Gaza till Washington and the
rest of the world again force Israel to
withdraw short of a more permanent end to
the rocket fire out of Gaza? It's happened
before. Twice. Is the third time supposed to be
the charm?
Why should this invasion -- and its outcome --
be different from all the others? To quote one
resident of Gaza preparing to take shelter from
Israeli bombs once again, "We want ... a truce
and peace with them so our children and we
can live." Which sounds just like what people
on the other side of the divide want, too, but
whenever a glimmer of peace is spotted, the
violent bear it away. And the old cycle of
intermittent peace between regular wars
returns.
Short of occupying all of Gaza, or at least
establishing a buffer zone, a cordon sanitaire,
between Hamas and its supply of rockets via
the tunnels out of Egypt, what's to keep the
Israelis from having to invade a fourth time,
and a fifth, and so regularly on every few
years?
So long as there is no end to this fatal cycle of
sporadic peace and constant hostilities, and to
Hamas' control of Gaza with it, any real peace
will remain an idle dream, a brief and
temporary pause between bloody wars.
Meanwhile, Gaza begins to bury its dead and
Israel girds for the casualty reports sure to
come once the land war begins. When will that
be? Tomorrow, next day? Next week? Never?
The clock is ticking, the coiled spring is about
to be sprung, and then the fog of war will
descend again. And there will be only one
thing certain about this old, old story: It is To
Be Continued.
If this air campaign can suppress all that
rocket fire out of Gaza, at least for a time,
then both sides can issue separate but equal
declarations of victory, everybody can go
home, and the world breathe a sigh of relief.
In war as in showbiz, Give 'em a Happy Ending
Every Time!
But if not, then cry Havoc! and let slip the
dogs of war. And after that, who knows? For
every battle plan remains operative only until
the first contact with the enemy, limited wars
have a way of turning unlimited, and this
latest war for peace will bring anything but.
And once again, to echo the lament of Milton's
"Samson Agonistes":
Promise was that I
Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver;
Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves . . .
Is there any book so derided as being
antiquated and irrelevant, and that remains so
contemporary and pertinent as the never really
Old Testament? For once again, for the third
time in less than a decade, the Israelis stand at
the gates of Gaza, the ancient capital of the
Philistines, and prepare to invade. Just as its
leader at another time, Samson ben Manoah,
seeing Israel harried by her enemies, finally
chose to take the offensive. You can read all
about it in the Book of Judges. Nothing ever
seems to change, at least not in that part of an
ever uncertain world.
The question by now isn't whether the Israelis
will be coming, but when. The aerial assault
against Gaza has already begun in response to
the rain of rockets that have fallen all over
Israel these past few weeks, penetrating
deeper than ever before. The surest result has
been to put this era's Jewish commonwealth on
a war footing once again.
How can this be? Wasn't this new unified
Palestinian regime in Ramallah, a coalition of
Fatah and Hamas, going to be a new, peaceful
government led by technocrats, not haters?
(Did anybody ever believe that, even those
who said it?) But the only technology this
"new" Palestinian leadership has seemed
determined to practice is firing ever newer
and bigger missiles at Israel. Thanks to that
country's Iron Dome defense, the missiles
haven't caused many if any fatalities, but they
have succeeded in mobilizing tens of
thousands of Israeli reservists, who are now
poised to roll into the Gaza Strip, aka
Hamasland, still again.
According to the latest reports, some 20,000
Israeli reservists have already been called up,
and a total of 40,000 are due to be. How long
can that little country afford to keep that many
reservists under arms without striking? The
aerial assault has already begun on a large
scale as hundreds of sorties prepare the way
for the ground troops expected to follow any
day, any hour. Hospitals on both sides of the
line are girding for the rush of casualties to
come.
To what end? Israel's prime minister, who
now finds himself a wartime leader, promises
that "Hamas will pay a heavy price for firing
at Israeli citizens." Benjamin Netanyahu says
this "operation will expand and continue until
the fire toward our towns stops and quiet
returns." Which makes the objective of Israel's
latest campaign clear enough, but how achieve
it? Questions abound:
Will this be just a partial and temporary
occupation of Gaza till Washington and the
rest of the world again force Israel to
withdraw short of a more permanent end to
the rocket fire out of Gaza? It's happened
before. Twice. Is the third time supposed to be
the charm?
Why should this invasion -- and its outcome --
be different from all the others? To quote one
resident of Gaza preparing to take shelter from
Israeli bombs once again, "We want ... a truce
and peace with them so our children and we
can live." Which sounds just like what people
on the other side of the divide want, too, but
whenever a glimmer of peace is spotted, the
violent bear it away. And the old cycle of
intermittent peace between regular wars
returns.
Short of occupying all of Gaza, or at least
establishing a buffer zone, a cordon sanitaire,
between Hamas and its supply of rockets via
the tunnels out of Egypt, what's to keep the
Israelis from having to invade a fourth time,
and a fifth, and so regularly on every few
years?
So long as there is no end to this fatal cycle of
sporadic peace and constant hostilities, and to
Hamas' control of Gaza with it, any real peace
will remain an idle dream, a brief and
temporary pause between bloody wars.
Meanwhile, Gaza begins to bury its dead and
Israel girds for the casualty reports sure to
come once the land war begins. When will that
be? Tomorrow, next day? Next week? Never?
The clock is ticking, the coiled spring is about
to be sprung, and then the fog of war will
descend again. And there will be only one
thing certain about this old, old story: It is To
Be Continued.
If this air campaign can suppress all that
rocket fire out of Gaza, at least for a time,
then both sides can issue separate but equal
declarations of victory, everybody can go
home, and the world breathe a sigh of relief.
In war as in showbiz, Give 'em a Happy Ending
Every Time!
But if not, then cry Havoc! and let slip the
dogs of war. And after that, who knows? For
every battle plan remains operative only until
the first contact with the enemy, limited wars
have a way of turning unlimited, and this
latest war for peace will bring anything but.
And once again, to echo the lament of Milton's
"Samson Agonistes":
Promise was that I
Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver;
Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves . . .
IS IT THE BEST AND WORST OF TIMES?
Charles Payne
It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age
of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was
the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of
Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the
spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we
had everything before us, we had nothing before
us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we
were all going direct the other way - in short,
the period was so far like the present period,
that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on
its being received, for good or for evil, in the
superlative degree of comparison only.
-Charles Dickens
Have we entered into a permanent new phase
in America where the rich have it and flaunt it
while the poor simply get by as each day gets
harder and harder? Commonsense says that if
someone was smart enough to become rich in
the first place, they would only be able to add
wealth over time. I have a friend that arrived
in America, penniless with his father from
China, now his wealth is beyond fabulous.
He told me the first “stick” (one million
dollars) was the hardest to earn.
Be that as it may, the masses may not want to
hear that as their individual world sinks
deeper into the economic abyss. Sadly, the
people with power to make a difference have
made it worse and now use the current
economic reality as a rally cry to ditch this
crazy experiment known as capitalism. Of
course, America has never been “rich” the way
Europe used to be rich; our system has
allowed mobility that was impossible in those
rigid societies.
Nonetheless, talk of revolution is in the air.
I think this is the most dangerous moment for
capitalism in America since the height of the
movement in the 1930s and 1940s. It has
different names and mostly no name this time
around, but a lot of catchphrases like “income
inequality” and the newest “work life balance”
designed to discourage the accumulation of
individual wealth and individual effort at
chasing that wealth. In short the idea is to
demonize financial success and then dismantle
it through taxes and other schemes.
The problem is that these schemes are picking
up steam and could become more than a
ripple.
Last week’s op-ed by Nick Hanauer stating he
sees “pitchforks” against “zillionaires”
continues to reverberate. The co-founded or
funding source of more than 30 companies
including Amazon.com says it’s only a matter
of time before the masses attack. Making his
commentary intriguing is that he seems to
welcome such an attack. Speaking “frankly,”
he comments on not being the smartest or
hardest working guy and only being a
mediocre student. He just says he has a
tolerance for taking risk and good intuition
about what will happen in the future.
In other words, maybe he doesn’t really
deserve his billions.
Moreover, intuition says the country has had
enough and wants to get even. I have to note
that Hanauer might suffer a special kind of
guilt, considering that a large chunk of his
wealth comes from selling aQuantive to
Microsoft in 2007 at $6.0 billion. In July 2012,
Microsoft wrote-off the acquisition for $6.2
billion – meaning the company was worthless
in the first place.
Be that as it may, Nick isn’t the only rich
person worried and it’s not just an American
issue. Li Ka-shing, the richest man in Asia,
says he can’t sleep for worry about Hong
Kong’s growing income gap.
Some quotes to students at Shantou University
include:
"The howl of rage from polarization and the
crippling cost of welfare dependence is a toxic
cocktail commingled to stall growth and foster
discontent."
“…Trust, the bedrock of an enlightened society,
is crumbling before our eyes.”
Interestingly, the 85-year-old tycoon wants the
HK government to introduce dynamic and
flexible wealth redistribution policies that
strike the right balance between promoting
equality and economic objectives.
The income inequality issue wouldn’t be an
issue if the same tide was lifting all boats.
Instead, the tide has been a tidal wave with
anti-business rhetoric, regulations and taxes
stalling the greatest economy in the world.
There are 4.6 million job openings, the most in
more than seven years, but people lack the
skills to fill them. If the effort being applied to
stir trouble and hurt feelings and dash hopes
were put into education and knowledge
development, the whole thing would be a
moot point.
The stock market reflects the current tale of
two cities theme.
Low End High End
RCII -25% WSM +22%
DSW -41% TIF +9%
CONN -36% JWN +12%
This morning, Rent-A-Center laid an egg and
the stock will be hammered today. Once again,
the stock market reflects economic reality.
High-end retailers are on fire in a good way
while those on the discount end of the
equation are on fire in the bad way. There was
a time people would have seen this as a
positive sign that the folks were moving up the
retail food chain for better quality stuff- that’s
not conventional wisdom at the moment.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age
of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was
the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of
Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the
spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we
had everything before us, we had nothing before
us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we
were all going direct the other way - in short,
the period was so far like the present period,
that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on
its being received, for good or for evil, in the
superlative degree of comparison only.
-Charles Dickens
Have we entered into a permanent new phase
in America where the rich have it and flaunt it
while the poor simply get by as each day gets
harder and harder? Commonsense says that if
someone was smart enough to become rich in
the first place, they would only be able to add
wealth over time. I have a friend that arrived
in America, penniless with his father from
China, now his wealth is beyond fabulous.
He told me the first “stick” (one million
dollars) was the hardest to earn.
Be that as it may, the masses may not want to
hear that as their individual world sinks
deeper into the economic abyss. Sadly, the
people with power to make a difference have
made it worse and now use the current
economic reality as a rally cry to ditch this
crazy experiment known as capitalism. Of
course, America has never been “rich” the way
Europe used to be rich; our system has
allowed mobility that was impossible in those
rigid societies.
Nonetheless, talk of revolution is in the air.
I think this is the most dangerous moment for
capitalism in America since the height of the
movement in the 1930s and 1940s. It has
different names and mostly no name this time
around, but a lot of catchphrases like “income
inequality” and the newest “work life balance”
designed to discourage the accumulation of
individual wealth and individual effort at
chasing that wealth. In short the idea is to
demonize financial success and then dismantle
it through taxes and other schemes.
The problem is that these schemes are picking
up steam and could become more than a
ripple.
Last week’s op-ed by Nick Hanauer stating he
sees “pitchforks” against “zillionaires”
continues to reverberate. The co-founded or
funding source of more than 30 companies
including Amazon.com says it’s only a matter
of time before the masses attack. Making his
commentary intriguing is that he seems to
welcome such an attack. Speaking “frankly,”
he comments on not being the smartest or
hardest working guy and only being a
mediocre student. He just says he has a
tolerance for taking risk and good intuition
about what will happen in the future.
In other words, maybe he doesn’t really
deserve his billions.
Moreover, intuition says the country has had
enough and wants to get even. I have to note
that Hanauer might suffer a special kind of
guilt, considering that a large chunk of his
wealth comes from selling aQuantive to
Microsoft in 2007 at $6.0 billion. In July 2012,
Microsoft wrote-off the acquisition for $6.2
billion – meaning the company was worthless
in the first place.
Be that as it may, Nick isn’t the only rich
person worried and it’s not just an American
issue. Li Ka-shing, the richest man in Asia,
says he can’t sleep for worry about Hong
Kong’s growing income gap.
Some quotes to students at Shantou University
include:
"The howl of rage from polarization and the
crippling cost of welfare dependence is a toxic
cocktail commingled to stall growth and foster
discontent."
“…Trust, the bedrock of an enlightened society,
is crumbling before our eyes.”
Interestingly, the 85-year-old tycoon wants the
HK government to introduce dynamic and
flexible wealth redistribution policies that
strike the right balance between promoting
equality and economic objectives.
The income inequality issue wouldn’t be an
issue if the same tide was lifting all boats.
Instead, the tide has been a tidal wave with
anti-business rhetoric, regulations and taxes
stalling the greatest economy in the world.
There are 4.6 million job openings, the most in
more than seven years, but people lack the
skills to fill them. If the effort being applied to
stir trouble and hurt feelings and dash hopes
were put into education and knowledge
development, the whole thing would be a
moot point.
The stock market reflects the current tale of
two cities theme.
Low End High End
RCII -25% WSM +22%
DSW -41% TIF +9%
CONN -36% JWN +12%
This morning, Rent-A-Center laid an egg and
the stock will be hammered today. Once again,
the stock market reflects economic reality.
High-end retailers are on fire in a good way
while those on the discount end of the
equation are on fire in the bad way. There was
a time people would have seen this as a
positive sign that the folks were moving up the
retail food chain for better quality stuff- that’s
not conventional wisdom at the moment.
WHY INDIA IS POISED FOR POTENTIAL GROWTH?
Doug Fabian
India, one of the most populous nations on
Earth, is an interesting country for investors
because it holds the promise of significant
growth potential. Its unique characteristics
include a population that is young compared
to developed nations, the presence of some
world class universities and the availability of
many employable, English-speaking people.
But the country has not yet managed to
overcome regulatory obstacles and other
problems that have held it back from achieving
higher growth rates in the past. However, the
recent election of a new, pro-business prime
minister makes now a good time to consider
investing in funds such as the Market Vectors
India Small-Cap ETF (SCIF) .
The election of conservative Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi as prime
minister sets the stage for this BRIC (Brazil,
Russia, India and China) country to grow
rapidly. In fact, some observers anticipate this
economic expansion will occur relatively
quickly, as it has in some other Asian
countries that modernized and adopted
business-friendly policies.
SCIF is an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that
seeks to replicate the results, before fees and
expenses, of an index of small-capitalization
companies that either are headquartered in
India or generate most of their revenues in the
country. If you are risk averse, keep in mind
that this country-specific ETF is not diversified.
So far this year, SCIF has gained 53%, with a
significant climb occurring after Prime
Minister Modi’s election. Recently, subscribers
to my Successful ETF Investing service made
more than 25% in profits on a short-term
trade with this ETF. In 2013, the fund’s gain of
185.07% far outperformed the U.S. market.
SCIF’s top 10 holdings represent 27.75% of its
total assets. These holdings include Unitech
Ltd, 4.32%; Suzlon Energy Ltd, 3.24%; Jain
Irrigation Systems Ltd, 2.77%; IFCI Ltd, 2.69%;
and Vakrangee Software Ltd, 2.67%. The top
sectors held by SCIF are consumer cyclical,
21.77%; industrials, 17.28%; financial services,
15.89%; and technology, 9.84%.
In addition, not only is SCIF a way to invest in
India, which seems poised to prosper, but this
particular ETF also focuses on small-cap
stocks. As we have previously written, small
caps have traditionally outperformed the
broader stock market , at least here in the
United States. Applying this lens to the Indian
situation can make investing in Market
Vectors India Small-Cap ETF (SCIF)
potentially even more appealing.
If you want my advice about buying and
selling specific ETFs, including appropriate
stop losses, please consider subscribing to my
Successful ETF Investing newsletter. As always,
I am happy to answer any of your questions
about ETFs, so do not hesitate to send me an
e-mail . You just may see your question
answered in a future ETF Talk.
In case you missed it, I encourage you to read
my article from last week about how Russia’s
rebound could be good for investors .
India, one of the most populous nations on
Earth, is an interesting country for investors
because it holds the promise of significant
growth potential. Its unique characteristics
include a population that is young compared
to developed nations, the presence of some
world class universities and the availability of
many employable, English-speaking people.
But the country has not yet managed to
overcome regulatory obstacles and other
problems that have held it back from achieving
higher growth rates in the past. However, the
recent election of a new, pro-business prime
minister makes now a good time to consider
investing in funds such as the Market Vectors
India Small-Cap ETF (SCIF) .
The election of conservative Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi as prime
minister sets the stage for this BRIC (Brazil,
Russia, India and China) country to grow
rapidly. In fact, some observers anticipate this
economic expansion will occur relatively
quickly, as it has in some other Asian
countries that modernized and adopted
business-friendly policies.
SCIF is an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that
seeks to replicate the results, before fees and
expenses, of an index of small-capitalization
companies that either are headquartered in
India or generate most of their revenues in the
country. If you are risk averse, keep in mind
that this country-specific ETF is not diversified.
So far this year, SCIF has gained 53%, with a
significant climb occurring after Prime
Minister Modi’s election. Recently, subscribers
to my Successful ETF Investing service made
more than 25% in profits on a short-term
trade with this ETF. In 2013, the fund’s gain of
185.07% far outperformed the U.S. market.
SCIF’s top 10 holdings represent 27.75% of its
total assets. These holdings include Unitech
Ltd, 4.32%; Suzlon Energy Ltd, 3.24%; Jain
Irrigation Systems Ltd, 2.77%; IFCI Ltd, 2.69%;
and Vakrangee Software Ltd, 2.67%. The top
sectors held by SCIF are consumer cyclical,
21.77%; industrials, 17.28%; financial services,
15.89%; and technology, 9.84%.
In addition, not only is SCIF a way to invest in
India, which seems poised to prosper, but this
particular ETF also focuses on small-cap
stocks. As we have previously written, small
caps have traditionally outperformed the
broader stock market , at least here in the
United States. Applying this lens to the Indian
situation can make investing in Market
Vectors India Small-Cap ETF (SCIF)
potentially even more appealing.
If you want my advice about buying and
selling specific ETFs, including appropriate
stop losses, please consider subscribing to my
Successful ETF Investing newsletter. As always,
I am happy to answer any of your questions
about ETFs, so do not hesitate to send me an
e-mail . You just may see your question
answered in a future ETF Talk.
In case you missed it, I encourage you to read
my article from last week about how Russia’s
rebound could be good for investors .
11 Jul 2014
ISREAL IS UNDER ATTACK
Lee Smith
Last week, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets
and missiles at targets throughout Israel,
including the nuclear reactor at Dimona. Two
of the three M-75 missiles targeting Dimona
missed the mark entirely, but one had to be
brought down by Iron Dome, Israel’s
antimissile shield. The U.N. considers an attack
on a nuclear reactor an act of nuclear
terrorism, which in this case might have taken
a catastrophic toll on Israel’s population—as
well as the Palestinians.
And now Obama is offering to play honest
broker and negotiate a ceasefire between this
terrorist group and our ally Israel. Why not?
Just last month, the Obama administration
helped usher Hamas into a Palestinian unity
government. It’s not as if the White House
didn’t know whom it was dealing with. Hamas
hadn’t changed its stripes or its founding
charter, which calls for unending war on
Israel until the Jewish state is erased from the
pages of history. Even as the administration
was telling Jerusalem to give Palestinian
Authority president Mahmoud Abbas a little
time to work out all the kinks with his new
unity government, Hamas was preparing for
war.
While the administration was showing the PA
how to get around U.S. laws that prevent
American money from going to terrorists,
Hamas was fortifying its tunnel network. It
moves men and materiel and missiles through
those tunnels, like the medium-range M-75s,
and the long-range M-302s, designed by Iran
and launched last week on trajectories that
reached as far as Haifa, Israel’s northernmost
major city.
Surely the White House had intelligence about
the tunnels and the missiles, both of which
were clear evidence of Hamas’s intentions—
terror and war. The problem isn’t that the
administration didn’t know, but that it didn’t
care. The White House has its own peculiar
ideas about the Middle East, which is why
America’s regional standing, from North Africa
to the Persian Gulf, is in shambles.
The Obama administration’s map of the Middle
East might as well be of the Hobbits’ Middle
Earth because it bears no relationship to
reality. Every corner of the region is yet
another realm of wondrous fantasy governed
by magical thinking. A Fatah-Hamas unity
deal? How productive! Coordination with
Qassem Suleimani and the Quds Force in Iraq?
That’s refreshing! An agreement with the
Islamic Republic over its nuclear weapons
program allowing them to keep 10,000
centrifuges? This will bring the clerical regime
back into the community of nations!
The White House cannot be bothered with
Middle Eastern reality. Several weeks ago, the
administration was warned that the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was on the verge
of taking over a strategically important Syrian
city, Deir al-Zour, close to the Iraqi border. As
the Daily Beast reported, the Syrian opposition
told administration officials like U.N.
ambassador Samantha Power that they were
surrounded by ISIS forces and running out of
ammunition. Without support, it was only a
matter of time before the city and key supply
routes fell into ISIS’s hands. The Syrian
opposition’s warnings fell on deaf ears.
Evidently, it does not matter to the White
House that a terrorist organization with
enormous reserves of cash now controls
territory on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi
border, or that its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
calls this territory the “caliphate.”
Last week the White House’s Middle East
coordinator, Philip Gordon, visited Tel Aviv to
speak at a conference where he encouraged
Israel to take bold steps for peace, to “end the
occupation and allow for Palestinian
sovereignty, security, and dignity.” Soon after
his talk, the conference hall had to be vacated
because the territory in Gaza that Israel ceased
to occupy in 2005 allowed Palestinian militants
to rain missiles on Israel’s largest city. This
episode, a perfect illustration of the Obama
administration willfully ignoring reality,
should provide a lesson, wrote David Horovitz.
“Our closest friend,” he wrote in the Times of
Israel, “should be just a little less arrogant in
telling us what we need and don’t need to do
in order to keep ourselves safe.”
Meanwhile, Hamas’s campaign shows no sign
of ending any time soon. According to Israeli
strategists, Hamas’s rate of missile fire is
considerably slower than it was two years ago
when Israel mounted Operation Pillar of
Defense to stop Hamas rockets. The rate
suggests to Israeli officials that Hamas is trying
to conserve its arsenal. As the Washington
Free Beacon reported, the Israeli Air Force is
targeting missile factories as well as tunnels,
but that may not be sufficient.
In 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu put 40,000 ground troops on the
border to show Hamas how far he was willing
to go to get a ceasefire. This time around he
may have to go further to check a Hamas
campaign that is qualitatively different from
that of 2012. Some Israeli analysts, like former
head of military intelligence Amos Yadlin,
argue that a ground operation is “necessary,
almost essential” to uncover the tunnel
networks, which may prove impermeable to
air attacks.
If Hamas is pacing its missile fire, it means
they’re in it for the long haul. If they’re
crossing red lines by firing missiles at Dimona
as well as Ben Gurion airport, it means they’re
going all out. The question is why.
Some analysts point to likely Iranian
involvement— indeed use of the long-range
M-302, not previously in the arsenal of Hamas,
underscores that suggestion. It’s true that
Hamas’s relations with Iran have been
somewhat cooler since they fell out over the
Syrian civil war (Hamas sided with their Sunni
co-religionists; Tehran has thrown its full
weight behind the Assad regime). But the
Iranians have a lot of cards to play in Gaza,
including Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian
factions, as well as Hamas itself. As Israeli
analyst Shimon Shapira commented recently,
“Iran is more than capable of going over the
head of Hamas’s political leadership and
arming its military commanders directly.”
If Iran is not in fact driving the campaign, then
Hamas may be putting on a demonstration for
Tehran of how helpful it can be to the Islamic
Republic. With Hezbollah tied down in Syria
fighting alongside Assad, Hamas is more useful
to Iran than ever—especially since Hamas is
now in possession of long-range missiles
capable of striking anywhere inside Israel,
making it another tool of Iranian deterrence
should the Israelis consider striking Iran’s
nuclear weapons facilities.
In other words, the strategic picture of the
Middle East hasn’t changed one bit. As the
Obama White House seeks to sign a permanent
deal with Iran by July 20, the key threat not
only to Israel but to American interests
remains . . . Iran. Too bad the Obama
administration can’t come to grips with that
reality.
Last week, Hamas fired hundreds of rockets
and missiles at targets throughout Israel,
including the nuclear reactor at Dimona. Two
of the three M-75 missiles targeting Dimona
missed the mark entirely, but one had to be
brought down by Iron Dome, Israel’s
antimissile shield. The U.N. considers an attack
on a nuclear reactor an act of nuclear
terrorism, which in this case might have taken
a catastrophic toll on Israel’s population—as
well as the Palestinians.
And now Obama is offering to play honest
broker and negotiate a ceasefire between this
terrorist group and our ally Israel. Why not?
Just last month, the Obama administration
helped usher Hamas into a Palestinian unity
government. It’s not as if the White House
didn’t know whom it was dealing with. Hamas
hadn’t changed its stripes or its founding
charter, which calls for unending war on
Israel until the Jewish state is erased from the
pages of history. Even as the administration
was telling Jerusalem to give Palestinian
Authority president Mahmoud Abbas a little
time to work out all the kinks with his new
unity government, Hamas was preparing for
war.
While the administration was showing the PA
how to get around U.S. laws that prevent
American money from going to terrorists,
Hamas was fortifying its tunnel network. It
moves men and materiel and missiles through
those tunnels, like the medium-range M-75s,
and the long-range M-302s, designed by Iran
and launched last week on trajectories that
reached as far as Haifa, Israel’s northernmost
major city.
Surely the White House had intelligence about
the tunnels and the missiles, both of which
were clear evidence of Hamas’s intentions—
terror and war. The problem isn’t that the
administration didn’t know, but that it didn’t
care. The White House has its own peculiar
ideas about the Middle East, which is why
America’s regional standing, from North Africa
to the Persian Gulf, is in shambles.
The Obama administration’s map of the Middle
East might as well be of the Hobbits’ Middle
Earth because it bears no relationship to
reality. Every corner of the region is yet
another realm of wondrous fantasy governed
by magical thinking. A Fatah-Hamas unity
deal? How productive! Coordination with
Qassem Suleimani and the Quds Force in Iraq?
That’s refreshing! An agreement with the
Islamic Republic over its nuclear weapons
program allowing them to keep 10,000
centrifuges? This will bring the clerical regime
back into the community of nations!
The White House cannot be bothered with
Middle Eastern reality. Several weeks ago, the
administration was warned that the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was on the verge
of taking over a strategically important Syrian
city, Deir al-Zour, close to the Iraqi border. As
the Daily Beast reported, the Syrian opposition
told administration officials like U.N.
ambassador Samantha Power that they were
surrounded by ISIS forces and running out of
ammunition. Without support, it was only a
matter of time before the city and key supply
routes fell into ISIS’s hands. The Syrian
opposition’s warnings fell on deaf ears.
Evidently, it does not matter to the White
House that a terrorist organization with
enormous reserves of cash now controls
territory on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi
border, or that its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
calls this territory the “caliphate.”
Last week the White House’s Middle East
coordinator, Philip Gordon, visited Tel Aviv to
speak at a conference where he encouraged
Israel to take bold steps for peace, to “end the
occupation and allow for Palestinian
sovereignty, security, and dignity.” Soon after
his talk, the conference hall had to be vacated
because the territory in Gaza that Israel ceased
to occupy in 2005 allowed Palestinian militants
to rain missiles on Israel’s largest city. This
episode, a perfect illustration of the Obama
administration willfully ignoring reality,
should provide a lesson, wrote David Horovitz.
“Our closest friend,” he wrote in the Times of
Israel, “should be just a little less arrogant in
telling us what we need and don’t need to do
in order to keep ourselves safe.”
Meanwhile, Hamas’s campaign shows no sign
of ending any time soon. According to Israeli
strategists, Hamas’s rate of missile fire is
considerably slower than it was two years ago
when Israel mounted Operation Pillar of
Defense to stop Hamas rockets. The rate
suggests to Israeli officials that Hamas is trying
to conserve its arsenal. As the Washington
Free Beacon reported, the Israeli Air Force is
targeting missile factories as well as tunnels,
but that may not be sufficient.
In 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu put 40,000 ground troops on the
border to show Hamas how far he was willing
to go to get a ceasefire. This time around he
may have to go further to check a Hamas
campaign that is qualitatively different from
that of 2012. Some Israeli analysts, like former
head of military intelligence Amos Yadlin,
argue that a ground operation is “necessary,
almost essential” to uncover the tunnel
networks, which may prove impermeable to
air attacks.
If Hamas is pacing its missile fire, it means
they’re in it for the long haul. If they’re
crossing red lines by firing missiles at Dimona
as well as Ben Gurion airport, it means they’re
going all out. The question is why.
Some analysts point to likely Iranian
involvement— indeed use of the long-range
M-302, not previously in the arsenal of Hamas,
underscores that suggestion. It’s true that
Hamas’s relations with Iran have been
somewhat cooler since they fell out over the
Syrian civil war (Hamas sided with their Sunni
co-religionists; Tehran has thrown its full
weight behind the Assad regime). But the
Iranians have a lot of cards to play in Gaza,
including Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian
factions, as well as Hamas itself. As Israeli
analyst Shimon Shapira commented recently,
“Iran is more than capable of going over the
head of Hamas’s political leadership and
arming its military commanders directly.”
If Iran is not in fact driving the campaign, then
Hamas may be putting on a demonstration for
Tehran of how helpful it can be to the Islamic
Republic. With Hezbollah tied down in Syria
fighting alongside Assad, Hamas is more useful
to Iran than ever—especially since Hamas is
now in possession of long-range missiles
capable of striking anywhere inside Israel,
making it another tool of Iranian deterrence
should the Israelis consider striking Iran’s
nuclear weapons facilities.
In other words, the strategic picture of the
Middle East hasn’t changed one bit. As the
Obama White House seeks to sign a permanent
deal with Iran by July 20, the key threat not
only to Israel but to American interests
remains . . . Iran. Too bad the Obama
administration can’t come to grips with that
reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)