Saturday, July 31, 2010

Chávez Faces Backlash over Polar Comments

This is an article I found very interesting. It was written by Jennifer Lerner and posted by the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies):


Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez recently threatened nationalization of warehouses owned by the company Polar in Barquisimeto, a town located in west-central Venezuela. Polar is one Venezuela’s best known companies, perhaps most famous for its beer products, as well as maize flour– from which the arepa, a staple food in Venezuela, is made. Tension between the government and Polar heightened in April 2010, as the government closed a Polar warehouse in Barquisimeto. After closing the warehouse, the government proceeded to seize and distribute the food products throughout the country. Chávez accused Polar of hoarding its products, leading to artificial shortages and price inflation. Polar officials claimed that the power rationing implemented by the government forced a decline in production.

Since April, Chávez has amplified his anti-Polar rhetoric, even announcing the possibility of nationalizing the entire company. With the oil, electricity, and telecommunications industries nationalized, it seemed likely that Polar – or at least the Barquisimeto installations – would be nationalized as well. However, Chávez has faced strong opposition to his Polar comments throughout Venezuela. In a recent poll by Consultores 21, an opinion poll based in Caracas, 84 percent of Barquisimeto residents opposed the takeover. Polar workers have been particularly fierce in their opposition, as many fear that nationalization will lead to employment and benefit cuts. Polar employees are also concerned that they will not be able to unionize under state control, making it nearly impossible to reclaim benefits that may be lost under state ownership.

While Chávez critiqued Polar for hoarding foodstuffs, his own administration has come under attack for its own handling of food supplies. Last month, PDVAL – a state program that uses profits from oil revenue to distribute food throughout the country, at prices regulated by the government– was found to have allowed tens of thousands of food products to spoil. While the government initially estimated that about 30,000 tons of food went bad, some opponents put that number as high as 120,000 tons, equivalent to feeding 17 million (out of 26 million) Venezuelans in the month of June.

The poor publicity surrounding Polar and the administration’s handling of food supplies comes at a time of economic stagnation in Venezuela. Inflation currently stands at 30 percent, while Venezuelans face food shortages of many staples, including meat, dairy, and flour. Venezuela’s economy remains stagnant while the rest of Latin America quickly rebounds from the global recession. While the economy in Venezuela grew an impressive 7 percent in 2007, it contracted nearly 6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. This is in sharp contrast to Brazil’s economy, which grew by 9 percent in the first quarter of 2010; Mexico’s, which grew by 4 percent; and Peru’s, which grew by 9 percent. Private business owners in Venezuela have complained that increased government regulation has made the economy inefficient, while Chávez puts fault on the private sector, claiming that more government involvement is needed to revitalize the economy.

Uncertainty continues over whether Chávez will follow through with his threats of nationalizing Polar. The strong rebuke the president received following his threats appears to have forced Chávez to temper his rhetoric. Faced with sagging popularity in the face of legislative elections in the fall, it is doubtful that the Chávez government would risk any more backlash by nationalizing one of Venezuela’s most popular beverages.


Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Friday, July 30, 2010

Potemkin Villages

O.K., I admit, I often find out that I am not as well informed as I like to think. Sometimes when I am doing research I run into a word or phrase which is apparently in somewhat common use but I have somehow managed to remain ignorant of it. The phrase “Potemkin Village” is such a phrase. You see, I was doing some reading about the FBI’s resent arrest of the Russian spies and that is when I came across this phrase. The incident turned into a mini lesson for me in what the phrase means. Let me explain.

I was reading an intelligence bulletin about these spies when I saw two separate summaries that described the whole thing as a “Potemkin Village”. It seems there are people in our intelligence community that are concerned about the speed in which the Administration handled this incident.

In an amazingly short period, the spies were swept up, arrested, charged with espionage, allowed to plea to a lesser charge of being unregistered foreign agents, given one-way tickets out of the country and sent off. This whole process happened so fast that the Obama Administration barley had time to issue a press release and take bows for keeping us safe.

Missed in all of this rush to justice were a couple of important points. First off, these people had been here, spying on us and operating unimpeded and undetected for over a decade. Just how did we debrief them and find out what they had been up to so fast? There are more than a few important questions that should have been answered. Just a few are: What were they after? How successful were they? Who were their contacts and handlers? How did they keep everything secret? How had they been communicating with Russia? Where did their money and support had come from? Did they know about any other “spy cells” or “networks” here or in other Western countries (Canada or Britain, for example)?

I have a hard time believing that the FBI was able to debrief and process a dozen or so spies in those few short days. Especially since they had been here, conducting their clandestine operations for over 10 years.

I was equally amazed at how quickly the Russians were ready to agree to a spy swap and send us home four people they said had been spying on them. It usually takes a week to get the Russians to answer a phone call form our State Department. How is it that this complicated agreement could be arranged and executed so quickly?

Let’s go back to that phrase, “Potemkin Village”, again and you will see why it was brought up. Potemkin Villages is a phrase based on a historical story. According to the story, there were fake settlements erected at the direction of Russian minister Grigory Potyomkin to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787. According to this story, Potyomkin, who led the Crimean military campaign, had hollow facades of villages constructed along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River in order to impress the monarch and her travel party with the value of her new conquests, thus enhancing his standing in the empress' eyes. In modern times, the phrase has been used to describe the attempts of the Soviet government to fool foreign visitors. The government would take visitors to select villages, factories, schools, stores, or neighborhoods and present them as if they were typical, rather than exceptional. Given the strict limitations on the movement of foreigners in the USSR, it was often impossible for visitors to see any other examples.

In using this phrase to describe the incident involving these spies, the intelligence people were implying that the Obama Administration might have been in too big a hurry. In a rush to get a good headline and divert attention away from other problems (like the oil spill and several pieces of pending legislation) they may have missed something. It is possible that the reason the Russians were so fast and so cooperative was that we might have arrested a group of people the Russians had allowed to “take a fall” so that we would miss their other intelligence assets in this country.

As much as I enjoy learning and expanding my vocabulary, this is just not the way I like to get my lessons (and I am not crazy about the Administration learning this way either).

============
Personal Side Comment:
Darryl - Now that you have safely arrived in the south seas, have a great adventure and then arrive back in JAX safely again! You have the skills and the character to make it a great voyage! Few people can say that. Remember, you also have friends, family and loved ones routing for you and looking forward to having back amongst them when you are done!
============


Download:
FLVMP43GP

Download:
FLVMP43GP

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Castro Predicts A Nuclear War

The aging Cuban Dictator reappeared recently to make a few interesting comments on Cuban television. After listening to his speech, I decided it was time for me to return the favor and make a few overdue comments of my own.

Fidel Castro, the despot who came very close to starting a nuclear war in 1962 between the United States and the Soviet Union, made several public appearances this week to predict imminent nuclear war. The calamity he craved in Oct. 1962 will erupt, he predicted, when the Israelis and their ‘Yankee vassals’, provoke Iran in the straits of Hormuz.

Castro, the same man who co-sponsored the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with Racism, says, “The Israeli tail wags the Yankee dog.” Those Yankees are certainly powerful, Castro explained, but also a bit naïve and submissive. The main instigators are those crafty Israelis. "The control that Israel has over the United States is enormous," he proclaimed.

Fidel Castro has excellent reason to have fond memories of imminent nuclear war. “Of course I knew the missiles were nuclear- armed,” responded Fidel Castro to Robert McNamara during a meeting in 1992. “That’s precisely WHY I urged Khrushchev to launch them. And of course Cuba would have been utterly destroyed in the exchange.”

"If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.” (Che Guevara, November 1962.)

“My dream is to drop three Atomic Bombs on New York City (Raul –not Fidel—Castro, Nov. 1960.)

“We should deliver a nuclear first strike,” read the telegram from Castro to Khrushchev on Oct. 28 1962.

“What!” Khrushchev gasped, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war? That we launch missiles from Cuba?”

“Apparently.”

“Yesterday the Cubans shot down a plane (U-2 with) without (Soviet) permission. Today they’re preparing a nuclear attack.”

“But that is insane!...Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens!” instructed the Soviet premier.

The Castro brothers and Che Guevara’s genocidal lusts p
layed a major part in prompting Khrushchev to get those missiles out of Cuba!

“We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along
," Nikita Khrushchev later wrote in his memoirs, "security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy's death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba."

"Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,” Nixon wrote about the Bay of Pigs and Missile Crisis. “Then (he) gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard."

In his memoirs, Khrushchev further twisted the knife and snickered yet again: "it would have been ridiculous for us to go to war over Cuba--for a country 12,000 miles away. For us, war was unthinkable.

The Crisis “resolution” gave Castro a new status, protection assured by the two most powerful countries on earth.


The Missile crisis “solution” also pulled the rug out from under Cuba's freedom fighters. Raul Castro himself admitted that at the time of the Missile Crisis his troops and their Soviet advisors were up against 179 different "bands of bandits" as he labeled the thousands of Cuban anti-Communist rebels then battling virtually alone in Cuba's countryside, with small arms shipments from their compatriots in south Florida as their only lifeline.

The deal with the Soviets cut this lifeline. The Cuban freedom-fighters based in South Florida were suddenly rounded up for "violating U.S. Neutrality laws." The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro and his Soviet patrons remained virtually unmolested as they consolidated Stalinism 90 miles from U.S. shores. Think about it: here's the U.S. Coast Guard and Border patrol working 'round the clock arresting Hispanics in the U.S. who are desperate to return to their native country.

President Bush used to give speeches about how it was America’s duty to help the spread of democracy. It is a shame he overlooked our neighbor just a little south of Key West. As for Castro’s prediction of nuclear war, he also predicted Cuba would be shining example of progress and prosperity under his brand of socialism. He has now had five decades and we still have not seen any success.


Download:
FLVMP43GP

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

North Korea’s Underground Airfields


Many of North Korea's most advanced planes are hidden deep beneath the surface. There may be as many as 20 underground airfields scattered across the country. Much of this intelligence actually comes from amateur sleuths and bloggers monitoring the internet for valuable pieces of information. It’s just one more reminder that much of the intelligence we have in the West is not as complete as we would like.

At Sunchon Air Base, one of North Korea’s Air Force’s most important installations, at least half of the fleet of MiG-29s and Su-25s there may be stored underground. The MiG-29s are Kim’s only advanced fighter aircraft; the Su-25s, his only modern planes for ground attack. Keeping them below the surface could shield them from the elements and from prying eyes. In addition, Sunchon appears to have a 1350 meter taxiway extending from the UGF [underground facility] to a point beyond the main parking aprons. This taxiway may in fact be an auxiliary runway, allowing aircraft to be prepared for flight while concealed within the UGF and then launched with little or no warning for a strike against South Korea.

Onchon and Kang Da Ri bases both have massive and hardened below-surface facilities. “Air activity at either location has never been publicly disclosed or identified in imagery,” blog author Sean O’Connor notes. Maybe, he speculates, surface-to-surface missiles are hidden there.

The facilities resemble airfields in their layout, but a concrete SSM launch pad is little different from a runway surface. [The North Koreans] could stockpile SSMs in these facilities, using the “runways” as mass launching areas. In this scenario, transporting SSMs to the facilities would be far easier to mask than the deployment of combat aircraft. The facilities could represent logical storage and mating points for nuclear or chemical warheads, allowing them to remain protected prior to use.

I find these blogs and the analysis based on things readily available on the internet (such as the aerial photograph of the North Korean Airfield at the top of this blog) fascinating. Much of this information is actually monitored by intelligence agencies around the globe. It very often turns out to be as accurate as their own work.


Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Indo-China War of 1962

While the world held it's breath watching the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold, China used the distraction to invade India in a series of very bloody engagements.

The Chinese claim 2 areas that India deems its own territory. One in the western sector, on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.

After its independence in 1947, India not only inherited Britain's occupation of parts of Chinese territories, but also further encroached northward and pushed its borderline to the McMahon Line in 1953, as a result, invaded and occupied 90,000 square kms of Chinese territory. In 1959, India voiced its claim to the Aksai Chin areas, counted 33,000 s.kms, of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China. In April 1960, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai went to New Delhi to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Nehru, no agreements were reached and ensuing meetings between the officials of the two countries also produced no results.

Unable to reach political accommodation on disputed territory along the 3,225-kilometer-long Himalayan border, the Chinese attacked India on October 20, 1962. At the time, nine divisions from the eastern and western commands were deployed along the Himalayan border with China. None of these divisions was up to its full troop strength, and all were short of artillery, tanks, equipment, and even adequate articles of clothing.

Indian decisions taken at that time were not grounded in adequate, up-to-date, knowledge of what was transpiring within China or the motivations of China’s then key decision-makers. Stated briefly, New Delhi failed to decipher the “Chinese calculus of deterrence” and India suffered disproportionately.

In Ladakh the Chinese attacked south of the Karakoram Pass at the northwest end of the Aksai Chin Plateau and in the Pangong Lake area
about 160 kilometers to the southeast. The defending Indian forces were easily ejected from their posts in the area of the Karakoram Pass and from most posts near Pangong Lake. However, they put up spirited resistance at the key posts of Daulat Beg Oldi (near the entrance to the pass) and Chushul (located immediately south of Pangong Lake and at the head of the vital supply road to Leh, a major town and location of an air force base in Ladakh). Other Chinese forces attacked near Demchok (about 160 kilometers southeast of Chusul) and rapidly overran the Demchok and the Jara La posts.

In the eastern sector, in Assam, the Chinese forces advanced easily despite Indian efforts at resistance. On the first day of the fighting, Indian forces stationed at the Tsang Le post on the northern side of the Namka Chu, the Khinzemane post, and near Dhola were overrun. On the western side of the North-East Frontier Agency, Tsang Dar fell on October 22, Bum La on October 23, and Tawang, the headquarters of the Seventh Infantry Brigade, on October 24. The Chinese made an offer to negotiate on October 24. The Indian government promptly rejected this offer.

With a lull in the fighting, the Indian military desperately sought to regroup its forces. Specifically, the army attempted to strengthen its defensive positions in the North-East Frontier Agency and Ladakh and to prepare against possible Chinese attacks through Sikkim and Bhutan. Army units were moved from Calcutta, Bihar, Nagaland, and Punjab to guard the northern frontiers of West Bengal and Assam. Three brigades were hastily positioned in the western part of the North-East Frontier Agency, and two other brigades were moved into Sikkim and near the West Bengal border with Bhutan to face the Chinese. Light Stuart tanks were drawn from the Eastern Command headquarters at Calcutta to bolster these deployments.

In the western sector, a divisional organization was established in Leh; several battalions of infantry, a battery of twenty-five-pounder guns, and two troops of AMX light tanks were airlifted into the Chushul area from Punjab. On November 4, the Indian military decided that the post at Daulat Beg Oldi was untenable, and its defenders were withdrawn over the 5,300-meter-high Sasar Brangsa Pass to a more defensible position.

The reinforcements and redeployments in Ladakh proved sufficient to defend the Chushul perimeter despite repeated Chinese attacks. However, the more remote posts at Rezang La and Gurung Hill and the four posts at Spanggur Lake area fell to the Chinese.

In the North-East Frontier Agency, the situation proved to be quite different. Indian forces counterattacked on November 13 and captured a hill northwest of the town of Walong. Concerted Chinese attacks dislodged them from this hard-won position, and the nearby garrison had to retreat down the Lohit Valley.

In another important section of the eastern sector, the Kameng Frontier Division, six Chinese brigades attacked across the Tawang Chu near Jang and advanced some sixteen kilometers to the southeast to attack Indian positions at Nurang, near Se La, on November 17. Despite the Indian attempt to regroup their forces at Se La, the Chinese continued their onslaught, wiping out virtually all Indian resistance in Kameng. By November 18, the Chinese had penetrated close to the outskirts of Tezpur, Assam, a major frontier town nearly fifty kilometers from the Assam-North-East Frontier Agency border.

The Chinese did not advance farther and on November 21 declared a unilateral cease-fire. They had accomplished all of their territorial objectives, and any attempt to press farther into the plains of Assam would have stretched their logistical capabilities and their lines of communication to a breaking point. By the time the fighting stopped, each side had lost 500 troops.

After administering a blistering defeat in 1962, the Chinese forces withdrew 20 km behind the McMahon Line, which China called “the 1959 line of actual control” in the Eastern Sector, and 20 km behind the line of its latest position in Ladakh, which was further identified with the “1959 line of actual control” in the Western Sector.


Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Monday, July 26, 2010

Eric Holder is the Worst Attorney General in US History

Attorney General Eric Holder continually, in complete disregard for the fact that the Justice Department should be totally nonpartisan, goes from one flagrantly political action to another.

There are many examples. Last year, Holder got into trouble playing politics when announcing that the administration would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the terrorist architect of 9/11, in a civilian courtroom. He was trying to demonize the Bush administration's supposed lawlessness in confining Mohammed to Guantanamo. Unfortunately for the Attorney General, New Yorkers protested stoutly against holding the trial next to the scene of the 9/11 crime. Holder had to back off. The president quickly assured the nation that Mohammed would be "convicted" and have "the death penalty ... applied to him." Suddenly, Bush's planned military tribunals seemed a lot less prejudicial than Holder's planned civilian show trials.

Likewise entirely political is Holder's continual refusal to link radical Islam with the epidemic of global terrorism. When asked at a congressional hearing whether radical Islamic terrorists were behind the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the foiled Times Square bomb attack, Holder refused to identify that obvious common connection. Instead, he pointed to a "variety of reasons." The nation's chief prosecutor was not looking at the evidence, but sticking to his interpretation of a politically correct agenda.

Obama, in his campaign for the Presidency, repeatedly promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Holder blamed Congress for playing politics and preventing the Administration from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He is being blatantly disingenuous for a variety of reasons.

First, Obama campaigned on calls to reverse the Bush administration anti-terrorism protocols, charging that they were either unnecessary or counterproductive. Then, when he was faced with the responsibility of governing and ensuring our safety, Obama suddenly reversed himself on almost all of them -- tribunals, renditions, Iraq, the Patriot Act, targeted airborne assassinations and Guantanamo Bay. Holder himself once openly supported the detention of terrorists without regard for the Geneva Conventions. What made him change his views so radically?

The simple fact is that, any time the President wants to close Guantanamo Bay, he can carry out his earlier executive order, without congressional approval, in the same manner in which President Bush opened it. By blaming Congress, Holder fails mention the real reasons why the president broke his promise: The American public now wants unrepentant terrorists to remain in Guantanamo. They do not want them to be incarcerated and tried in civilian courts here at home.

On matters of race, the Attorney General called America "a nation of cowards" for not engaging in a national conversation on race. This makes little sense when you realize that at present we have a black president, attorney general, EPA head and NASA chief, Hispanic secretaries of Labor and the Interior, and a recent Hispanic Supreme Court appointment, not to mention that both of the two previous secretaries of state were black. Plus the fact that our new Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, identified herself as a "wise Latina" who supposedly exercises superior judgment over the usual white male jurist. The plain truth is that the nation suffers from too much racial self-identification and politicking, not too little.

Holder himself has used race for political purposes. He criticized Arizona for its anti-illegal alien law -- after admitting that he hadn't even read it. Then he chose to sue the state for trying to enforce the unenforced federal immigration laws. Now he has promised that if his lawsuit fails, he will sue Arizona again, alleging that its new legislation would entail racial profiling. Remember, the law has not gone into effect yet, so Holder has no evidence of any racial profiling as a result of the Arizona law (which includes language specifically prohibiting this kind of profiling).

In another outrageous action, Holder dropped a voter fraud case against the New Black Panther Party, which was caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling place. He is leveling charges of racism against those who deliberately excluded racial profiling in their legislation, while giving a free pass to those who blatantly used race to hassle voters at the polls.

Holder has proven to be the most political attorney general in our history. He will continue to embarrass the nation until he steps down. He should be forced to resign, and the sooner the better!

Here is Mr. Holder making his comments regarding race. He does not once make any acknowledgment of the progress made in civil rights in this country in the past 40 years. The hypocrisy of his words is thick enough to cut with a knife.



On This Day in History:
1924 Don Knotts (actor) born
1952 Robin Williams (comedian) born
1588 Spanish Armada Defeated



Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Is Obama Repeating Roosevelt?

Let’s turn on our imaginations and play a little game of speculation. I was listening to some pundits talking about similarities between FDR’s economic policies and those of President Obama. A little later, I was reading some interesting material about the United States prior to our entry into World War II and some very interesting parallels began popping into my mind’s eye. Think about conditions just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor for a moment.

The United States was recovering from a major economic depression. The world situation was tense and conflicts seemed to be popping up everywhere, including full-blown wars in Europe and China. President Roosevelt was publically telling the American people we should leave these matters to the Europeans and Asians, that it was not our business. At the same time, however, he was sending material and US troops (“advisers”, “volunteers”, and “observers”) to England and France against Germany and Italy; to China against the Japanese; and to Finland against the Soviets (remember, until Germany attacked the Soviet Union those two nations were allies). He moved to encourage US companies to produce war materials and supplies and sell them to the side he was already referring to as ‘the allies” (a little psychological maneuvering if there ever was any). He had Congress giving those companies incentives and tax breaks, and passing legislation such as the “Lend-Lease” agreement while giving speeches about US neutrality.

There are conspiracy buffs who will swear that President Roosevelt knew about the pending attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen as an excuse to get into the war. Despite extensive research, there has never been any tangible proof of that. I personally reject the theory completely. However, it is well known that everyone fully expected to be going to war with Japan in the very near future and President Roosevelt continued to take provocative actions against the Japanese anyway (such as declaring a complete oil embargo).

In the end, the United States was forced into the war and FDR appeared to the world as a shining white knight coming to the rescue.

Now, fast forward to today. The United States is slowly recovering from a major recession. Conflicts and tensions keep popping up, including two shooing wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). President Obama is telling the world the United States wants peace, wants to bring our troops home and thinks we should not be getting directly involved militarily. He backs away from confrontation with Iran, knowing full well that this leaves Israel in a position where it will have to strike for its own survival. If that happened, the United States could be forced into the conflict “against our will” and Obama might look like the shining white knight coming to Israel’s aid. The major problem with that line of thought is, of course, that Israel might not survive an Iranian Blitzkrieg.

Now, before you have a heart attack, I know there are some major flaws in my line of thought and it is not an exact parallel. It also implies that some key players were and would be exceptionally dishonest and I have no evidence of that at all, nor do I mean to make any accusations. As I said, this was just pure speculation anyway. Just some random thoughts on a lazy afternoon…


Here is a clip of one of his great speeches. Say what you will about Mr. Roosevelt, he knew how to give one good speech (kind of like our current President)...


Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Gitmo Detainees Won’t Go

I think this was one of the best stories I have read so far this year: “The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don’t want to go,” The Washington Post reported on July 10. “Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.”

In one of his first actions as president, Barack Obama had declared the detention center would be closed by January 2010. I guess there is now no sign it will ever close.

When Bush was president, the very name “Guantanamo” was used to criticize everything the liberals did not like about our foreign policy. Then candidate Obama described the facility as a “sad chapter in American history.” It was “a legal black hole” and “a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

Obama wasn’t alone. During the Bush years, the words “Guantanamo Bay” could be deployed at any time to wound the president, and the speaker never had to explain why Gitmo was bad or what he’d do to replace it.

The very idea that Guantanamo might be a decent place where the detainees prefer American custody to being repatriated is a reality that turns the joke on he president.



Download:
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Download:
FLVMP43GP
Other News Tidbits:

We now have a working Laser Gun, just like Buck Rogers. Take that, Captain Kirk....

For the first time, a solid-state laser has successfully destroyed a flying drone in a naval environment.The tests, performed by Raytheon with the Navy, occurred off of San Nicholas Island, Calif. over several days in late May.

Four UAVs were destroyed, according to Mike Booen, vice president of directed energy.Booen spoke with DoD Buzz in an exclusive interview at the Farnborough Air Show.

The company mounted six 5.5kw solid-state lasers with a Phalanx gun system. The radar used the Phalanx’s targeting system, Booen said. And the famous guns could be used to supplement the radar.



Friday, July 23, 2010

It Cannot Happen in America –But It Is!

In the United States of America we take great pride in what we refer to as the “Rule of Law”. We have a system where we attempt to give every one equal treatment and follow the law, some times even when it is painful. We give terrorists, murders and rapists the benefit of a trial by their peers in which their guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. We have police and law enforcement purposefully separated from our judicial system so they can act independently. This is one way of checking and balancing the power of each of these to protect our rights.

The Federal Government, with all of its power, cannot act without proper authority under the law. We have a Justice Department with thousands of lawyers and employees whose whole purpose is to investigate crime and corruption and ensure that our citizens rights are protected and that no person, company, organization or any thing else can act against us without acting within our laws. We even have a court system, that is separate from the law enforcement branch and the justice branch, so tha
t it too can act completely independently and as a further check and balance, protecting our precious rights. All of this combines to make a system that gives us great pride and confidence.

Unfortunately somebody has forgotten to explain all of this to the ex-law professor in the White House or to his Attorney General. Three years ago, General Motors was effectively nationalized; we would have never believed it. That is not nearly the end of it. News of injustices keep coming. Black Panthers are not charged with wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice because their crimes are against white citizens. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets without due process by the government. Governmental leaders are bribed in full view only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled by the Attorney General. The U.S. borders are overrun with crime and illegal activity and our political leaders act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers while the innocent are killed and overrun. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration entrusted with protecting them and enforcing the law. Our coasts are being destroyed by oil while the President only acts to protect the unions and press his “cap and trade” agenda.

Without the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution is in danger. Without the rule of law our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As hard as it is to even imagine, a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.

There is only one way this problem is going to be fixed -- massive citizen action. All citizens that see what is happening and want to restore their right to be treated fairly and equally, must come together and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law end ---and end now!

Yes, it can and is happening, right here in America! It is time we held our government to account! Action must be taken in the coming mid-term election and in the next Presidential election. We must vote out every politician who has had any part, by act or omission in this usurpation of our Constitution; this abuse or our rights as citizens; and this failure to protect our property and our environment.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

A friend requested that I post a couple of pictures of one of my favorite Texas hang-outs - Billy Bobs - if you ever get a chance, it is a must see, fun place!

Also, here is a clip from a 1960's classic favorite of mine (I have had many a drink listening to this one):







Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Russia Profits from US Sanctions on Iran

According to an AFP account from Moscow and some of my sources in Washington, Russia has signed agreements with Iran to supply fuel to that now energy-hungry country, despite unilateral US and EU sanctions targeting Tehran's oil and gas sectors.

"Russian companies are prepared to deliver oil products to Iran. The possibility of delivering oil products to Iran exists, if there is a commercial interest," said Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko.

Russia has already expressed its dissatisfaction with the sanction measures agreed to last month by the United States and the European Union to punish Iran for its defiance in the nuclear standoff. These go beyond the new UN sanctions that were agreed to by Russia and other world powers which mainly target military-related industries. "Sanctions cannot hinder us," Shmatko said after a meeting in Moscow with Iranian Oil Minister Massoud Mir Kazemi, quoted by Russian news agencies.

The two ministers also signed a joint declaration boosting cooperation in energy that provides Moscow and Tehran a "roadmap" to plan out their future oil and gas cooperation. The declaration says that the two sides will also consider the creation of a joint bank to finance oil and gas projects as well as the founding of other joint energy ventures.

Iran, which holds around 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, is the world's fourth-biggest oil exporter and the second-largest producer in the oil cartel OPEC after Saudi Arabia. However a lack of refining capacity and inefficiency problems means Iran has to import vast volumes of petrol from a variety of sources in order to satisfy domestic demand. According to Russian news agencies, Mir Kazemi declared that sanctions "will in no way have an effect on the economic and industrial development of Iran. Independent countries are truly cooperating with Iran."

The sanctions signed into law by President Barack Obama effectively shut US markets to any firms that provide Iran with refined petroleum products. EU leaders have agreed sanctions banning new investment, technical assistance and technology transfers to Iran's gas and oil industries.

Russia’s action was taken after a resent visit by Russia’s President to Washington during which he had promised cooperation with the United States on enforcing the sanctions. Some people in Washington were quick to point out that one benefit of this political maneuvering by Russia has resulted in a significant increase in the profits they will realized on the petroleum products they will be supplying to Iran.

Despite this disappointing behavior, the Russians did do one thing which will please both Washington and Israel. Russian military official Alexander Fomin on Tuesday did not refer to the S-300s by name, but pledged Moscow would desist from supplying “large missile systems,” in accordance with the sanctions. During a visit to Jerusalem three weeks ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Layrov said that a presidential decree on what weapons would and would not be sold was being formulated, following the UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Iran.

Speaking about Russia, we sometimes loose sight of how much true progress we have made in the United States dealing with immigration and prejudice. Here is a video clip report on the growing violence in Russia against immigrants entering that country looking for jobs:


Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
More News Tidbits:

1) As if once were not enough, it seems 2 more masseuses have turned up and are accusing Al Gore of sexual misconduct.


2)
When Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan in December, he argued that by setting a deadline of next summer to begin drawing down troops he would create a sense of urgency for the Afghan government to take the lead in the fight. But over the past two weeks Mr. Obama has been reminded how the goal has become what one senior American military commander called a “double-edged sword,” one that hanging. The absence of serious progress this year has created doubt , here and abroad, that Mr. Obama will be able to reach even the scaled-down goals he set for America’s mission in the time he laid out in his speech at West Point seven months ago. The result is that the fierce debate over whether the war is worth the cost — a debate that Mr. Obama did not want to join until the Taliban suffered some losses, is happening one summer earlier than he had hoped. Mr. Obama has begun losing critical political figures and strategists who are increasingly vocal in arguing that the benefits of continuing on the current course for at least another year, and probably longer, are greatly outweighed by the escalating price. For two months, Democrats in Congress have been holding up billions of dollars in additional financing for the war, longer than they ever delayed similar requests from President Bush. Most Republican leaders have largely backed a continued commitment, but the White House was surprised the other day when one of Mr. Obama’s mentors on foreign policy issues in the Senate, Richard Lugar of Indiana, argued that “the lack of clarity in Afghanistan does not end with the president’s timetable,” and that both the military and civilian missions were “proceeding without a clear definition of success.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

2014 New Deadline for Afghanistan

I think this is going to be an important story and, in case you have not heard about it already, I wanted you to hear it here first. According to several sources (including the AP) the US and our NATO Allies are meeting on Tuesday to discuss the eventual turning over of responsibility to Afghan forces and the withdrawal of US and NATO troops –by the end of 2014. That is three and a half years after President Obama has told the US public we will begin bringing the troops home.

The plan is that by Tuesday, a one-day international conference will result in giving Americans and Europeans a date for when their involvement in Afghanistan may begin to come to an end. It will also give President Hamid Karzai a chance to show whether his struggling government is making progress toward running the country.

The delegates will endorse the goal of gradually turning over security to Afghan forces by the time Karzai leaves office at the end of 2014.

The Afghan government and the international community are expected to
agree on a plan to decide which of the 34 provinces would be ready for Afghan control and when. The communique however makes no mention of international troop levels during the transition period.

If NATO follows the model used in Iraq, the coalition will likely keep substantial numbers of troops in Afghanistan through much of the transition to help train Afghan forces and to intervene if the Afghans cannot control security and prevent the Taliban from mounting a comeback in provinces cleared of major insurgent forces.

Although Obama said in December that U.S. troops would begin coming home in July 2011, he did not say how many troops would leave then. Critics complained that the date signaled to the Taliban that all they had to do was hold out until the Americans and their allies were gone.

Vice President Joe Biden told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the number of U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan “could be as few as a couple of thousand,” but was once quoted as saying next July’s drawdown would mean “a lot of people moving out.

In London, a senior British diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because final details have not yet been finalized, said the conference would likely agree that the process of handing over control to Afghan forces would begin "early next year".

The diplomat said a NATO conference in Lisbon in October would decide which areas would be handed over immediately. A conference working paper on security says that during the transition, NATO troops may “remain in the lead in specific districts” of provinces nominally under Afghan control.

Ahead of the conference, representatives of Britain and Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, said some troops may have to remain past 2014 to help train Afghan forces.

Speaking to reporters, Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, expressed skepticism that the Afghans will be ready to take over security by 2014, saying “in my personal assessment, it might take longer.

But again it depends on how quickly they are able to train their armed forces, their civilian law enforcement agencies, to take on the responsibility of security and protection of the ordinary Afghan citizen,” said Quereshi, whose government has longtime ties to insurgents. He said Pakistan was ready to help the Afghans achieve stability “because we feel that a stable, peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s interest.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is leading the U.S. delegation, told reporters the Kabul conference “is going to show more Afghan ownership and leadership, which is something we’ve been pushing.” She said the U.S. is “pressing the Afghan government at all levels to be more accountable, to go after corruption,” but that the U.S. also had a responsibility to improve management of its programs.

This whole notion of setting the date so far off is an important change. Here is a clip of Senator Carl Levin, the Democrat that Chairs the Armed Services Committee, from just 3 weeks ago stating clearly on CBS's Face the Nation that the July 2011 date, promised by President Obama, is "important".


Download:
FLVMP43GP


2 Other Important News Tidbits:

1) Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack says the USDA will reconsider ouster of Shirley Sherrod, who resigned over apparent racial remarks captured on video

2) As I predicted last week, the US Senate has broken the filibuster and approved the extension of Unemployment Benefits. The Senate vote was 60-40, which was the minimum needed to pass the measure. It sill needs a last vote in the House, but that should be mostly a formality.


Download:
FLVMP43GP

Monday, July 19, 2010

UAE Ambassador Backs Military Strike Against Iran Nukes

I am sometime surprised by small events. Not long ago one of our allies in the Middle East made some comments which were surprisingly "hawkish" in support of the the United States. The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates, Yousef al-Otaiba, at a conference in Aspen, Colorado said "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran, I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."

Tehran was quick to issue a stern warning from a leading MP of a "teeth-breaking" response to these "harsh and crude" remarks and a possible ban on Iranian travel to the Gulf state, which does billions of dollars of trade annually with Iran.

In an effort to cool tempers the UAE foreign ministry called the reported comments "inaccurate and taken out of context", but the comments were recorded by the Atlantic Magazine, which organized the conference. The ministry emphasized that the UAE wants a peaceful solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear program.

This quarrel follows Iran's decision to scale back economic relations with the UAE after Abu Dhabi implemented the latest United Nations sanctions punishing Iran for ignoring demands over their nuclear program.

The argument is part of a wider nervousness in the Gulf about Iran. The UAE is has been in dispute with it over three islands since 1971. In addition, a controversy developed in nearby Kuwait recently over an alleged spy ring for Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
To calm the situation, the government banned reporting on the matter. The respected Arab commentator Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in the daily Asharq al-Awsat that ``Obama and his refusal to use the threat of force in a genuine manner has made everybody -- not just Tehran -- believe that nothing will stop the Iranian project.''

There are concerns elsewhere about Iranian subversion against the Sunni Arab monarchies. For example, a Sunni group claimed responsibility for several bombs in an Iranian Mosque last week which killed several key members of the Revolutionary Guard.

Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador, was quoted as saying that he "absolutely" wanted the US to use force to halt Iran's nuclear program. "Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently," he said. "I can only speak for the UAE, but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Iran doesn't have nuclear power now but … what makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we are going to be able to be more successful in containing them?"

We have heard similar sentiments before. When the Saudi Foreign Minister visited Washington in February, he uttered the usual support for a diplomatic process. But he warned that history shows when a weapon is introduced in the Middle East, it ends up being used. Then he noted that sanctions are a long-term approach and ``we need immediate resolutions rather than gradual resolution.''

In another example of Saudi nervousness a Saudi cleric Aidh al-Qarni wrote a column entitled "Oh Arabs, Iran is Coming", saying the West would not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which Tehran would then aim at Arabs, not Israelis.

Analysts and diplomats are aware such views are often expressed in private by officials in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. "Otaiba's remarks may or may not be a gaffe but they certainly reflect official thinking in Abu Dhabi," said Christopher Davidson, a Gulf expert at Durham University. "They want to see more American boots on the ground, and they don't want to live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran."

Davidson pointed out that the UAE is open to accusations of sanctions-busting because Dubai, the closest to Iran of the UAE's seven emirates, is a key trans-shipment point for the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran and the UAE have close economic ties. Thousands of Iranian companies and businessmen operate in the country and bilateral trade is estimated at $10bn (£6.6bn) a year, mostly made up of Iranian imports.

Last week the UAE central bank asked financial institutions in the federation to freeze the bank accounts of 41 Iranians, including the managers of key companies owned by the Revolutionary Guards. The UAE also closed 40 international and local firms accused of shipping contraband and banned dual-use goods to Iran.

July 20, 2010: On This Day in History:
1810 Columbia declares independence from Spain
1868 First tax on cigarettes
1881 Sitting Bull surrenders
1944 US invades Guam
1969 First Man on the Moon


Now, something different, a real shark attack, by 2 Great Whites:

Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP
Download:
FLVMP43GP