I guess if you’re the President it’s much easier not to remember how bad it is. Every time you remember, you would also have to face your role in it assuming the absence of a messianic view of yourself and the world. We know, without doubt, that the President also tends to forget that he is the ultimate responsible party and that his policies have not broken through the walls to growth or ‘real’ reductions in unemployment.

The impact of the recession may be forgotten by our President from time to time, however, his ability to color failures with disingenuous rhetoric and the blame game are never forgotten. I wondered some time ago how long blaming Bush could go on; that was a year into the administration; it never occurred to me that it would be the case three and a half years into the administration. That approach to justification is never forgotten. Odd, the nature and scope of the problem can be forgotten but not the accusations that go along with it.

The fundamental nature of elitism is to be disassociated with the harsh realities of the great unwashed while simultaneously using them as the rational for your agenda. In this, the President is no different from all manner of elitists. The ‘little people’ are not to be seriously considered, they are to be used. Your concerns will not be addressed in any substantive fashion if they do not fit the strategic agenda but we’ll make you believe they are. The Gay Marriage issue is just such a case, agreement in principal to make you feel good but no concrete action to make it a reality.

The President may have a bit of a memory problem; hopefully we do not!

There is a gap between Reported and Implied unemployment as you would expect. However, analysis of the trends over time shows that current unemployment reporting is likely false and the statistical analysis that produces it is fatally flawed……………..or manipulated .

Since 1980 the trend lines between Reported and Implied are consistent. The degree of gap varies but the major trend lines are consistent to each other, the two points of analysis always follow the same general trending moving up and down consistent to each other; until mid 2009.

It is at that point that the 30 year trend shows a major departure from trend line consistency. Since 1988 the Implied unemployment rate is consistently below the actual unemployment rate. In 2009 that trend reverses with the implied unemployment rate being significantly higher than the unemployment rate reported by the Bureau of Labor statistics.

In the early 80’s a similar situation existed related to high unemployment where the Implied unemployment rate was higher than the Reported rate, however, the general trending was consistent until the crossover point occurred based on an improving economy.

Not so now and not so since 2009. The trend lines for the two points of analysis have diverged and for the first time the trend lines occur in complete opposition to each other, meaning that as the Reported rate declines, Implied unemployment moves in exactly the opposite direction. The degree to which the gap occurs is also the most significant it has been since 1980.

Reported unemployment is at 8%, Implied unemployment is nearly 12%. That gap represents a 50% margin of error related to Reported unemployment. The gaps have been moving in opposition to each other consistently and for the first time. The gap has enlarged consistently since 2009.

This is, self admittedly, more than a little bit geeky but if jobs and the economy are the major issues this is a major point of contention and leads to questions of validity. Did the basis for the statistical reporting change? What justifies the dramatic change in a consistent 30 year trend? Are the numbers being ‘cooked’? Have the numbers been politicized?

What is clear is that something changed! See the charting at the link below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/Real%20Unemployment%20Rate.jpg

As the President ‘spiked the ball’ on bin Laden the storyline of his courageous decision began to wither. Gen. Jack Keane reports that his sources say we knew the bin Laden location in May of 2010. Reports have Valerie Jarrett building wall after wall in the attempt to insure that the action against bin Laden would not occur. Some of these reports were seen not long after the completion of the raid and although anonymous at the time, turned out to be true. (www.theulstermanreport.com) Leon Panetta sent Lawyer Team Six to create documents giving the President ‘political cover’ in the event the raid went wrong and as a way to expedite a White House decision. Leaks have Secretaries Clinton and Panetta vehemently arguing for going after bin Laden as Valerie Jarrett fought to hold them off. Director Petraeus threatened to take bin Laden out of his own volition with a bombing attack. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey suggests that more information will come “tumbling out about that escapade”.

The essential problem for the President is a question of leadership, and the perceptions that associate themselves with leadership issues. To say your opponent would not have made the ‘courageous decision’ you made, when it seems as if you yourself had an exceptionally difficult time making the decision, based on the advice of someone who, shall we say, is not renown for foreign policy expertise, could be problematic. To require a politically expedient cover to allow you to blame the very people that you count on to execute the raid is a classic example of weak leadership. Heck, even Jimmy Carter did not insist on that manner of ‘cover”! Think about it.

To accomplish leadership skills is generally a function of having had examples good and bad, the making of mistakes and a serious engagement of what leadership dynamics are about. The President’s experience in these areas is, and always has been, in question. This situation answers the question yet again.

Effective leaders don’t blame, they assign accountability, including to themselves. Leaders step up when a failure occurs in their realm of responsibility. Leaders seek out opportunities to turn the spotlight on others. They avoid the word ‘I’ whenever possible. They look to engage talent and unleash potential.

First and foremost, however, great leaders understand that leadership is a moral exercise grown out of communicable values. Leaders credit those they lead with the ability to judge motivations as well as actions. Great people want to work for great people. Leaders generate trust and commitment by doing, not just saying. They understand that no one gets it done in a vacuum and do not attempt to do so. They know that if an action requires a cover up, it’s time to have a second thought. Ultimately your leadership style grows out of who you are at your moral core; good or bad.

The President simply does not stand up to these principals. Blame is omnipresent, twisted logic prevails, what he’s said versus what he’s done is, at best, a 50/50 proposition.

Most critical is the question of leadership as a function of moral grounding. To assiduously protect yourself from the people you depend on (in this case, the military, in the person of General McRaven) is heinous. The President needs ‘cover’, a potential scapegoat, someone to sacrifice so that he can escape blame if the operation goes bad. If the operation goes bad lives are lost, that should have been the primary concern; it clearly was not!

Compare the President with Director Petraeus who was, according to reporting, willing to go it alone to get bin Laden. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Petraeus would have stood up to the consequences of his actions? We now know the President had no intention of standing up to the consequences of his actions, he needed cover in advance. He is, however, prepared not only to accept the adulation for his ‘gutsy decision’, but to bestow it upon himself.

Not to worry Monsieur, the ‘world of finance’ will give up in short order and you can declare victory. Wealthy French and French investors have been burning up bandwidth for a month as they faced the likelihood of President Francois Hollande. They are looking for shelter from the onset of the Socialist storm according to the ‘world of finance’ in Britain as high priced assets get loving French attention. One would expect that the monetary outflow from France will be significant and light on its feet. Along with capital flight, jobs and liquidity will also queue up on the financial runway out of France. Hey, is that Euro thing still looking good?

France can forget rational ‘austerity’ or putting their financial house in order; viva La Socialist Internationale. Everyone gets to keep their goodies………………for now.

Germany must be thrilled; having hung themselves out there to stabilize the European financial situation the French President Elect wants more…………more, more, more. Germany has issued their answer; nein! The ideas that underly the financial success of Germany, growth and job creation appear incapable of crossing the Maginot Line. The new French Presidents believes in……..wait for it……..tax and spend.

France despite its long history apparently does not possess an equivalent scope of memory. Prior to Prime Minster Thatcher, Britain had a top tax rate of 90% and was in a severe and long suffered hard recession. That tax rate was why America was filled with British Millionaire Rock Stars. The significant reduction in tax rates was a key factor in fueling British economic recovery, as it was here under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

This could be good for us, an object lesson in living color. We get to watch what happens when Socialist principles prevail. We get to watch as France avoids inevitable decisions. We get to see where the money goes. We may, as well, see how quickly the E.U. begins to come apart as the financial version of the Maginot Line!

Incoming search terms:

• yo gotti testimony hulkshare com

Theater is what’s left. They know their interrogations have been well publicized. They know as well there is a precept in Islam that allows you to ‘break’ without guilt if you held out long enough and with as much Godly sincerity as you could muster. The story is told how tough KSM was, he’s covered; the same might be said for the rest.

They know what’s coming. This is the last hurrah. This is a long running dramatic series! The actual trial is still a year away according to the New York Times.

The gymnastics are familiar. Chief among them will be ‘torture’; mainly in the effort to broadly disqualify evidence presented against them. Continual charges of unfairness and lack of jurisdiction. Arguments based on ‘religious grounds’ and the infringement of religious rights as seen by the defendants. Insistence they be tried under Islamic law. Arguments based on lack of access to documents, based on security restrictions. There will be bad behavior in court. Bad behavior behind the scenes as well, as the detainees enter the realm of the public eye. They know that, here in the belly of The Great Satan, the public eye guarantees a measure of safety; they will take advantage. Not a good time to be a Military Policeman at Gitmo.

Our ‘friends’ along with rational actors will not be overly energized in criticism of legal process at Gitmo; no gain no loss. However, among those who do not fit the aforementioned categories, we lose. We lose because we have not achieved the understanding that in these matters if it’s not Islamic, it’s absent validity. If it’s not Islamic jurisprudence; the very rights or obligations of ‘others’ to judge is not recognized.

In the Islamic World, this drama will play well; heroic brothers, spitting in the eye of the Great Satan. Ladies and Gentlemen we have new heroes in waiting. We will, hopefully, be smart enough not to put them to death. Martyrdom is a powerful concept in Islam. We should guarantee them a long life spent complaining about their ‘conditions’.

The Russians are threatening to preemptively attack missile defense sites if they don’t get their way; it’s a ‘negotiation’. They will, apparently, stamp their feet and throw a few tactical missiles at Turkey, Poland and Romania? An attack on those missile sites would likely be deemed a strike against NATO.

What could possibly motivate the Russians to issue such a threat in the middle of the ‘negotiations’? We say its defense against Iranian missiles, the Russians say Nyet, it could also be used against us Comrade. The logical take away is that the Russians want nothing to stand in their way should they decide to hurl a few nukes hither and yon!

Let’s review. The Russians have been after the missile defense deployments for years. Early in the Obama administration they were able to back us off leaving Poland and the Czech Republic hanging. Reason one for the threat; it worked last time. Reason two; they don’t want to make the same mistake that led to the end of the Cold War and attempt to compete with the technology. Russian technology is good but not this good; witness the number of Aeroflot planes dropping out of the sky every year.

The Russians are concerned that their Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent will be rendered impotent consistent with about 50% of their male population. The Russian deterrent was of questionable quality when it was new, that was a long time ago. What the Russians are truly concerned with in the short run is protecting Iran. The recent history of Russia running interference for Iran is significant and consistent. Russia also built the Bushehr nuclear reactor for Iran.

Will Russia engage the West militarily to protect Iran? Not likely! That would render the proper response to Vlad and the boys as something along the lines of “shove your Vodka where the sun don’t shine; we’re deploying the defensive missiles” and “oh, by the way get out of the way regarding Iran and we can talk about the missiles later on”! “Help put a cap on Iranian missile and nuclear technology and maybe we won’t need the missiles.”

Russia does this because they can. Russia does this because they smell weakness and lack of resolve. Russia does this because they know NATO is slowly disintegrating. Russia will continue to do this so long as ‘engagement’ and ‘reset’ is the policy of the West.

Incoming search terms:

• aeroflot

The President’s speech in Afghanistan mentioned al Qaeda, The Taliban and bin Laden a dozen times reinforcing his very direct statement; “our goal is to destroy al Qaeda” this, in the context of unattributed quotes from the White House that ‘the war on terror is over’. If only!

The President is clear in his attempt diminish the scope of vision related to terrorism evidenced by a reinforced, yet narrow focus on al Qaeda. There are a number of problems with the President’s focus.

Physical terrorism is not the primary threat! Muslim Brotherhood leadership has announced their opinion that regards the U.S., physical terrorism is counter-productive. They also stated that they were ‘pleased’ with the cultural and political inroads rendering terrorism unnecessary in the moment. The threat and the opportunity are political, cultural and legal. Galloping political correctness that equates Islam with Western Judeo Christian ethics is the basis for the flaw in the President’s judgment. By contending or implying that Islamic behaviors, law and culture are equivalent, we diminish our sense of confidence in our traditional belief and political systems. This lack of confidence and moral equivalency is the cornerstone of Islamist / Salafist strategic imperatives. Europe in general is finally taking the first halting steps toward recognition that their culture, social and legal systems are in severe jeopardy. In England it may already be too late. Mass immigration, the absence of assimilation, expansive public benefits, rampant political correctness, allowing shadow Sharia courts, anti Semitism and cultural equivalency will, unchecked, render Jolly Ole England a fond memory in two to three generations.

The dangerously narrow focus is consistent with the President’s actions. Entertaining the Islamist / Salafist brain trust in the person of the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House speaks volumes to one of two potentialities. Either the President does not understand the role and goals of the Brotherhood or is caught in the false narrative that they are ‘moderate’. It is, for this writer, incomprehensible but it is what it is. What it is is dangerous. That’s what is, is!

To ignore the rat’s nest of Islamist / Salafist infrastructure: it’s legal efforts, funding sources, efforts to undermine Western Culture and the displacement and murder of non Muslims simply looks away from the root of the problem. Perhaps in that context the war on terror is over. The question is who will win the legal and cultural war; who will win the war of ideas?

The war on ‘terror is, in fact, over if we continue foreign aid to Egypt and Hamas. Money from the Big Satan must be ever so sweet. It’s over in the absence of push back related to terror funding from Saudi Arabia. It’s over as long as U.S. based, Brotherhood connected organizations such as CAIR, ICNA and MSA enjoy the benefits of appeasement and lack of attention to their self stated goal. (That would be the goal of converting the U.S. to a Muslim dominated country, their words not mine.) It’s over in the absence of aggressively fighting back against Iran’s terror networks. It’s over in the absence of the application of the Monroe Doctrine in South and Central America; Equator, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba.

If we ignore the 18,825 Jihadi attacks since 9/11 then the war on terror is over. In April Jihadi attacks killed 692 people and critically injured another 1,279 in 26 countries! The war may be over for us, it’s just not over for them.

“They have a watch, we have time.”

James Carville was right “it’s the economy stupid”, but it goes deeper than the generally ascribed context. More accurately, it would be; “It’s control of the economy stupid!” That is a somewhat deeper representation of the idea. The economy is the Holy Grail, everything else is: prelude, distraction or a means to an end.

It’s about Capitalism as an economic system. You cannot engage the rhetoric and strategic imperatives of the elite left and be left with any other strategic perception, that is the case on the right as well. The left is clear, Capitalism must go. There are differences in analysis, perception, strategy and tactics, there is little argument surrounding the ultimate goal. There can be no question as to the sincerity and passion surrounding the goal of economic transformation; true believers abound as do crass opportunists, as is the case in any movement. The movement on the left is massive with tens of thousands of appendages and significant control of major institutions.

All of the major players on the left are cross pollinated, participate in multiple organizations in a variety of roles, create new organizations at the drop of a hat, form temporary goal orientated coalitions and have wealthy benefactors. It creates an inexorable momentum steadily moving toward economic transformation and greater structural wealth redistribution. Two ways to redistribute wealth: structurally by way of government policy or, as a function of an expanding economy. It’s hard to control an expanding economy that creates wealth. If you believe control is the key, the expansion must be slowed to allow for ……. greater control. Capitalism cannot be viewed as the predominant beneficent economic system.

It’s not about immediate total control, even the left knows this is fantasy; it’s about getting to the tipping point. The tipping point is, now, not that hard to see. Government control of 51% of the economy is just over the next horizon.

If you oppose Capitalism and maintain a commitment to its elimination it must be discredited. For the economic ideas on the left to be correct, Capitalism must fail. You must facilitate the failure, despite the pain of the transition, the means are unimportant, only the result is important; not my words these are the words from leftist elites.

One argument on the left is that Capitalism does not have to fail utterly, Corporatism is good enough. Why strangle the Golden Goose when you can slip a rope around its neck? Corporatism was a Fascist idea applied by Mussolini and later adopted by Hitler, “play ball and you can stay in the game, if not consider yourself Socialized as a state run industry; we’ll get to the justifications later on.” GE plays ball, the health care industry during the health care debate played ball, GM and Chrysler played ball, to name a few; It’s just a question of tactics, goals are essentially the same. It’s control of the economy stupid!

In that context it is easy to understand the rational for the auto bail out, bank bailout, the insurance bail out, cash for clunkers, energy regulations that escalate as prices do, encouraging them higher. GE’s tax return, consistently striking out against success is easy to understand as is the vast waste of ‘green’ money. See, Capitalism doesn’t work!

The left must create the parameters whereby Corporatism starts to make sense from the corporation’s point of view. You do that with taxes, regulations, inspections, mountains of paperwork, incomprehensible regulatory language, threats and regressive trade policy. It all comes with bromides of one fashion or another; ‘fairness’, or ‘it’s the children’, when control and punishment are the true goals. How expensive does the government have to become to make it look like a good idea to “play ball”? Senior members of Congress (Ms. Waters) threaten in open committee to ‘socialize’ a wide swath of industry”. She does so with passion, she means it!

If you want Capitalism to fail or transmogrify into Corporatism there has to be a new normal that makes Capitalism look weak and inadequate to the challenges. Long recessions do that, a vast majority of Americans currently think we’re still in a recession. If economics is, in large measure, a function of perception and confidence, the new normal is well on its way to fruition. 7% unemployment would, most times, be cause for concern, now it would be a cause for joy as we ‘move in the right direction’. The new normal! Here is the new normal from Rep Chaka Fattah (D-PA); We’re headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop (arguable) and for those people who are unemployed, they’re not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits”. In other words; ‘for us Democrats, your dependency, which we helped create, is political capital.’ The Conservative idea that you’d rather have a good job and prospects for economic growth is the policy that “got us into this mess in the first place”!

If you’ve detected a lack of urgency on the Left for serious addressment of economic conditions as they stand now it’s because as Capitalism is subjected to an ongoing flogging the possibility that it will be perceived to have failed will increase. This condition creates ever more opportunity to more quickly reach the tipping point; to expedite the long awaited final decline of Capitalism.

Normal folks don’t think this way, but the folks who are driving the agenda on the left do.

You must control spending. The left by way of the President and Congressional allies have, in light of: massive debt and deficits, entitlements nearing bankruptcy, inflation, tight credit, student loan takeover, ownership stakes in cars, finance, home loans and insurance also established new bankruptcy precedents by fiat not to forget ‘Dodd Frank’ and ’ Sarbanes Oxley’. Presidential tax policy proposals that would, at best, take care of three quarters of one percent of the annual deficit. These factors associated with an abject refusal to cut or restructure spending. The idea that new spending should be paid for from another program is a radical idea.

Capitalism itself tends to contribute to its own potential failure; ‘big capitalism tends to be guilty of overarching greed, the occasional inability to do the right thing, failures of courage in support of Capitalism, the consistent tendency to cave in to the pressures of the moment and the absence of ‘big’ capitalism to ‘call out’ their brethren when it should do so.

However, there is also ‘small’ capitalism; small business, individuals seeking the benefits of economic success and, more often than not; doing the right thing for their employees and their communities. That particular baby will go out with the bathwater as well, should Capitalism fail in reality or perception.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/25/house_dem_unemployed_will_vote_for_obama_to_keep_their_benefits.html

Incoming search terms:

• slaves to the magic flac

Toure’ contends that people are ashamed of being racist. He postulates that they “try to hide, to do their best never to reveal it”. Toure’ bases his contention on a conversation with one women who confessed to racism saying; “thoughts come into my mind…..it was my upbringing, I fight it but it’s there”. Based on the sample of one, Toure reaches understanding. He understands the woman’s ‘ thoughts’ but not, apparently her fight against those thoughts, Thoughts, unbidden are reason enough to ascribe racism. Based on his survey of one, he professes that racism is, in essence, universal and unalterable.

Toure’ further contends; ”Race as we know it is a social construct and, in the sweep of human history, a relatively recent concept invented in America to justify having both ‘liberty for all’ and Slavery.” Racism as an operable concept existed long before America was a glint in the Founder’s eyes. Were Toure’ to focus on the confliction inherent in the Hobson’s Choice faced by the Founders and the ripples of that decision as well as the historical roots of European racism, he could make a more compelling argument, he does not. He could attempt to make the argument that permanent slavery in the South as the colonies became not one but two countries would have been a better alternative. Or that the Civil War would have been better won by the South.

Toure’ wants it both ways; racism is sub conscious, embedded, there is nothing you can do about it, but……………the Founders should have overcome it and not created the social construct he refers to??? He points to the success of Black Americans as a sign of progress and immediately rejects it quoting Arundati Roy; “like the President pardoning one turkey and then eating another”. No way out folks, you’re just a bunch of racists……………no matter what!

He utilized Michelle Alexander and her book ‘The New Jim Crow’ in support of his argument for perpetual racism. Ms. Alexander, however, has suffered significant criticism for broad assertions and the inability to support her central contentions. She’s entitled to her perspective and opinions but her academic peers contend that her work is weak.

Ah, but then Toure’ lets us off the hook of immutability; “The racist mind does not have to hate every black person it encounters, and indeed not hating all may serve as a valuable safety valve, releasing pressure and proving to the mind itself that it is not a racist. Few people want to think of themselves as evil.”

There are, of course, from Toure’ no prescriptions for correcting the facts of racism in America other than, one must surmise, continuing to beat us to death over not only actual failures and racism but the mere perception of a failure as well as sub-conscious programming. Toure’ knows what’s in your mind, nice trick; what’s next the Vulcan Mind Meld?

It is, for Toure’ not racism for Toure’ to assume that each and every non Black is, has to be, a racist! The proof? Not to worry there are unspecified ‘studies’. While he points to Black stereotypes that we best leave behind, he does not address behaviors in the Black community that give evidence to some of those stereotypes. It’s no different than outrageously costumed parade makers on gay pride day insisting, cut out chaps notwithstanding, we take them seriously. Sorry folks pick one of the above; trying to have it both ways always limits credibility.

Toure’ may have held up the mirror that Shelby Steele did in the interest of context; “Before the 1960’s the Black American Identity was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the 60’s in a society guilty for its long abuse of us, we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake.” Steele goes on; It has given us a generation of ambulance chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt.”

There is racism in America! There is also a multi decade’s long effort on the part of the majority to insure that our ‘sub-conscious’ does not overwhelm or control our conscious, accepting, for the moment, Toure’s central theme. Many subscribe to the idea that our behaviors are the only available place to begin to de-program the programming Toure’ references. Oh, by the way Mr. Toure’ most of us did not program our children the way our parents programmed us. We contribute to the generational effort to eliminate racism to the degree we have it in our power to do so.

Although if things go according to the script Toure’ follows, it’s still not worthy. Some ‘study’ will conclude our sub-conscious racism will have, somehow, also been transmitted to our children. Sub-consciously of course! Toure’ knows your mind!

Perhaps William James’s advice is well remembered; “if you want a quality, act as if you already had it!”

Incoming search terms:

• gallup poll is racist and has no credibility
• time magazine toure has no credibility

The Secretary, effectively, argues for a ‘broad consideration’ of the indicators and he refers to segments of the economy, okay, fair is fair. There is, however, a ‘but’ here. ‘But’ ….. exclusive of jobs; except for weak job growth, things are looking up. He was asked for his prediction of the unemployment rate on Election Day, he declined. We’re looking rosy, except for the ‘buts’. Why so coy? You could have simply said ‘improved’, that’s not too high a bar; or is it? The unasked and unanswered question Bob simply is; “how far can the economy improve on weak jobs growth?”

Mr. Geithner defends the administration’s economic record, pointing to 4,000,000 private sector jobs and contends, reasonably, that they began from a very bad economic place, also true. The argument is not about the place it began, the argument is surrounded by the fact that this is the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. That fact is, it has to be, a result of policy.

Mr. Geithner’s pride in 4,000,000 jobs is a average of, 105,363.2 jobs created per month since the beginning of the administration. Assume an unrealistic improvement of 20% immediately. That’s 125,315.8 jobs per month. The Brookings Institution has ‘recalculated’ their estimate of 125,000 jobs per month to maintain equilibrium, to 208,000 jobs per month. At that level it will take till 2020 to “close the jobs gap”, compared to pre-recession levels. From where we are with the averages we need the current average rate of job growth must double to get us to the Brooking’s numbers by 2020. There is also the math required to move averages. To get from 100,000 average jobs per month to 200,000 jobs per month requires an actual job growth of 300,000 per month for 37 months. No one is predicting that!

The jobs comments are either an exercise in diminished expectations or the Secretary knows it’s not going to be good and has no intention of being saddled as the horse that carries the news as he announced his intention to be a one term appointee. He also cannot admit to failed policy.

To the south the President maintained his contentions regarding tax policy, adding a new twist. His tax policy for people earning over a million dollars is “the only path to economic growth”, says the President. Of course economic history renders his policy not only hollow but false; ah, what the heck? Why let pesky facts get in the way of a good old fashion class war!

Iran? Nope, the nuclear program continues. Iraq under Saddam, no joy there either. The Iraq, Iran War staggered along for eight years. Bosnia, Tibet, the Troubles? Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11?

Darfur? Still a mess! Sudan? Same old same old! Syria? There are thousands of dead and more of the same to come. North Korea? No; nothing good to report from our living laboratory of Orwellian totalitarianism. Oil for Food; little else aside from rampant corruption, including the U.N Secretary General’s family.

What of slavery, genocide, human trafficking, pedophilia, gun running, kidnapping, piracy, and manufactured famine? All these stains on the human condition suffer the self righteous condemnation and ‘pressure’ from the international non-community…….. Nothing ever happens.

But, but, wait; we’ve got the IAEA overseeing nuclear non proliferation. The IAEA overwatch includes Pakistan, South Africa, India, Libya and Iran, all going nuclear or attempting to do so and succeeding to varying degrees. South Africa gives up but its difficult to determine whether the uproar over the nuclear program or the economic sanctions related to apartheid did the trick. Either way it took a very long time. Libya was frightened that the invasion in Iraq could be coming to the neighborhood; it had nothing to do with international ‘pressure’, it was pure self interest. The rest have or will have nuclear weapons.

Well, you say, we’ve got the United Nations; a bastion of peace and security! Thousands of resolutions passed in the comfy confines of New York City. Results? Nada! Where are most of those resolutions aimed? At Israel; a democratic state with a healthy economy and a minority Arab population enjoying rights of citizenship unavailable to them in their own Arab countries.

Back to George Orwell in 1984; “War is Peace: Freedom is Slavery: Ignorance is Strength.” It may as well be the official motto of our beloved International Community and its surrogates at the U.N.; at least the suggested motto would not be too far from the actual truth. Oops, the motto just went to the Ministry of Truth.

Incoming search terms:

• 1984 war is peace rational?
• most striking things on 1984 novel ignorence is strength
• north korea ignorance is strength

Ms. Rosen’s recent comments have attracted much commentary. Beyond the circumstantial specifics is an attitude; an attitude that still endeavors to define feminism narrowly. ‘Feminism’ is not simply the freedom to make choices as one sees fit without limitations. Feminism, in Ms. Rosen’s world, is a specific set of acceptable life styles. If you vary from acceptability your views are dismissed, your intellect is dismissed; an ability to absorb and understand issues is dismissed. That’s a lot of dismissal and that’s a lot of women hurled from the ranks of acceptability. One hopes that these rejected women are good and truly insulted at both the words and the attitude. This is the worse manner of intellectual elitism and it’s what killed any in common understanding or acceptance of what Feminism is, or should be.

Women who raise children, especially boys (special place in heaven for the mothers of boys) are critical to the social and cultural fabric. Women are a civilizing influence, any man worth his breath will, albeit reluctantly in some cases, admit as much. One need only look to societies where women are minimized, controlled and treated as chattel to draw the appropriate cultural comparatives.

Mrs. Romney is bright, attractive, well spoken with an undeniable air of class about her. Heck, even Liberals like Mika B. love her. Not good enough, according to Ms. Rosen. Stay at home Mom’s are incapable of speaking to, let alone understanding the nature of economics. Motherhood is not ‘work’? Ms. Rosen as the adoptive parent of twins should know better. Perhaps there a 24 hours nanny service in play at the Rosen household?

But I digress. Ms. Rosen is yet another classic example of Liberal thinking. Choice is only of value when you make the right choice, the elitist choice; the PC choice. Work is only work if there’s a paycheck involved. Good is only good when we say it is.

Ms. Rosen will have women everywhere giving a thought both the comments and the attitude. Whatever you do Ms. Rosen, don’t apologize. ‘Choose’ to hold your ground as it turns to political quicksand beneath your feet.

Incoming search terms:

• ie password recovery master
• naturally - selena gomez note pdf
• what killed feminism

Had the President not taken a shot at the Supreme Court’s consideration of ObamaCare it would have been a surprise. He publically castigated the Court over the Citizens United decision in the context of a State of The Union Speech. He reminds us that the Supreme Court is ‘unelected’. The President, however, has no problems with Courts that have furthered the Leftist agenda such as striking down public referendums. Duh! Has Homer Simpson turned up as a key legal advisor to our former Constitutional scholar?

The President publically announced that what failed legislatively would be accomplish by way of bureaucratic regulation. The President has gone ahead and done exactly that. Departments of Energy, Interior and the EPA have essentially applied the thinking behind Cap and Trade despite rejection in Congress and the potential for dire economic consequences. Dire economic consequences are why India and China have totally rejected Kyoto and why we did as well.

Mr. Obama’s regulatory ‘Czar’, Mr. Sunstein believes that you just keep executing ‘regulatory pushes in increments’ to move regulation into a position where it dominates legislation. This is the same guy that wants lawyers for your dogs and cats. The President’s key advisor, Ms. Jarrett, has an unquestionably Socialist past. His former White House environmental advisor sat on the board of the Socialist International. Forget the details however, look to the pattern.

The firm majority passing ObamaCare that the President spoke of was, as I recall, 222 to 215 and that only after deals and assurances that were, in some cases, ignored. The President apparently considers this vote a mandate. Nowhere does he mention the 2:1 public opposition to ObamaCare because in the Leftist view, your opposition is nothing more than trailer park ignorance. ObamaCare is not about health care in the final analysis; it’s about how much government control the left can accomplish over your life.

Mr. Holder, questioned on the ongoing need for Affirmative Action responds that in his view it has not even started yet. Voter Intimidation and death threats by the New Black Panthers are ignored empowering them to, as a petulant child would do, push further to identify the limits; assuming that in Mr. Holder’s view, there actually are limits. Radical Islamist theology does not exist for Mr. Holder, can’t even get the words out of his mouth. This is the man appointed to protect your legal rights under a Constitution that he essentially rejects when inconvenient to his desires. Patterns?

This is the threshold of a future the Left has dreamed of; a small cadre of elites who know best. A system whereby you as an individual are minimized as unequipped to make significant decisions about your life and the systems you are governed by. This thinking is, and has always been essentially totalitarian. The Left has been the source of Fascism, Socialism, Communism and any number of philosophical and political hybrids. But they all maintain guiding principles: centralized control, eventual evolution to totalitarian systems and the ‘enlightened’ strong man as the centerpiece of absolute control.

The American version of evolving Fascism is incremental; bit by bit the individual is diminished in the interest of: security, fairness, or the ‘greater good’. The context changes but the goals have always remained the same. The tactics have also remained the same, divide and conquer. Separate society by class, race and religion. Evolve the political process so that no one philosophical or political position is capable of fighting off the pattern. Demonize, create the straw man as a nexus for anger and frustration; “it’s the ‘other’ that has done this to you’; whomever the ‘other’ may happen to be. Create dependencies; eliminate the energies and commitments necessary to turn away from the evolution to totalitarianism. Dissemble; insure that it’s never really about what it appears to be about or what you say it’s about. Don’t worry about being on both sides of the issue, the true believers know the code.

Patterns! It’s the only way to evaluate the particulars.

20 years ago there were 256 mandates to insurance companies in terms of mandatory coverage conditions, today it is over 2,000 and will grow under ObamaCare. These mandates ignore age, condition and health status. The motivation was understandable as insurance companies were playing coverage games and there were clear cases of abuse. However, in the effort to justifiably protect some, these mandates accelerated costs for all. If you’re a 20 year old athlete in great health you are protected from a wide variety of circumstances that will, likely, not impact you for decades, if ever.

The question also looms: is there an appropriate role for government to play in health care? Yes there is!

The math? The most frequently quoted number is that 46 million Americans don’t have health care. 12 million of those 46 million are not Americans which leaves us with 34 million. Of the remaining 34 million between ages 18 and 65, 17 million had enough income to purchase health insurance if they chose according to a study by Barach College. That leaves 17 million uninsured. Of that remaining 17 million some uninsured were uninsured only temporarily, again according to Baruch College. So by any margin of error adjustment you might apply, over 90% of Americans are, in fact insured or specifically choose not to be.

We have, to some degree, universal coverage as hospitals are not allowed to refuse initial treatments regardless of insurance status.

Government run health care already exists in four high profile programs, Medicare, Medicaid the Veterans Administration and the Native American Health Service. Medicare and Medicaid have massive unfunded liabilities and the VA and the NAHS are abysmal failures.

So instead of jumping off the financial cliff let’s take a swipe at actual reform.

1. Mandate the guarantee of progressive coverage: as you age and your needs change the ability to adapt and convert coverage will reduce overall costs and provide guaranteed options. If you’re 20 and in good health you should be able to opt for a program that covers preventative intervention and catastrophic events, not the 2,000 conditions that will likely not affect you. As needs change so should coverage options.

2. Allow for a new definition of what constitutes a group. Small business especially start ups have encountered the “group” issue; the requirement to insure a minimum number of employees before qualifying for group rates. You’ve also faced the average age issue and limited choices based on employee population size and demographics. Vast numbers of small business cannot get over the “group” requirements. Mandate the recognition of new types of groups that will allow small business to participate at a reasonable cost; Chambers of Commerce, Trade Associations and groupings of similar type businesses with similar employee populations. Most small business can afford some coverage for their employees they simply cannot afford it outside of “group” rates.

3. Eliminate COBRA as it is currently structured. COBRA is a well intentioned idea that simply does not work for anyone without significant income or resources. The average increase in costs for health coverage under COBRA is 200%-300%. Your $400 a month contribution to your company provided coverage will result in $1,200 – $1,500 per month cost to maintain your plan under COBRA. COBRA is your option to maintain coverage if you lose your job. Following the logic, the loss of a job typically eliminates COBRA as an affordable option. COBRA should be transformed to a pooled national group allowing unemployed individuals to maintain basic health coverage at their prior contribution levels. Temporary government money to support what was the employer’s contribution would be an acceptable cost without the need for massive bureaucratic intervention. Employers would also be given the option to maintain their contribution and receive tax incentives for doing so simplifying the process.

4. Eliminate state based restrictions on insurance plan competition. Allow for national competition. Competition has always been the surest way to reduce costs to consumers. If a business in Florida can get the exact same plan in Nebraska, from the same company that offers the plan in both states but at a 45% discount, why not? That approach will actually reduce costs and expand the pool of covered employees. That idea will also tend to balance costs based on larger pools of participants. This option will require the states to agree to base line national standards for oversight and coverage options.

5. Allow surcharges for risky behavior. For instance, smokers pay more after a year of their plan being in place if they do not quit. Same for obesity, drug use, sky diving, mountain climbing, bungee jumping etc. If I smoke and don’t make the choice to quit I should pay more for insurance, my behavior should not be a drain on the entire insurance pool. We have already accepted the idea that life and liability insurance coverage considers risk, perhaps health coverage should as well, within rational boundaries.

6. Eliminate a vast majority of mandatory coverage requirements and allow a tiered system appropriate to age, condition and family size. Institute the requirement for clear guidance from insurance companies as to exactly what is covered under each option, and associated costs. This requirement should be executed at an eighth grade reading level, no fine print and no games. Take the social engineering out of health insurance coverage.

7. A large majority of Health Care costs are concentrated on early and late life. Create a privately managed, government supported insurance plan that supplements typical insurance plans and is focused on catastrophic health events, early life crisis and terminal care. Require all insurance companies to participate in funding a trust based on their number of subscribers, with government support for expense beyond the trust. Universal Health Care as currently structured demands rationing. It sounds rational, the pure numbers support rationing…………. until it’s your parent, wife, husband or child that is being denied care based on some decision being made somewhere by someone you don’t have access to.

8. Malpractice; There are in fact two forms of malpractice but only one carries a legal jeopardy. The first is obvious and a significant part of the current health care cost equation. There are clearly cases of medical malpractice albeit they are a very small percentage when compared to the number of individuals receiving care. The medical industry engages in massive spending associated with covering their legal liabilities. Two significant issues should be addressed. One, apply the “reasonable care” provisions that apply to all other types of liability to the medical industry. If two tests represent “reasonable care” in assisting with a diagnosis, Doctors should not feel the need to insist that six be performed so that potential liability can be eliminated. If you want six tests you’re going to have to pay for the extra four. The costs associated with physicians generating tests based on fear of legal jeopardy are massive. Two, reasonable standards that limit liability in the most commonly litigated situations would serve to limit costs both medically and legally. The second level of malpractice is more subtle and perhaps more costly and dangerous. When faced with complex medical situations you had better know enough to ask exactly the right questions. Short of asking exactly the right questions your physician will likely not volunteer information beyond the scope of your question, again for fear of liabilities. In other words you need to know a substantial portion of the truth to get the truth. If that sounds crazy it is. It is also expensive.

9. Elevate the status of and legal protections for medical personnel who are not physicians. Nurses, midwives and terminal care providers are among the most impressive individuals in the health care industry and capable of more involvement in the medical process at far less cost. Sergeants run the Army, nurses run the health care industry. We might want to consider recognizing the reality.

10. Preventive medicine and personal responsibility; it is easily agreed that preventative care is a significant path to cost reduction. Make scheduled preventative check ups a condition for continued insurance coverage. Make them extensive, we have incredible diagnostic technologies available, they could have a dramatic impact on ongoing costs related to reactionary versus preventative care. A government sponsored capital purchase program to get the technology out there and widely used, will reduce costs as well as patient pain and suffering. Motivate the provision of supportive services for weight management, smoking, drug use and alcohol abuse as a key component of all insurance coverage; that will reduce costs.

There are common sense, real world steps that can be taken to facilitate cost reductions and increase the number of insured Americans. They should be fully engaged in advance of another failed entitlement program. More Medicare and Medicade style corruption and inefficiency is not the answer.

We should pursue these types of ideas in the interest of real reform. We simply do not need a 15 ton fire truck to douse a campfire.

Incoming search terms:

• REDUCTION OF HEALTH CARE COST IDEAS
• will the insurance companies be affected if obamacare gets swiped

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is a magnate for all manner of criticism, the exception being the constructive variety. To Democratic Leadership the simple question prevails; ‘then you’ve got a better idea?’

The fact is that for over three years, there has been no better idea. Fact is there have been no recognizable, contextual fiscal ideas from Congressional Democrats in the form of a budget, no fiscal plan, no priorities, no careful allocation of resources, and no addressment of raging deficits. Americans must ask themselves if they are satisfied with nothing more than virulent criticism of those who actually do present a plan?

Republicans addressed the President’s budget with a budget plan of their own. “Hey, we think we’ve got a better idea! They contended that the President’s budget take us off a financial cliff, they are correct, $23 trillion in debt by 2022 is a financial cliff with no guard rails and no soft landing. The reward for actually suggesting a better idea is raging, out of context criticism that ignores those pesky facts. The last Presidential budget went to the Senate floor for a vote; no one, Republican or Democrat, voted in favor of it. This Presidential budget will suffer the same fate should it come to the Senate floor, which it will not. Everyone in Congress knows, based on that vote, the Presidential budget is a recipe for financial collapse and yet……….no better idea from Democrats.

Mr. Ryan questioned Secretary Geithner in hearings regarding debt and deficits. Mr. Geithner eventually told the truth; “no sir, we do not have a plan for reducing long term deficits; we just know we don’t like your plan!” Would not one expect from the Executive Branch some manner of plan? Is that too much to ask fof the irreplaceable man, Mr. Geithner? Apparently so!

There are no cohesive Democratic ideas, unless you consider raising taxes a better idea. That is the only idea we’ve heard consistently. Raise taxes on the rich and the oil companies. Raise taxes on estates, raise taxes on health care related industries, institute 24 new taxes associated with ObamaCare.

It’s an appeal to the Middle Class, ‘we’ll raise taxes on everyone but you.” But with each new tax, prices escalate, the new costs passed on to ….. wait for it…. The Middle Class! You see, the Middle Class is actually where the money is. The Middle Class is where the predictable cycle of tax increases has to hit eventually; if only the Middle Class realized it.

If Democrats really do occupy the moral and political high ground as they contend; the question begs, what are they afraid of? Have we evolved to the point where criticism is enough? If not, where is their budget proposal, where is the Secretary’s approach? Where is the well considered plan?

In this day and age you must pay as much attention to the absence of a thing as you do to its presence. It is frequently more telling!

Incoming search terms:

• The Absence

The President further contends that the 2% reserve equals 2% of global production; also in error. The U.S. is responsible for 9% of global production. That differential is due to production efficiency and the relatively shorter time frame for getting it out of the ground and into usable forms. It also related to the immediately available markets in the U.S.

A favorite talking point is to connect the 2% reserves and the 2% production with yet another ‘hanging fact’. It is true that we consume 20% – 21% of global energy production. This representation is supposed to make us curl up in a guilty ball and self flagellate until we come to our consumption senses.

The appropriate comparison is what percentage of Global GDP does 20% consumption support? The answer is, based on the CIA World Fact Book, 24%. Economically speaking we’re relatively efficient when consumption is compared to GDP. China for instance represents 11% of global GDP and consumes 11% of available energy resources. Japan, historically, based on their reliance on nuclear power represents 10% of GDP but only 5% of energy consumption.

So put down the whips, chains and horse hair shirts. Connecting the factual dots is much more productive.

President Karzai wants troops out of the villages. The villages are the focal point of the strategic imperative. If we’re not in the villages, there is simply no reason to be there other than security for the Karzai government, the same government that murdered two American officers at the Interior Ministry, demanding apologies and is ‘angry’ that we will not allow a trial by Afghan authorities related to the tragic shootings last week. This government is not worth saving at the cost of more American and coalition life. It has been long reported that outside Kabul there really is no government in Afghanistan. This is the Karzai government receiving bags of cash from Iran.

President Karzai wants to take over security operations sooner as opposed to later, 2013 by his calculus. Let’s cooperate fully and make it 2012 instead.

The Taliban breaks off peace talks, a clear demonstration of what dominates the Taliban mind set. That mind set has nothing to do with peace! It’s about getting us out, so they can return to the ongoing war for control of the country. The peace talks were never about peace, it was solely protective of Taliban resources, allowing them to be ready to move when the time comes. The Taliban war on the Afghan people will commence, regardless of a withdrawal date and regardless of what we do in the moment.

Demonstrations continue in the full bloom of anti American passion. Leave them to their devices and continue to ‘take out’ suspected terror support infrastructure. What can they do about it short of complaints? The complaints, and the war, will continue, with us or without us.

The alleged attempt on Secretary Panetta could not have gotten as far as it did without collusion within the ranks of Afghan political and military organizations intent on breeching security. Afghan corruption is rampant. Government control is tenuous, at best. Pakistan created the Taliban; there are no signs that a stable Afghanistan is viewed by Pakistan as a strategic benefit. They want a compliant Afghanistan on their western border; the preferred options are continual conflict or Taliban control. Without Pakistan and the U.S. sharing objectives in Afghanistan this is simply a political dance with no good end in sight.

I agreed, in principal, with the President at the time of the Afghan ‘surge’. However, changing conditions and experiences must alter decisions when their effectiveness has run its course. Decisions have short life spans, especially if they are the correct decisions, demanding new decisions based on new circumstance. We need a new decision.

It’s time to allow President Karzai to have what he’s asked for. Leave NOW!

Gas prices; Democrats and the media savaged President Bush; ‘ DO SOMETHING’ they screamed from every hilltop. But now, . . . well . . . the President can only do so much; meaning nothing. CBS ran a segment demonstrating why higher gas prices are a good thing; a good thing!!! It’s not that the President can’t do anything, it’s that he won’t. Mr. Obama’s fundamental beliefs inhibit him from support for carbon based energy sources. Mr. Obama’s quotes from the time of the Bush gas price spike are on display, as are the comments by Speaker Pelosi and then Senator Clinton. Is the President saying that President Bush possessed magical powers over oil prices? Did he mean that Bush could do something that he can’t do? Americans who listened to Senator Obama in 2006 believe the President CAN do something, because he told us so. …. Oops.

We’re catching on, we’re catching on to the fact that the administrations inhibition of energy supply growth is not, after all, nothing. It may be a negative but it’s far from nothing! We’re being bathed in the deluge of hypocritical statements. A Senate amendment that would allow for offshore drilling if gas hit $10.00 a gallon was opposed by the Interior Secretary Mr. Salazar. Do I hear $12.00 a gallon, $15.00; going once, going twice? Secretary Chu has flip flopped his position going from ‘no concern about higher gas prices, we should be at the $9.00 European level’ to the opposite position in about three weeks; really?

The contraception debate turned against the President. Not so long ago (2 weeks) the media and Democratic talking heads were thanking the Republicans for the ‘gift’ the contraception debate provided. Now. . . Not so much! “War on Women”; really? Not paying for something that is not excessively expensive, available from a wide variety of sources and well established in the culture is a “War on Women”? The rhetoric so dramatically exceeds the reality as to nearly guarantee a credibility backlash; that is what we have.

The President’s approval ratings are the lowest of his Presidency, two mainstream polls taken at about the same time, with approximately the same metrics, say the same thing. The outliers are now the polls that show the President with a 50% approval rating. Rasmussen shows a 14 point gap between strongly approve and strongly disapprove.

The economy is improving, turning the corner says the President; stay the Obama course. The Problem is real world credibility. Un/underemployment is still in the neighborhood of 20%. ‘Are you better off?’ polling is overwhelming; 80% of Americans say, NOT! We’re still in the 70% range for ‘wrong track’ polling. A majority of Americans don’t trust the stability of the banking system. Tax the rich; 76% of Americans say a 20% tax rate is about right; approximately half of what the President feels is ‘fair’.

The President is overexposed and underperforming; something to say about nearly everything; significant improvement on anything of general concern is essentially absent. The arrogance is beginning to penetrate the collective consciousness as he compares himself to Washington and Lincoln. He is going to the same industries he has aggressively castigated for campaign cash.

There is a growing sense out here amongst the great unwashed that the man is simply not credible; that is what the polls actually say. Too many criticisms of others in similar situations, he now finds himself in; claiming solutions are beyond his powers.

He is a victim of his own ‘image’. He has lost the expectations game, Hope and Change is over, it committed suicide on the drug of hypocrisy.

Incoming search terms:

• justme834u

The electoral history is fairly clear, Republican moderates have lost more often than they’ve won: McCain, Dole, Bush 41’s 2nd term. More Conservative candidates have tended to win: Reagan, Bush 43; on that basis, there is an argument to be made for the ‘non Mitt’ but that argument will be mute shortly. The strongest potential ‘non Mitts’ have not entered the race: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Thune. What remains is a reality; ‘it is what it is’! What it is, is, the overwhelming likelihood that Mitt Romney is the nominee.

Newt may do well in upcoming Southern primaries, he has not done well post South Carolina; third or fourth place. Rick Santorum does not have the backing to impact the long haul. Gingrich and Santorum can extend the process but they can’t win absent a complete Romney collapse which is, highly unlikely given the six years of developing an organization. Ron Paul is on a mission; that mission is has little to do with winning the nomination. Two of the three contenders suffer from ego overwhelming their supposed commitment to defeating the President. Newt speaks often of defeating the President, but he will not be the guy accepting the nomination. Newt is supposed to be about vision but it’s looking more like he’s about ego and ‘getting even’ with Romney. It requires a suspension of both mathmatics and logic to visualize a path to the nomination; the numbers just don’t work in the context of what Rick and Newt have accomplished so far.

Mitt faces a conundrum as well; to expedite the process he needs Gingrich and Santorum to continue to split the Conservative vote; either one getting out hurts him, however, both staying in does not necessarily help him in terms of public perception. He needs the competition to sharpen his message and delivery but the competition needs to knock him down, peg by peg.

Romney needs to sharpen his message, he’s been inconsistent. His speech after the New Hampshire primary was brilliant. Where did it go, where is inspirational speech V.2? Where is the sense of vision, and the ability to communicate it? You’re often left with the sense that it’s there, just not on consistent display. Mitt, fire a few consultants and try being you! You’re highly competent, be that, sell that!

The choices are clear; are we better served with the eventual nominee beginning the campaign against the President in April or July? Is a contested convention a good idea in the big picture? Should Conservatives and Independents be comparing Romney to Newt and Santorum or to the President? Mitt has had a toe dipped in the middle of the political spectrum since day one. It’s a smart long term strategy. Conservatives need to stop freaking out and accept both the likely reality and how damaging they could be to their own goal of defeating the President.

I’m not crazy about this reality either, but Is Ready, Shoot, Aim the way to go?

For the record, Europe engaged in negotiations with Iran for six full years; the results? Iran made geometric progress on their nuclear program; Iran, also thanked the 5+1 publically for helping them buy the time necessary to do so. No level of insult penetrates the European diplomatic consciousness.

Russia and China are a part of the 5+1 and their history is clear; they have opposed sanctions on Iran consistently. With Russia and China in the game and sitting at the table does anyone think that Iran will be surprised at whatever the 5+1 strategy for the talks may be?

Why? There is a plethora of reasons, given European and administration attitudes toward Israel. It’s not about negotiating with Iran; it’s about holding back Israel and Iran will read the signal correctly. The announcement came as PM Netanyahu visits Washington. The timing and motivations are transparent; the announcement could not have gone forward absent U.S. approval. Regardless of the President’s new found supportive rhetoric regarding Israel, the back channel is where the message is. The message to Israel is ‘heel, boy heel’! Not to stretch a metaphor but the back is also where the knife typically goes.

U.S. intelligence on Iran has long been politicized beginning with the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, NIE. That estimate was short on intelligence and long on policy recommendations. The ability of the authors to pursue a cogent trail of logic was absent, even to a cursory review. Knowledgeable critics, cast severe doubt on the validity of that report. The critics of the NIE were correct. In 2007 the intelligence community was committed to restrain President Bush, which it did. The NIE also restrained the application of consensus for severe sanctions; had we applied those sanctions in 2007 or 2008 we could have been beyond the problem today.

While talks could produce a different result in light of stronger sanctions and hoping that is the case; there is no evidence, no signal, no tangible sense that Iranian policy will change. The Iranians will do what they have always done; disassemble, buy time and continue toward a nuclear weapon with renewed vigor.
The most likely result is that the 5+1 will be ‘played’ again. Failure this time will result in an Israeli strike for the simplest of reasons. Time will have run out!

Incoming search terms:

• severe doubt