George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
London,
P.C.
www.asthma-drsprecace.com
RAPID
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
offer fresh,
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
campaigns,
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
military
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
always
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
supported
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
GS
MONDAY through
FRIDAY,
December 27 through 31,2010 THE FOLLOWING "RAPID
RESPONSE" OBSERVATION REQUIRES SOME PRIOR READING:
"Quarter of Applicants Fail
U.S. Military Entrance Exam", (www.theday,com), Wed. Dec. 22,
2010, pA3.
"A Failing Grade", ibid.
Thursday Dec 23, 2010, Editorial, pA6.
My entire section entitled "Public
Education Politics" on this web site, years in development...and
unfortunately a work in progress.
One of the most unfortunate and galling aspects of this story is that
of the Black community: sold out by many of their fathers, led off a
cliff by their "leaders" who for two generations have demanded that
they consistently vote for the same Democrat politicians who supported
and insured a crime called "public education" against all efforts at
reform, and who thus have become accessories to this crime.
If during the last forty years
physicians practiced Medicine the way "educators" have practiced
"education", we would be in jail.
GS
SUNDAY,
December 26,2010 In "a world rife
with scientism, secularism and rationalism", Father Raniero
Cantalamessa - Preacher of the Pontifical Household -
offered a series of three Advent sermons to the Pope, the Curia
and to the world at large.
As is generally true of all the efforts of this particular priest,
these in particular highlight the basic issue, the approach and the
solution to the central problem facing our world and our humanity at
this time. They should be read in their entirety. They were
all published in Zenit:The World
Seen From Rome (www.zenit.org).
PREACHER REFLECTS ON EVANGELIZATION OF ATHEISTS: 12/4/2010
FATHER CANTALAMESSA'S 2ND ADVENT HOMILY: 12/12/2010
EVANGELIZATION NEEDS SENSE OF SACRED, SAYS PREACHER: 12/18/2010
GS
TUESDAY through SATURDAY,
December 21 through 25,2010
==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================
Benedict XVI: God Is Faithful But Surprising
Gives Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 24, 2010 (Zenit.org).- God is always faithful to his
promises, but the way he fulfills them can often be surprising, says
Benedict XVI.
The Pope made that affirmation in a reflection that aired this morning
in London on "Thought for the Day," on BBC's public channel Radio 4.
The Holy Father joined the list of religious leaders who have
participated in the BBC program, which airs a three-minute reflection.
It has been broadcast since 1970. "Our thoughts turn back to a moment
in history when God's chosen people, the children of Israel, were
living in intense expectation. They were waiting for the Messiah that
God had promised to send, and they pictured him as a great leader who
would rescue them from foreign domination and restore their freedom,"
the Pontiff said.
He continued, "'God is always faithful to his promises, but he often
surprises us in the way he fulfills them.'"
"God is always faithful to his promises, but he often surprises us in
the way he fulfills them," the Pope repeated. "The child that was born
in Bethlehem did indeed bring liberation, but not only for the people
of that time and place -- he was to be the Savior of all people
throughout the world and throughout history. And it was not a political
liberation that he brought, achieved through military means: Rather,
Christ destroyed death for ever and restored life by means of his
shameful death on the cross."
The Bishop of Rome spoke of Christ's birth in "poverty and obscurity,
far from the centers of earthly power."
And yet, he said, "he was none other than the Son of God."
"Out of love for us he took upon himself our human condition, our
fragility, our vulnerability, and he opened up for us the path that
leads to the fullness of life, to a share in the life of God himself,"
the Pope reflected. "As we ponder this great mystery in our hearts this
Christmas, let us give thanks to God for his goodness to us, and let us
joyfully proclaim to those around us the good news that God offers us
freedom from whatever weighs us down: he gives us hope, he brings us
life."
MONDAY,
December 20,2010 Insanity, or pure Evil, under the guise of civil
discourse. GS
==================================================
ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency
==================================================
Expendable Babies
Human Life as a Consumer Product
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, DEC. 19, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Abortion advocates have
long argued for a woman's right to control her body and to be able to
dispose of the unborn child if she wishes. In a bizarre
decision, a Belgian court has extended that reasoning to say that
a child has a right to be aborted.
A Belgian journal, "Revue Générale des Assurances et
Responsabilités," has just published the decision
handed down by the Brussels Court of Appeal on Sept. 21 regarding
the case of a child born disabled after an erroneous prenatal
diagnosis, according to the Gènéthique press review for
Nov. 29-Dec. 3.
The court ruled that the child's parents could claim damages from the
doctors who failed to detect the disability. They said that by making
therapeutic abortion legal, the legislators intended to allow women to
avoid giving birth to seriously handicapped children, "having regard
not only to the interests of the mother, but also to those of the
unborn child itself."
Thus, the judges considered that the child would have had the "right"
to an abortion if his disability had been correctly diagnosed.
The report on the decision did not explain how the court could consider
an unborn child to be able to be the subject of rights, and why that
right was only one to be killed and not to live.
Good mother?
The increasingly common acceptance of the view that it is better to
abort handicapped babies was taken a step further by British writer
Virginia Ironside when she declared that she would be prepared to
suffocate a child to end its suffering, the Daily Mail newspaper
reported Oct. 5.
Her comments came during a BBC1 radio program "Sunday Morning Live."
Ironside also said that aborting an unwanted or disabled baby, "is the
act of a loving mother."
Her statements provoked widespread criticism. Peter Evans, speaking on
behalf of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: "For us to make
judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to
live, is a very dangerous thing," the Daily Mail reported.
An accompanying article authored by Ian Birrell, the father of a
disabled 16-year-old daughter, acknowledged the difficulties of caring
for a handicapped child but also said that it was an intensely
rewarding experience. He accused Ironside of revealing a mind-set all
too common, namely that people with disabilities are inferior to others.
"Imagine the outcry if Ms Ironside had said black children or gay
teenagers should be exterminated," Birrell commented.
Others, however, defended her. Guardian newspaper columnist Zoe
Williams argued that she had a "valid point and was brave to make it,"
in an Oct. 5 article.
Williams declared that Ironside's argument was a crucial move because
she had asserted the moral dimension of being pro-choice. This was a
blow to what Williams describes as "the self-proclaimed moral
superiority of the anti-abortionists."
The Sunday Times gave Virginia Ironside a chance to further explain her
reasoning in an opinion piece published Oct. 10. She argued that mercy
killings of elderly and sick people do occur and that judges usually
take a lenient view of this. Extending this practice to the unborn or
newly born is simply what a good mother would do, she said.
New test
The attitude of eliminating those considered unfit will be aided by new
tests that make it easier to detect abnormalities. A blood test for
pregnant women capable of detecting almost all genetic disorders has
been developed, London's Time newspaper reported Dec. 9.
If more extensive trials confirm the preliminary results, the test
could eventually replace more invasive and riskier techniques such as
amniocentesis, that involves inserting a needle in the womb to take a
sample of fetal tissue.
As well, the test can be used as early as the eighth week of pregnancy,
well before procedures currently used, giving women longer to
decide whether to have an abortion, the Times added.
Alasdair Palmer, commenting on the news in the Dec. 11 edition of the
London-based Telegraph newspaper, said that tests such as this could
have prevented people like him being born. Palmer, who suffers from
multiple sclerosis, raised the concern of a possible increase in
abortions of babies with genetic defects, including minor ones such as
a cleft palate.
Down Syndrome babies are routinely aborted, he noted, and once you
accept the mentality of this being an acceptable practice, it becomes
difficult to draw a line. Should we abort those suffering from
dyslexia, autism, or being exceptionally short, he asked.
"I cannot see any basis that would enable the law to specify, never
mind enforce, a principle which says: this genetic defect is bad enough
to mean that it would be better if the foetus was never born -- but
this one isn't," Palmer reflected.
Even without the new test there has been a significant decline in the
birth of children with genetic disorders, due to selective abortion. A
lengthy report by the Associated Press, published Feb. 17, quoted Dr.
Wendy Chung, clinical genetics chief at Columbia University, as saying
that due to screening there are decreased rates of disorders such as
Tay-sachs.
In recent years, testing for cystic fibrosis has increased, and in
Massachusetts, for example, births of babies with the condition dropped
from 29 in 2000 to only 10 in 2003.
In California, the Associated Press reported, Kaiser Permanente, a
large health organization, offered prenatal screening. From 2006 to
2008, 87 couples with cystic fibrosis mutations agreed to have fetuses
tested, and 23 were found to have the disease. Sixteen of the 17
fetuses projected to have the severest type of disease were aborted, as
were four of the six fetuses projected to have less severe disease.
Sometimes couples opt for abortion even when there is no genetic
problem, as the Canadian National Post newspaper reported Dec. 10.
When the wife of an un-named couple in Toronto was found to be
expecting twins, they felt they could not cope with an extra two
children in addition to the young child they already had. So they
decided upon what is termed "selective reduction," and one of the twins
was aborted.
The article quoted a New York obstetrician, Mark Evans, who is a
specialist in this technique, and he said that many cases involve a
couple on their second marriage who already have children and want just
one more additional child.
Unique
"God loves each human being uniquely and profoundly," Benedict XVI
declared in Feb. 13 speech to members of the Pontifical Academy For
Life.
The Pope observed that bioethics is a crucial battleground in the
struggle between the supremacy of technology and human moral
responsibility. In this conflict it is vital to maintain the principle
of human dignity as a source for the rights of persons.
"When respect for the dignity of the person is invoked, it is
fundamental that it should be full, total and without restrictions
other than those entailed in the recognition that it is always human
life that is involved," he affirmed.
The Pontiff warned that history shows how dangerous the state can be
when it claims to be the source and principle of ethics and legislates
on matters affecting the person and society.
The slide from a right to abortion to the right to be aborted amply
demonstrates the perils of abandoning fundamental ethical principles.
SUNDAY,
December 19,2010 Hallalujah--we agree on the vast majority of
issues. I guess we Republicans are really not that different on
the issues. As far as a "house divided" goes, though, it's not
the centrists who continue to lose races for the GOP--those who know
God talks only to them lose the races. My centrist friends and I
continue to vote Republican even when we disagree with GOP candidates
on certain issues, unlike our more conservative brothers and sisters
who abandon the party and lose otherwise winnable races because their
"principles" tell them not to vote for the Republican candidate.
I ask you--who are the real RINOs?
With respect to abortion, change the law all you want, but you will not
stop a woman from having an abortion if she wants to have one. In
fact, if all of the discussion on the subject were somehow transformed
into pure energy instead of spent trying to change to laws, America
would not have to worry about a fuel shortage. In other words,
work to change the hearts and minds of those considering abortion
instead of discussing the legal consequences of changing the law.
Give them an incentive to not have an abortion, and give others an
incentive for adopting kids from unwed mothers and those who would
otherwise have abortions. It is prohibitively expensive to adopt
American kids these days--and (rightly or wrongly) there is no
incentive other than morals or maternal instinct for an unwed woman to
have a child these days. Abortion rates have declined for the
past 10 years, mostly (I believe) due to the change in American mores
and societal influence. That can work to further reduce abortion
rates, while only changing the laws will not.
David
GREAT DISCUSSION. What the country
needs is the two of us on regular talk radio or on syndicated TV.
Can you arrange that? It would be quite a commute; but I'm up for
it. Dad
And,
my thoughts (in bold)...
GS
NOW IT'S THE
REPUBLICANS' TURN TO BE HAMMERED ON THIS ANVIL. THEY SHOULD BE
READY FOR THIS, GIVEN THE WHITE-HOT ANTIPATHY REPUBLICAN
"CONSERVATIVES" AND "MODERATES" (AKA "RINOS") HAVE DEVELOPED FOR EACH
OTHER.
The first and concluding message: "A HOUSE DIVIDED UPON ITSELF
WILL NOT STAND", according to that iconic Republican, Abraham Lincoln.
How people whose PAID JOB
it is to be politicians can't understand this is beyond me.
Conservatives generally hold the high ground, called "principle",
as against the Moderates' realistic mantra: "You can't govern if you
don't win."
Well said. One has to be
realistic, but if Republicans keep making concession after concession
on their basic principles simply in order to win, they will become . .
. well, they'll become Democrats.
But Conservatives stray badly when they think that all of their
positions come directly from God. This need not be a zero-sum
game. Some positions can and must be subject to principled
compromise.
A permanent position against taxation is bound to lose at times
to reality.
The only permanence I would
apply to this position is vigilance of wasteful
spending. Granted, one man's "waste" is another man's "crucial
appropriation", but I would hold firm on ever raising taxes unless
significant spending cuts fail to do the job. The problem is not
revenue collection. It is spending.
Unfettered free enterprise is an invitation to the worst
instincts of human nature - as clearly reflected in the market actions
and results of the last twenty years.
Capitalism is like any other
engine. The power it produces is in the form of economic
wealth. Like any engine, there are parts that move against each
other that create friction, and therefore must have a steady
source of coolant coursing around them to radiate that generated heat
and keep the engine producing steady, efficient power. Without
it, the engine will quickly overheat and seize.
You can keep running out an
engine and simply replace it with a new one from time to time, but
that's not efficient and all the parts of that engine live a
horrible life and die a horrible death.
We are "our brothers' keepers", so long as they pay rent...called
personal responsibility. The Bible itself makes that clear: he
who does not work shall not eat.
See my letter to Keith
Olbermann on that issue. This is the issue where Republicans must
hit Democrats head-on because this is the sort of bleeding-heart
reactionism that is right in the liberal Democrat and Socialist
wheelhouse.
The massive problem of illegal immigration must be resolved
comprehensively and now...and
not by throwing around perjorative terms like
"amnesty". Given the cynical, self-serving and illegal actions of
many of our own companies and private citizens, many of these illegals
could just as accurately be called "invitees" into indentured
servitude, slavery...and also into a quest for a better life that
motivated many of our parents and grandparents.
Sorry, you're almost TOTALLY
wrong on this one. The term "amnesty" is not pejorative.
Any legal resident of any state outside of California who wants to
attend college here will ask you why he has to pay
out-of-state tuition while ANY illegal (resident or
not) receives in-state tuition. And, this is just one
example of what would have been a TORRENT of back-door allowances made
legal had that ludicrous DREAM Act passed. More accurately, a
total NIGHTMARE.
There isn't a culture or
ethnicity in the last 150 years that hasn't come here under
the identical circumstances you offer. None, until
now, and none, until this ONE general ethnicity/culture have
complained of "exploitation" that they have every right and choice to
avoid, ESPECIALLY since they have the ONE luxury that no other culture
had--easy land access back to their native lands. And, PLEASE do
not use the word 'slavery'. That is an insult to 4 million
Africans who truly endured such a horrible existence.
I do agree that violating
companies are getting an undeserved pass. Private citizens also
have no excuse. Unfortunately for the other people in their
neighborhoods who choose not to hire illegal labor, these people make
the bed that we all must lie in. Come visit Southern California
and see for yourself.
There is no excuse for
this. HOWEVER, this is not simply an issue of
Republican hypocrisy. This happens in virtually every voting
district in the nation, even the Democratic ones. Talk about
hypocrisy.
The Science has become clear, by "clear and convincing evidence"
if not "beyond a shadow of a doubt": Homosexuality is most often a
biologic alteration and not a choice. Thus, Biblical prohibitions
must give way to scientific fact, as has happened so often in the
past. Human rights...yes. Civil Unions...yes.
Adoption in appropriate circumstances...yes. Marriage...No, as
being the foundation of our civil society. Service in our
Military, consistent with standard military discipline...yes.
Marriage will eventually be
added to that list, but it will probably be the last to fall.
Remember, every other example, when related to minorities and women,
was fought. But, eventually society accepted them and we didn't
collapse into anarchy and moral chaos as a direct result. Our
cultural and moral problems stem more directly from a lack of
personal responsibility than from anything else.
America First must continue to be our North Star in foreign
affairs. Nations have interests; they do not have friends.
We have certainly seen that in recent years in the actions of our
"friends and allies".
This foundational personality
trait of being motivated to be loved (THE trait of most people who vote
Democratic) while bad enough in the micro is truly one of the most
dangerous planks in their platform in the macro. It is not that
people around the world dislike America. It is the Left around
the world who despise America.
Freedom of Religion does not mean freedom from religion.
And yes, we are and will continue to be a "Nation Under God". For
Atheism is incompatible with even rational thought. Thus, there is a
Natural Law that human or secular Law must accommodate.
Yet, as I mentioned
about vigilance of wasteful spending and taxation, this issue must
have a limitless supply of vigilance from anyone right of the
far-left. Otherwise, this country WILL fall into that morass that
now constitutes the governments of Western Europe. Count on
it.
And now comes the most divisive issue of them all:
Abortion. Always wrong, as against Science, Law and Morality,
active opposition to abortion must not be compromised. But even
here, there is room for principled common ground. Those
Republicans who "could care less" about the issue, and committed
Conservatives, could agree that the issue should be returned to the
individual States, from whom it was illegally removed by the travesty
called Roe v Wade. That would enable civil and legal forward
motion on the matter...rather than the current poisonous stalemate that
distorts much of our civil discourse and law-making efforts. As
for those "Republicans" who are definitely pro-abortion, they can
surely find a home with the Democrats of similar bent.
Even the plaintiff in Roe V.
Wade has changed her mind on this issue. It will be debated
forever as to whether it is a state or federal issue because the
Constitution will fall victim to the undeniably emotional basis of this
specific issue. Either way, this is the single strongest example
of Democratic hypocrisy that I agree should be continually vocalized by
Republicans. The religion of Science practiced by most of the
left in this country goes COMPLETELY silent whenever this issue is
broached. And, I do mean completely. It is nothing less
than delusional. This runs the gamut from totally laughable to
undeniably shameful.
Now, was that so hard to
articulate? And would that be so hard to implement?
Certainly not so hard as to continue the current self-defeating
division that will surely abandon the field to the wilderness of the
liberal Democrats - and to the decline and fall of this great nation
within a generation at the current pace. There is a choice
here, folks. And Choice is what life is all about.
SATURDAY,
December 18,2010 NOW IT'S THE REPUBLICANS' TURN TO BE HAMMERED ON
THIS ANVIL. THEY SHOULD BE READY FOR THIS, GIVEN THE WHITE-HOT
ANTIPATHY REPUBLICAN "CONSERVATIVES" AND "MODERATES" (AKA "RINOS") HAVE
DEVELOPED FOR EACH OTHER.
The first and concluding message: "A HOUSE DIVIDED UPON ITSELF
WILL NOT STAND", according to that iconic Republican, Abraham
Lincoln.
Conservatives generally hold the high ground, called "principle",
as against the Moderates' realistic mantra: "You can't govern if you
don't win."
But Conservatives stray badly when they think that all of their
positions come directly from God. This need not be a zero-sum
game. Some positions can and must be subject to principled
compromise.
A permanent position against taxation is bound to lose at times
to reality.
Unfettered free enterprise is an invitation to the worst
instincts of human nature - as clearly reflected in the market actions
and results of the last twenty years.
We are "our brothers' keepers", so long as they pay rent...called
personal responsibility. The Bible itself makes that clear: he
who does not work shall not eat.
The massive problem of illegal immigration must be resolved
comprehensively and now...and
not by throwing around perjorative terms like "amnesty". Given
the cynical, self-serving and illegal actions of many of our own
companies and private citizens, many of these illegals could just as
accurately be called "invitees" into indentured servitude,
slavery...and also into a quest for a better life that motivated many
of our parents and grandparents.
The Science has become clear, by "clear and convincing evidence"
if not "beyond a shadow of a doubt": Homosexuality is most often a
biologic alteration and not a choice. Thus, Biblical prohibitions
must give way to scientific fact, as has happened so often in the
past. Human rights...yes. Civil Unions...yes.
Adoption in appropriate circumstances...yes. Marriage...No, as
being the foundation of our civil society. Service in our
Military, consistent with standard military discipline...yes.
America First must continue to be our North Star in foreign
affairs. Nations have interests; they do not have friends.
We have certainly seen that in recent years in the actions of our
"friends and allies".
Freedom of Religion does not mean freedom from religion.
And yes, we are and will continue to be a "Nation Under God". For
Atheism is incompatible with even rational thought. Thus, there is a
Natural Law that human or secular Law must accommodate.
And now comes the most divisive issue of them all:
Abortion. Always wrong, as against Science, Law and Morality,
active opposition to abortion must not be compromised. But even
here, there is room for principled common ground. Those
Republicans who "could care less" about the issue, and committed
Conservatives, could agree that the issue should be returned to the
individual States, from whom it was illegally removed by the travesty
called Roe v Wade. That would enable civil and legal forward
motion on the matter...rather than the current poisonous stalemate that
distorts much of our civil discourse and law-making efforts. As
for those "Republicans" who are definitely pro-abortion, they can
surely find a home with the Democrats of similar bent.
Now, was that so hard to articulate? And would that be so hard to
implement? Certainly not so hard as to continue the current
self-defeating division that will surely abandon the field to the
wilderness of the liberal Democrats - and to the decline and fall of
this great nation within a generation at the current pace.
There is a choice here, folks. And Choice is what life is all
about.
GS
FRIDAY,
December 17,2010 A follow-up to The Bush 43 Era.
About one week before America's invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, I
began posting my offerings on this web site entitled "Rapid Response:
Daily Commentary on News of the Day". In addition to helping to
assure adequate control of my blood pressure, this on-going series
provides what was a real-time personal analysis of developments,
nationally and world-wide, that are now revealed in authoritative depth
by President George W. Bush in his fine memoir entitled "Decision
Points" (2010). It turns out that his one great error, as
declared by me within months of the Iraq invasion - and ever more
stridently for years thereafter - was that he did not sack Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld years earlier than he did. Rumsfeld was
wrong in his prosecution of the war, persistently and arrogantly
so. And the President placed altogether too much value on
"loyalty" for much too long. That is the main reason why
that country is having so much trouble aborning - and why too many
Americans have died in the process.
The book, and perhaps my timely chronicles posted herein, are
recommended to all fair-minded Americans...and even to liberal
Democrats.
GS
MONDAY through
THURSDAY,
December 13 through 16,2010 Anyone interested in learning the facts, many for
the first time, about the actions of former President George W. Bush -
and the reasons for those actions - should read Mr. Bush's recently
released book, "Decision Points" About two years ago, in response to the cacophony of
derisive criticism heaped upon this President throughout and since his eight years in
office,I
suggested that the entire subject must await at least five to ten years
for relevant information to get out.
This well-written book provides much of the missing information.
And once again we see liberal
Democrats for what they are: ARTICULATE, ARROGANT AND
ASININE. Wrong in foreign policy. Wrong in domestic
policy. Wrong in social policy. In fact, the only
thing that keeps them competitive in national affairs is the unwavering
self-interest of groups like the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions
and other trade unions, the blind support of the Black community
against its own self-interest...and the mis-placed loyalty of the
Republican establishment in some of its historic but anachronistic
principles. Democrats are uneducable. Whether or not Republicans
are remains to be seen. Common sense is being provided by
ordinary Americans through the Tea Party. Is anyone listening?
GS
SUNDAY,
December 12,2010 ANOTHER EPISODE OF "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 OPINIONS" BY
YOURS TRULY.
Pakistan. We are
spending billions yearly to support the Pakistani Army, not their weak
"democratic government", while that Army supports the Taliban.
The latter part of this picture is wrong.
Afghanistan. Another
weak "democracy" which owes its survival to the ever-threatened support
of the Taliban and the tribal chieftains - who owe their support almost
entirely to profits pouring in from the opium trade. I've said
this for at least two years.
I'll say it again: we must destroy the poppy crop, now and permanently,
substitute another cash crop for the Afghan people who don't even
receive adequate sustenance from that cash flow, and destroy any who
rise to prevent this action. Only then - and after a
decade or more - can we hope to see a viable democracy arise in that
polyglot of peoples. Meanwhile, Obama's "plans" to begin
withdrawal within a year are a very small figleaf trying to cover a
limp undercarriage. COME TO YOUR SENSES, MAN.
Iran. And
what are you waiting for here? Denature their nuclear capability
back about a decade by surgical - and plausibly deniable - strikes. I
know you can do it. The Israelis certainly can do it. Then
put on ear plugs for the hypocritical cacophony of protest that will
follows, as the entire world really breathes a sigh of
relief. Remember: world diplomats and their governments are not
as stupid as they usually sound...as we learned from the instructive
WikiLeak leaks.
Russia. 150 million
people and declining. Back to the future with an autocratic and
corrupt structure that brought the Soviet Union to its grave. Of
course they have Nukes. So do we. The Cold War lives...and
we must protect ourselves as we did then - definitely including
anti-missile defense. Meanwhile, tell the Russians to stuff their
talk of hegemony in the region. We talk democracy in the entire
region - apart from Russia.
The European Union.
Finally they are starting to debride the serious wound called Socialism
that has been festering since WW ll. Oh, the Pain! That's good
news for them and for the world. They even are about to modify the
European Stabilization Mechanism, which controls the value of the Euro,
to provide that private debt investors will henceforth themselves take
the loss in case of sovereign debt restructuring. What a concept. WALL STREET AND YOUR ALUMNI IN THIS
ADMINISTRATION: CAN YOU HEAR
ME NOW?
Meanwhile, in these United States, not even
a historic election can change Washington's ways. See
Charles Krauthammer's recent article entitled "Obama Tax-Cut Maneuver Takes Prize For
Swindle Of The Year" (in The Day, Saturday Dec. 11, pA7 -
www.theday.com). "How can that happen, you say".
Because the Republicans are as compromised and corruptible as the
Democrats.
So, what do we do now? Support the Tea Party movement - and watch
them closely too. And let's start considering a national
Constitutional Convention. Our national government has
developed serious structural defects that must be addressed...if we are
to reverse the already begun DECLINE AND FALL OF AMERICA.
GS
SATURDAY,
December 11,2010 He makes many good points. But I would
rather fight than switch.
Remember the old and still valid definition of a "liberal: the first one to leave the room
when the fight starts".
GS
>
> DIVORCE AGREEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I
CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S
> > BY A YOUNG
> > PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS
FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear American liberals, leftists,
social progressives,
> > socialists,
> > Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We have stuck together since the late
1950's for the sake of
> > the kids,
> > but the whole of this latest election
process has made me
> > realize that I
> > want a divorce. I know we tolerated
each other for many years
> > for the
> > sake of future generations, but sadly,
this relationship has
> > clearly run
> > its course.
> >
> >
> >
> > Our two ideological sides of America
cannot and will not ever
> > agree on
> > what is right for us all, so let's
just end it on friendly
> > terms. We can
> > smile and chalk it up to
irreconcilable differences and go our
> > own way.
> >
> >
> > Here is a model separation agreement:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Our two groups can equitably divide
up the country by
> > landmass each
> > taking a similar portion. That will be
the difficult part, but
> > I am sure
> > our two sides can come to a friendly
agreement. After that, it
> > should be
> > relatively easy! Our respective
representatives can
> > effortlessly divide
> > other assets since both sides have
such distinct and disparate
> > tastes.
> >
> >
> > --We don't like redistributive taxes
so you can keep them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --You are welcome to the liberal
judges and the ACLU.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Since you hate guns and war, we'll
take our firearms, the
> > cops, the NRA
> > and the military.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll take the nasty, smelly oil
industry and you can go
> > with wind,
> > solar and biodiesel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore
and Rosie O'Donnell. You
> > are,
> > however, responsible for finding
a bio-diesel vehicle big
> > enough to move
> > all three of them.
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep capitalism, greedy
corporations, pharmaceutical
> > companies, Wal-Mart and Wall
Street.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --You can have your beloved lifelong
welfare dwellers, food
> > stamps,
> > homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies
and illegal aliens.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey
moms, greedy CEO's and
> > rednecks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep the Bibles and give you
NBC and Hollywood .
> >
> >
> >
> > --You can make nice with Iran and
Palestine and we'll retain
> > the right to
> > invade and hammer places that threaten
us.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --You can have the peaceniks and war
protesters. When our
> > allies or our
> > way of life are under assault, we'll
help provide them
> > security.
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep our Judeo-Christian
values.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism, political
> > correctness
> > and Shirley McClain. You can also have
the U.N. but we will no
> > longer be
> > paying the bill.
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks
and oversized luxury
> > cars. You can
> > take every Subaru station wagon you
can find.
> >
> >
> >
> > --You can give everyone healthcare if
you can find any
> > practicing
> > doctors.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll continue to believe healthcare
is a luxury and not a
> > right.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the
Republic" and "The
> > National Anthem."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --I'm sure you'll be happy to
substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like
> > to Teach
> > the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We
Are the World".
> >
> >
> >
> > --We'll practice trickle down
economics and you can continue
> > to give
> > trickle up poverty your best shot.
> >
> >
> >
> > --Since it often so offends you, we'll
keep our history, our
> > name and our
> > flag.
> >
> >
> >
> > Would you agree to
this? If so, please pass it along to
> > other
> > like-minded liberal and conservative
patriots and if you do
> > not agree,
> > just hit delete. In the spirit of
friendly parting, I'll bet
> > you answer
> > which one of us will need whose help
in 15 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > John J. Wall
> >
> > Law Student and an American
> >
> >
> >
> > P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner,
Sean Penn, Martin Sheen,
> > Barbara
> > Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
> >
> >
> >
> > P.S.S. And you won't have to
press 1 for English when you
> > call our
> > country.
> >
> >
> >
FRIDAY,
December 10,2010 Here are clear
statements, by both a naturalized American and a native-born American,
regarding why we should oppose the socialistic efforts of some in our
government and in our society.
It is also one of the clearest peeks behind the Iron Curtain that I
have seen, and by someone who lived it and whom I know well. It
is a cautionary tale.
GS
So, I support the Tea Party;
stone me! Here is my backup: I got my U.S. citizenship 7 years ago after
spending
30 years of my life in a communist country in Eastern Europe. The first
5 months I worked for
Blockbuster
for $5.25/hour in order to learn English. I then studied Computer
Science for the next three
years.
I never asked for welfare, student loans, Section 8, or any
entitlements. After a hard time, I
joined
one of the most reputable California software corporations and I am
still happy about it, even
though
they had to outsource to keep the company going.
The
U.S. is the GREATEST country in the world; the gateway for any
opportunity, no matter where you
come
from. This IS the DREAM Act, as long as one does his due diligence,
learns English, gets an
education
and assimilates. Try that instead of going for government assistance.
You will feel much
better
about yourself and be more successful.
For
those of you asking what is wrong with being Socialist I’ll give you
some pointers: in my country
everybody
had a rent-free apartment. Everybody had a job. The medical assistance
was free and you
had
a pension after 40 years being in the work force. UTOPIA, you think?
The
drawbacks were:
-
The apartments were similar to “projects” in the U.S. (no offense
meant).
-
The jobs were 9-5 where nobody did anything, but steal. You pretended
you work and they pretended
they
paid you. Doesn’t this sound similar to government jobs? Bureaucracy to
no end! Every step of
the
way you had to bribe someone to get anything.
-
Nobody could buy a car because they were too expensive. Bicycles were
stolen.
-
There was no problem with cholesterol or being overweight because the
only meat on the market was
chicken
heads and legs – yes, the fingers!!
-
There was a 2-lb per month sugar allotment for a family of FOUR.
-
When we went to the doctor for ANY issue they sent us home with two
aspirins and “take rest” advice.
-
I personally went several times to the dentist where I did not get any
kind of anesthetic. She yelled at
me
that if I keep crying I can go pull my teeth myself.
-
And finally, you retire; pension. What pension? That was a joke.
-
Most important – there was no freedom to speak of. Phones were tapped
and monitored 24/7 by the
Party
security. No travel. If you had an opinion different from the Party,
you ended up digging a canal
that
got most of our intellectuals, artists, engineers, and priests killed
in 2 months. This lasted for 40
years
before the revolution. We received a mandatory “invitation” to attend
any presidential/party
speech
to applaud and approve.
-
The president of the country was our “Father” who decided what was best
for us, humble people.
-
We had NO CHOICE. There is nothing worse in this life than having no
choice and no voice. No
FREEDOM.
I
don’t have the time and space to list it all. The idea is that I cannot
get far enough from the U.S.
liberals!
They are the icon and the reminder of where I come from. MSNBC is a
pathetic reminder of
my
2-hours a day communist TV station. For most Republicans, I may be too
much to the right, but as I
said,
I don’t want to be caught up by the neo-socialists.
Thanks
for reading this.
Nick
well here is a history lesson for you being how you obviously know
nothing about US
history....progressive taxation is something that has been around since
the teddy roosevelt (republican)
administration..the more money you make, the more you pay in taxes.
that doesn't mean you still aren't
going to take in a GIGANTIC amount of money. dwight eisenhower
(republican) had a 91% tax rate on
the rich...it isn't the same as a socialist or commy country in which
you make the exact same as
everybody else and the government tells you exactly what to do....taxes
are used to pay for
things...roads, parks, bridges....or did you not have those things in
eastern europe? oh and by the way....
when the constitution was written...there were only a few million
people that lived here...now there are
over 350 million.
Nick, since I assume your comment means that YOU were born here, you
have no excuse for having
your facts wrong. William Howard Taft was President in 1913, when
income tax was instituted. He
was no Teddy Roosevelt. And, if he were, what's your point? Roosevelt
also started the National Parks
System. Does that make him a liberal hell-bent on redistributing wealth
ad nauseum?
Also, the 91% rates during the Eisenhower administration A) had income
ceilings MUCH higher than
they are today, B) were carry-overs from the requirements of being the
majority funder of a TWO-front
alliance in a WORLD war AND the Korean War, and C) have nothing to do
with Eisenhower. Budgets
are generated in Congress, which had a Democratic majority for 90% of
the last 56 years.
Still think you know about U.S. history?
As I mentioned to E., yes, taxes used for things like "roads, parks,
bridges, etc" is a universal concept.
Both good and bad political systems alike do this. What is your point?
MY point is that taxes are not
generated to pay for every aspect of life (including, but not limited
to: food, college, rent, finding a job,
healthcare, retirement benefits, and on and on and on) for every
citizen of a nation; at least not THIS
nation, no matter how many people have been added to the Census since
the founding of this country.
Man, it feels good to completely deconstruct your ridiculous "points";
although, I do feel a bit guilty for
fighting an unarmed man.
Happy Days, Nick!
Perrin-
THURSDAY,
December 9,2010
A Father & Daughter Discussion
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in Favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other Words
redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the Lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to Higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to Be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by Asking how
she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that She was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people She knew. She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends, because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked , 'How is your friend Audrey
doing?' She replied, ' Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are
Easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is
so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited
to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for
classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA,
and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The
daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played
while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to The
Republican party.' If anyone has a better explanation of the difference
between
Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
WEDNESDAY,
December 8,2010 NEW LONDON, CT.:
A GARDEN SPOT OF THE WORLD...IN CONSTANT NEED OF WEEDING.
The
recent City Council election for the last "ceremonial Mayor" of the
City before changing to a "strong Mayor" form of government next Fall,
was the result of mixing a deluded sense of entitlement, disloyalty by
two alleged members of the Republican Party, and a Democratic cabal
that has succeeded for many decades in keeping this fine city's
"potential" just that...and no more.
Now comes the "big game": the "strong Mayor" race and election.
And I'm coming off the bench for that one.
GS
MONDAY and
TUESDAY, December 6 and 7,2010 David, you could be a savior for our Republican
Party: "Arise and Walk".
NEW YORK – Her poll numbers are off,
and some GOP bigwigs have come out against her. But Sarah Palin's fan
base couldn't care less. Matt Latimer on what her followers see in her.
The polls don't look good for Sarah
Palin, at
least for the moment. The GOP's professional chatterers—Karl Rove,
Peggy Noonan, David
Brooks,
and most recently Joe Scarborough—fret that she will do to the
Republican Party what "Burlesque" has done to Cher. Even the GOP's
royal family—the Bushes of Texas-by-way-of-Greenwich, Connecticut—has
taken the rather unusual step of publicly seeking her prompt exile from
their club. Bar, in particular, is
not amused.
And yet Sarah
Palin
remains a rank-and-file favorite. Her second book is yet another hit.
She has nearly two million more Facebook fans than establishment
favorite Mitt Romney, two million more than even former President
George W. Bush, and incidentally nearly 300 times as many as Bush's
mother. Supporters have made the reform-minded unknown from the Deep
North into an instant millionaire many times over—and they just might
make her the GOP nominee. Do Palinistas believe they have a case to
make? You betcha. Here are their five top reasons why her nomination
might turn out to be a good thing for the Republican Party:
1. Goodbye Karl Rove. No place
rewards failure more than Washington D.C. Mismanaged companies, gravely
irresponsible mortgage lenders and homeowners, idiots on Wall
Street—all have been bailed out by good ol' Uncle Sam. Political
consultants aren't much different. Thanks to President Obama and his
party's monumental misjudgments, the GOP did not get the typical
party-out-of-power wilderness period, a time to expunge the dead weight
at the top. Thus the very same people who lost the House and Senate to
the Democrats in 2006, who helped President Bush stagger out of office
in 2008 less popular than Nixon, and who brought the GOP to historic
lows in popular approval—lows that exist to this day—are still trying
to call the shots. Most of them won't be FedExing their resumes to Team
Palin anytime soon. If it does anything, a Palin nomination would
likely shake loose their grip on the party
apparatus,
allowing new people to emerge in 2012 and beyond. A little fresh air
could be a good thing for the grand old party, even an Arctic blast
from Alaska.
2. She's Earned It. Palin, her
supporters note, was the vice-presidential candidate on a ticket that
came within seven points of the White House. More than the dour,
establishment-tainted John McCain ever did, she inspired and energized
millions of voters. Shortly after her announcement, the McCain-Palin
ticket was leading in nearly every poll. That wasn't because voters
suddenly fell in love with the Arizonan's cuddly smile. Since 2008,
Palin has campaigned across the country for the party, raising money
and campaigning for dozens of candidates (with varying
degrees of success). Palin in fact proved so appealing to
certain segments of the GOP base that earlier this year even McCain,
facing a tough Senate primary challenge, asked her to bail him out. The
party has a history of rewarding many of its top candidates from the
prior election; why, supporters ask, is Palin any different?
3. She's More Astute than People Think.
Governor Palin famously lacks Ivy League credentials, having attended
five different colleges to get her degree. This fact has been seized on
as an example of her lack of academic seriousness, but it could just as
easily be viewed as a sign of her drive and single-mindedness. Critics
take note: This same political novice unseated a sitting Alaska
governor in a crowded GOP primary and then defeated another former
governor in the general election. That aint nothin'. Despite a notable
lack of familiarity with issues in the 2008 campaign, by 2012 she will
have had four years to study up, and is putting together a formidable
policy team to
do just that. Practically immune by now to criticism, she has
the opportunity to advance daring ideas—a list that could include entitlement
reform,
reduction of the size of the federal government, term limits, serious
cuts in spending—the sort of issues most of the other blow-dried,
PowerPoint-happy rivals would be too timid to discuss. Wouldn't it be
ironic, her supporters ask, if Sarah Palin turned out to be the "ideas
candidate" for the GOP. The fact is that none of Palin's many critics
have the money, support, and microphone that she has, all of which she
has used to become a media phenomenon. She even has used critics' low
expectations to her advantage. Nearly everyone expected Palin to crawl
off the debate stage after her encounter with Joe Biden in 2008, yet by
the end of the forum even some in the media thought
she had won.
Palin haters: This so-called "dummy" is
underestimated at your peril.
4. Beware the Candidate Scorned.
One of the great ironies of the GOP's current political success is that
it is in large part driven by thousands, if not millions, of people who
detest it. Palin benefits from the yawning frustration with a GOP
hierarchy that Tea Partiers and party
conservatives
believe has lost its principles, commitment to fiscal and personal
responsibility, and sense of direction. "Robbing" their favorite of the
2012 nomination, at least without seeming to have given her a fair
chance, may be something the party deeply regrets, especially if her
millions of alienated, and fed up, followers stay home. Besides, Palin
followers argue, would the party really be that much better off with a
field of helplessly bland, middle-aged white males with the excitement
of a ShamWOW! infomercial. They might even make the surprisingly dull
Obama—who sees every public forum as another chance to conduct a
seminar on the mechanics of governance—look cutting-edge.
5. Lessons from defeat. Though
Palinistas won't say this, her nomination could be a valuable
educational opportunity. Many supporters of the Tea Party—some 71
percent of the GOP, according to polls—are not the lunatics, birthers,
or racists who gain most of the media's attention. A good number are
simply political novices wanting to advance ideas and make a
difference. A group like that could use the Palin candidacy to learn
how the political nominating process works, to better understand how to
craft a coherent message that can be embraced by more people, and to
become more seasoned political operatives. The Democrats had this
opportunity after the McGovern disaster of 1972, which led to the rise
of a whole generation of more skillful liberal politicians, including
Bill and Hillary Clinton. And of course, for the GOP, the Goldwater
debacle of 1964 ultimately led to the rise of Ronald Reagan.
SUNDAY, December 5,2010
Many
of you are puzzled by the Fed's latest effort to 'stimulate' the
economy. Because the Fed is run by people who are PHD economists
it is difficult for a layman to grasp the logic of its intricate
actions. Click on the link below and watch the cartoon video that
is the best explanation of Quantitative Easing I've seen. It's
presented in terms a layman can understand.
FRIDAY and SATURDAY, December 3
and 4,2010
REGARDING THE MURDER OF A YOUNG MAN IN
NEW LONDON, CT.
He was allegedly murdered by five Black teenagers who did not know him,
randomly, "because they were bored".
Some of these young men reportedly come from stable families (see the
article by Charles Potter in The Day Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010). WHY?
Well, how far back do we want to go?
First there was Lucifer, thrown out of Paradise by God.
Then there was the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Then there were Cain and Abel.
Then there came the "us vs them" tribal mentality that has
permeated man since he developed cognition...and even before that in
animals.
That concept justified the very early introduction of enslavement
of fellow man...if he was not killed outright in the multitude of wars
that have defined the course of humanity to date.
Even the Catholic Church rationalized slavery for many centuries,
so that those poor creatures could be converted to God.
Fast Forward to the earliest days of this Republic. Nothing
changed...until the Civil War...and not even then and for 100 years
thereafter in this country.
Then some things changed...and some did not: the Law changed; but
the hearts of many did not, with burning resentment on both sides of
the issue. And many of the oppressed were led by their "leaders" to
believe that "freedom" was free, that responsibility could be replaced
by entitlement, that discrimination had always been wrong...but that
now "reverse discrimination" was OK, that the rules of a stable society
- the rules of family and child-rearing - did not apply to
them.
Then there was Viet Nam, a cancer on our National heart, barely
healed but having left a continuing and festering wound of contempt for
authority seasoned with the rampant use of illicit drugs among poor and
affluent alike.
Remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan and the lucid prediction
made by him in the late 1960's of the coming fate of Black families and
offspring, for which he was then bitterly reviled?
Meanwhile, those same ultra-liberal "leaders" referred to above
were proclaiming that "God is Dead", that "Abortion" is a "choice"
instead of the intentional killing of a fellow human being, that raw
experimentation could be performed on students in public schools in the
name of "education" - leading to a total failure of public education,
particularly for those dependent on public education, during the last
40 years. And remember: public education had to be "Value
Neutral".
Throughout this travesty, the victims were blindly following
their mis-guided leaders off the cliff. But not all. Some
got off the road to perdition and developed a great educated and
grounded class of Black people of whom we are all proud...except for
those poor idiots who call them "whities" for their effort and
accomplishments. These educated and accomplished Black citizens are
never "bored".
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe that passes for
"entertainment", society was urged to become more coarse, more
self-centered, more drug-dependent, more violent and with more contempt
for anything resembling Law and Order or discipline - even
self-discipline...precisely during the time that fifth grade level
students were being promoted to high school and seventh grade level
students were being allowed to "graduate" high school. Some even
"get into college"...and are totally lost there...and are
"bored".
WHAT A SHAME. WHAT A DISGRACE.
NOW, WHAT TO DO?
That's easy to outline: just admit your negligence and your gross
errors and reverse all of the above. Of course, this must start
with the parents, even in the nearly 70% of Black single parent
households. There would be massive public good will and material
support for such a turn-around.
Meanwhile, if convicted, these five individuals should be sentenced to
20 years in prison without possibility of parole...enough time for them
to revisit their education from grammar school to graduate school if
desired, and to revisit their immortal souls. At that time they
could re-enter civil society as whole, educated and productive human
beings with the next 60 years ahead of them. Anything less, in
the name of a thoroughly warped sense of "mercy" would be an outrage
for Society and for them. I'll pray for them.
GS
THURSDAY, December 2,2010
HOW, YOU ASK? Because "Internet / Cyber-Security" is an oxymoron...a
colossal and intrinsic product defect, initially accidental but
thereafter promoted by design.
It is my understanding that our Military is belatedly and feverishly
working to build a new and totally separate cyber-mechanism for its
use. We all could use some of that...especially Hillary Clinton,
our humiliated Secretary of State.
GS
WikiLeaks: How
could one person leak so much classified material?
To date, Bradley
Manning
stands accused only of providing a classified video of U.S. operations
in Iraq to WikiLeaks. But U.S. government officials say they
consider Manning the prime suspect behind the flood of documents that
have wound up being promulgated by the group determined to bust U.S.
secrecy.
Manning, 23, seems like an unlikely
culprit. Trained as an intelligence analyst, awarded a Top Secret
clearance, deployed to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the
Army's 10th Mountain
Division
in 2007, he's a mere PFC, or Private First Class, not an Aldrich Ames,
the elite spy who leaked to the Soviets. Instead of working at CIA
headquarters in Langley, Va., or doing secret drops in Vienna,
Manning's days were spent in an air-conditioned shack inside a small
forward-deployed compound in Iraq.
Skeptics of the government's case against
Manning wonder how one young soldier, operating with a couple of
computers in the middle of desert, could access and download so much
classified information and do so undetected for so long. Indeed, it
appears Manning might not have come under suspicion at all had he not
confided in a reformed hacker named Adrian
Lamo,
and had Lamo, a civilian, not reported Manning's musings to the U.S.
Army.
But in the modern military, which relies
on information as much as bullets and bunkers, it's easier than one
might think to gain access to classified material and to disseminate
it, according to interviews with numerous officials.
Manning's job was to make sure that other
intelligence analysts in his group had access to everything that they
were entitled to see. That included incoming intelligence streams from
across the world on something called the Joint Worldwide Intelligence
Communications System (JWICS), the Department of Defense's computer
network for Top Secret information. Manning also had access to another
information stream dubbed the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network
(SIPRNet), the Pentagon's server for information classified as Secret.
(Secret and Top Secret are differing levels of classifications for
materials.)
Using keyword searches and a knowledge of
routing nomenclature, any intelligence analyst -- even if he's sitting
in a shack in Iraq -- can access pretty much any piece of data
classified at the level of access he has. Analysts are given updated
documents like this
unclassified list of every military operating unit and its e-mail
designator. The lists can be accessed through an unsecure and
unpublicized Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff
file transfer network. Another document lists every single mail routing
address by location, even for unacknowledged locations like the Air
Force test site in "Area 51" near Las Vegas.
Information and intelligence at the Top
Secret level can't be transferred off of those computers easily. To
transfer information from the SIPRNet to unclassified networks,
analysts like Manning use proprietary computers called SNAP. About
1,500 are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to
TeleCommunications Systems, the company that builds them. SNAP,
which stands for SIPR-NIPR Access Point, "allows you to bring stuff
from the low side to the high side and vice versa, securely," one
current user of the program said. The user asked to remain anonymous in
order to share sensitive but unclassified insights into how analysts
perform their work. Information on an unclassified computer can be
transferred to a stick drive, burned onto a CD or simply e-mailed away.
The important thing to know is that
diplomatic cables are no longer transmitted over wires to clattering
teletype machines. They're sent via e-mail over secured networks, and
they are also stored on servers until they're erased. Cables and incident
reports
from the field are stored on servers in the form of PST files -- PS
stands for "personal storage" -- e-mail archives that Microsoft's
Outlook program uses to compress and store data.
So how did Manning allegedly manage to
get access to the diplomatic cables? They're transmitted via e-mail in
PDF form on a State Department network called ClassNet, but they're
stored in PST form on servers and are searchable. If Manning's unit
needed to know whether Iranian proxies had acquired some new weapon,
the information might be contained within a diplomatic cable. All any
analyst has to do is to download a PST file with the cables, unpack
them, SNAP them up or down to a computer that is capable of interacting
with a thumb drive or a burnable CD, and then erase the server logs
that would have provided investigators with a road map of the analyst's
activities. But analysts routinely download and access large files, so
such behavior would not have been seen as unusual.
Manning is alleged to have started to
provide WikiLeaks with the information in the fall of 2009.
His access to computer systems was cut off in late May of 2010. The
Army's charging document accuses him of downloading "more than" 50
classified State Department cables to his personal computer.
The Department of Defense has tried to
make sure that analysts don't abuse the privilege of all-source access
while ensuring that they don't operate under an umbrella of constant
fear and suspicion or suffer from the kind of stovepiping or
compartmentalization that led to pre-9/11 intelligence failures when
one agency wouldn't talk with another.
About 60 percent of DoD computers now are
monitored by a Host-Based Security System that detects unusual patterns
of download and access activity on SIPRNet, according to Bryan Whitman,
a Pentagon
spokesman.
SNAP tools have also been modified. Analysts seeking to upgrade or
downgrade information must do so in a supervised setting, Whitman said
in an e-mail to defense reporters on Sunday.
The U.S. Central Command has begun
security reviews of protocols at forward-deployed settings like Hammer
in Iraq, where Manning spent several years. "Insider threat working
groups" have been established, and commanding officers are being
trained to detect behavioral changes in their young analysts.
And the Office of Management and Budget has
ordered "each department or agency that handles classified
information" to establish a security assessment team that would make
sure that users don't have "broader access than is necessary to do
their jobs effectively."
But the tension between access, which is
critical for tactical intelligence, and operational security, which is
critical for protecting secrets, is tight. In wartime, the number of
young, fresh-out-of-school analysts granted security clearances
skyrockets as demand for intelligence increases exponentially. In this
instance, if Manning is indeed the culprit, all it took was one
disaffected young man with a rudimentary knowledge of computer systems
to bring down an entire edifice of code names, secret networks,
compartmented channels, and protected information.
The madness of it all...including the Judge who recently ruled that the
State of Oklahoma cannot block the use of Sharia Law. The English
courts are doing the same thing.
What no one will understand is that Islam is a
Religion...and a Political State without physical borders.
They're one and the same with Muslims, as established by Mohammed in
the 7th Century AD.
We do and should have Freedom of Religion. But neither we nor
anyone in a sovereign State can accord another sovereign State's laws
Full Faith and Credit within our national borders. That would be
anarchy. If that were the case, why could I not declare the Sovereign State of Sprecace, which
does not recognize any taxation on income?
Some tenets of Sharia law are spiritual - religious in nature and
effect. Many others have nothing to do with the spiritual...but
rather with the civil and criminal governance of Muslims. The
former should be respected; the latter should be rejected within the
borders of any other sovereign nation. And this is entirely
compatible with the legitimate area of the Law called "Conflict of
Laws".
All the rest is fear, political correctness...and MADNESS.
GS
TUESDAY, November 30,2010
THE START TREATY: POINT AND
COUNTERPOINT. GS
Russia's Medvedev
warns of new arms race
By Steve Gutterman Steve Gutterman
– Tue Nov 30,
9:21 am ET
MOSCOW (Reuters) – President Dmitry
Medvedev warned on Tuesday that a new arms race would erupt within the
next decade unless Russia and the West forged an agreement to cooperate
on building a missile
defense
system.
In his annual state of the nation
address, Medvedev called for closer cooperation with the United States
and the European Union, holding out the prospect of closer ties two
decades after the Soviet
Union's
collapse
ended the Cold War.
He said tension would ratchet up fast,
forcing Russia to bolster its military arsenal, if Western offers of
cooperation on a system to defend against missile
threats
failed to produce a concrete agreement.
The warning appeared to reflect wariness
in the Kremlin over uncertainty about Senate ratification of New START,
the nuclear arms limitation pact Medvedev signed with President Barack
Obama in April, centerpiece of the push for better ties.
"In the coming decade we face the
following alternatives: Either we reach agreement on missile defense
and create a full-fledged joint mechanism of cooperation, or ... a new
round of the arms
race
will begin," Medvedev said.
"And we will have to take a decision
about the deployment of new offensive weapons. It is clear that this
scenario would be very grave."
The remarks, in a 72-minute speech to
members of parliament and ministers, raised the stakes in sensitive
discussions with the United States and NATO on missile defense. The
issue has divided Moscow and the West since the 1980s.
Medvedev agreed to NATO's offer of missile
defense
cooperation
at a summit with the alliance that was hailed as a fresh start, but the
plans are sketchy and Russia has warned it wants an equal voice in
evaluating threats and responses.
Medvedev has pursued warmer ties with the
West and particularly Washington since he was steered into the
presidency by his predecessor, Vladimir Putin.
He has embraced Obama's efforts to
"reset" a relationship that hit post-Cold War lows during Russia's war
with Georgia in August 2008, months after he took office.
RESET UNDER THREAT?
After the address, Kremlin aide Arkady
Dvorkovich told journalists the collapse of the New START pact "would
mean nothing good and we are counting on ratification going through."
Obama wants the treaty ratified before
his Democratic Party's majority decreases when the new Senate elected
this month convenes early next year.
Medvedev's comments also seemed aimed to
assuage hard-liners and assure Russians steeped in decades of
anti-Western rhetoric that Moscow will not open itself up to a threat.
When Medvedev said Russia might have to
deploy more weapons, applause broke out after a brief pause before he
went on to say that would be "very grave."
Russia has emphasized it could withdraw
from New START if a U.S. missile
defense
system
becomes a threat to its security.
"Russia wants a legally binding agreement
on missile defense because it sees potential threats," said military
analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. But he said Russia "does not have the
capabilities" to hold its own in an arms race in the foreseeable future.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal
"Russia in Global Affairs," said Medvedev's message was that if Russia
is shut out of meaningful missile defense cooperation, it "will try to
take measures to counter that by modernizing its nuclear arsenal."
The Kremlin's pursuit of better ties with
the West has been accompanied by calls for a stronger say across a
broad swath of the globe including Europe, America and the ex-Soviet
Union.
"I see significant potential in
broadening cooperation with the European Union and the United States,"
Medvedev said, though he underscored that Moscow wants concrete
benefits such as help on Moscow's bid to join the WTO.
(Additional reporting by Alissa de
Carbonnel, Tom Grove, Amie Ferris-Rotman and Denis Dyomkin; Editing by
Jon Boyle)
Irrelevance of the New START
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
It's a lame-duck session. Time is running
out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak and, with
less than five weeks to go, no one knows what tax they'll be paying on
everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates
expire Jan. 1. And what is the president demanding that Congress pass
as "a top priority"? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio
address? Ratification of his New START treaty.
Good grief. Even among national security
concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the
naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated
between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with
general uselessness being the norm.
The reason is obvious. The problem is
never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the
weapon. That's why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes,
while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.
In Soviet days, arms control at least
could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was
nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between
mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and
therapeutic effect in the age of "the balance of terror."
But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are
no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington
and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many
nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury
creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.
President Obama insists that New START is
important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where
does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare.
We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop
nukes in secret.
Just last week we found out about a
hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment
facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in
the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them -
against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.
Moreover, Obama's idea that the great
powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of
the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe
that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be
deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S.
arsenal?
Useless and problematic
Obama's New START treaty, like the rest,
is 90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic. One difficulty is
that it restricts the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.
But because some of these are dual-use, our ability to deliver
long-range conventional weapons, a major U.S. strategic
advantage, is constrained.
The second problem is the recurrence of
language in the treaty preamble linking offensive to defensive nuclear
weaponry. We have a huge lead over the rest of the world in
anti-missile defenses. Ever since the Reagan days, the Russians have
been determined to undo this advantage. The New START treaty affirms
the "interrelationship" between offense and defense. And Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev has insisted that "the unchangeability of
circumstances" - translation: no major advances in U.S. anti-missile
deployment - is a condition of the entire treaty.
The worst thing about this treaty,
however, is that it is simply a distraction. It gives the illusion of
doing something about nuclear danger by addressing a non-problem,
Russia, while doing nothing about the real problem - Iran and North
Korea. The utter irrelevance of New START to nuclear safety was
dramatically underscored last week by the revelation of that North
Korean uranium enrichment plant, built with such sophistication that it
left the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory "stunned."
It could become the ultimate proliferation factory. Pyongyang is
already a serial proliferator. It has nothing else to sell. Iran, Syria
and al-Qaeda have the money to buy.
Iran's Islamic Republic lives to bring
down the Great Satan. North Korea, nuclear-armed and in a succession
crisis, has just shelled South Korean territory for the first time
since the Korean armistice.
Obama peddling New START is the guy
looking for his wallet under the lamppost because that's where the
light is good - even though he lost the wallet on the other side of
town.
MONDAY, November 29,2010
THERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE PERPETUAL VICTIMS ANYMORE.
GS
How to Stop North Korea
Nov. 29 2010 - 12:03 am
“No one has found a way to persuade North Korea to move in sensible
directions.” Stapleton Roy, the former American ambassador, said
this to me in the beginning of 2004.
Since then, Kim Jong Il has continued to travel down the wrong
path. The little dictator may be an absolute failure when it
comes to running the domestic affairs of his Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, but he is nonetheless a genius in roiling relations
in North Asia. No nation—with the possible exception of
increasingly militant China—has figured out how to get along with
Pyongyang.
How do we deal with North Korea? There is one major step to take,
and then the rest falls into place. As an initial matter, we have
to adjust our thinking. “Whenever peace—conceived as the
avoidance of war—has been the primary objective of a power or a group
of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most
ruthless member of the international community,” wrote Henry Kissinger,
long before the emergence of Kim Jong Il. “Whenever the
international order has acknowledged that certain principles could not
be compromised even for the sake of peace, stability based on an
equilibrium of forces was at least conceivable.”
Today, South Koreans think the use of force is inconceivable, and the
Obama administration shares that view. Therefore, we jump at just
about every offer to talk to Pyongyang, such as the one Beijing floated
yesterday.
But as Kissinger hints, the most reliable way to become engaged in a
war is to desperately try to avoid one. By not imposing any
consequences on the North for its belligerent behavior—the sinking of
the Cheonan in March and the shelling of Yeonpyeong last week, for
instance—Seoul has encouraged Kim Jong Il to continue to kill South
Koreans. Eventually, his regime will overstep, doing something
that starts an escalatory spiral. So, if we want to avoid a
general conflict in North Asia, we need to change the way Pyongyang
views the world.
The first thing we can do is intimidate Kim, who is usually well
behaved when confronted with superior force. He has abrogated the
1953 armistice on various occasions, most recently on May 27 of last
year. We nonetheless maintain that the truce remains in force,
but as a matter of international law it cannot continue to exist if one
party states it has been terminated. We should take the North
Koreans at their word and announce that we too recognize that there is
no longer any agreement not to use force.
If we have the right to use force, we certainly have the right to take
coercive measures. Here are three of them we should implement
immediately.
First, the U.S. Treasury should order banks and other financial
institutions doing business in or with the U.S. to freeze North Korea’s
funds and to refrain from commercial transactions with the militant
state. This mimics the Bush administration’s targeting of Banco
Delta Asia, a Macau institution that was handling Pyongyang’s illicit
money transfers. The action, taken in 2005, forced North Korea to
use its diplomats as mules to ferry money around the world in bulging
suitcases. Much of the North’s commerce is illegitimate
anyway—counterfeit currency, methamphetamines, you name it—so this is
something that should be done in any event.
Second, South Korea should order its 120 or so companies in the Kaesong
Industrial Complex to close their facilities there. The area,
just north of the Demilitarized Zone, funnels about $600 million yearly
to the North. A large portion of this sum ends up in the pockets
of senior regime members, who skim wages and other payments. It
is shameful for South Korean leaders to talk of North Korea’s
“unpardonable” acts while funding them at the same time. It is,
simply stated, morally wrong.
Third, the U.S., along with its allies, must interdict North Korean
shipments of long-range missiles and items that can be used in nuclear
weapons programs. Pyongyang has been proliferating nuclear
weapons and missile technology to Iran, Syria, and Burma, according to
a U.N. report released this month, and there are undoubtedly other
customers as well. North Korea has links with terrorist groups
and has sold conventional weaponry to Hezbollah, for instance.
It’s not much a leap for the regime to sell a nuke to Osama bin Laden.
So North Korea is a threat to not just its neighbors. It poses a
threat to the United States. Last June, the U.S. turned back the
Kang Nam, a North Korean tramp freighter believed to be carrying
nuclear materials to Burma. The action was hailed at the time as
a victory for nonproliferation.
Yet we never found out what happened to its cargo, which was unloaded
and probably shipped overland through China. We should have
boarded the vessel on the high seas and, if necessary, confiscated its
cargo. With no armistice in effect, such an act would have been
permissible under international law. We had the right to sink the
Kang Nam, so of course we had the right to stop and search it.
If we want “the most ruthless member of the international
community”—that’s Kim Jong Il—“to move in sensible directions,” we need
to abandon policies that have not worked and adopt ones that can.
By now, we don’t have much choice.
