Beyond the Cusp

Waving Good-Bye

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:07:00 +0000

Dear friends and loyal readers,

Thank you for your patronage and interest in the blog Beyond the Cusp. This is to inform you that the time has come to put Beyond the Cusp to bed. There were times in the past where taking a couple of weeks off were enough, not this time. What I see coming would not make for good reading and I would be writing articles while praying that I be wrong, not a comfortable position. The e-mail address will remain for some time for any who wish to continue contact with me.

Thank you again for your patience and patronage through the last three plus years. I wish you all happiness, joys, and good health. May our futures be bright and free of troubles. My best wishes to all.

Thank You,
Beyond the Cusp

Watchwords on Pakistan

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:12:00 +0000

Pakistan is quantitatively and qualitatively stepping up production of fissile material in preparation of upgrading and enlarging their nuclear arsenal. When considering their record of proliferation and security breaches in their past nuclear dealings makes this all the more menacing. Now add into the mix the very possibility of imminent control of these armaments by al-Queda and the Taliban and you get a very nervous India. This is exactly what sparked India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh this week making an ardent plea to President Obama and the Washington politicos. Despite the credible threat revealed by Indian intelligence backed up and confirmed by Israeli intelligence, there has been no sign of concern coming out of Washington. Apparently, the fact that a major nuclear power in the Middle East is precipitously close to falling into Islamist hands while also building new and more powerful nuclear weapons does not call for even the slightest wariness from the new American President. This is definitely a “What the heck are they thinking?” moment.

Another question that has avoided discussion in most circles in Washington is exactly how far has the ISI, Pakistan’s secretive security agency, been infiltrated by Islamists and Taliban. Often left from the discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan is the fact that the Taliban was originally formed by Pakistan’s ISI to implement a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan. Another question would be how much of the military has also come under such control, specifically the parts of the nuclear command structure. This used to be a very guarded group under the rule of President Musharraf, but now this is a question that requires answering. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any more importance placed on these issues under President Obama than there was under President Bush. This is one area of apparent disregard that has carried over from the past Presidency to the present one.

Satellite images taken recently show Pakistan building two large new plutonium production reactors in Khushab area of Pakistan. These reactors are of a purely military purpose without even the slightest inclination to have them at least appear as power generating reactors. Given Pakistan’s past record on nuclear proliferation, this should be raising at least a few eyebrows. With this coming barely subsequent to the release from house arrest of Dr. A. K. Khan, one cannot help but express concern over any furtherance of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. With Iran and North Korea seemingly in total cooperation on the two fronts of nuclear arms and ballistic missiles, it begs the question of how much interest does Pakistan have in these developments and what are Pakistan’s plans for the future? Could these new facilities be the first signs of another round of Pakistani nuclear proliferation? Even if these new facilities are purely for internal Pakistani nuclear use, with the current political upheavals taking place within Pakistan this does not bode well. But, why should we worry, it must be all Kosher as the Administration of President Obama, as with Bush before him, does not appear to feel any urgency or concern. Everything must be normal and not worth further inspection or wariness.

Beyond the Cusp

Dollars and Doughnuts

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:07:00 +0000

Money is sometimes called dough. This begs the question of which will soon be worth more, dough as in money or dough as in doughnut. The way things are shaping up it is quite likely that dough for making bread will be worth more than dough and the slang bread meaning money. The problem for most people is that the combinations of macro and micro economics that go to making up the entire economy is oft well beyond the average person’s understanding. We all have a basic understanding when it comes to the simple concepts and rules that directly affect our lives. But beyond basic supply vs. demand and their relationship with prices and the idea of interest as applied to savings or car loans, mortgages, and credit cards, we are totally lost behind glazed eyes when the discussions turn to GDP, GNP, marginal investments, inflation, deflation, selling short, ARM, Retail Price Index, and a cornucopia of other equally mystical terms. This is behind why the various spokespersons speaking about economic policies can say almost anything as long as they muddle the text with a number of obscure economics terms to both baffle and pretend expertise. This is particularly true of many of our elected officials who simply parrot what their teleprompter tells them, while adding a few gruff throat clearings to sound so very deadly serious.

Fortunately, the main part of our economic future does not take a degree in economics to understand. It does take a small amount of knowledge and the time to sift through all the confusing verbiage behind which the truth is hidden. What everything breaks down to is a few simple facts. At the head of our problems is the sufficient number of loans that turned sour when the housing market initially leveled off and then began a correction for the overly inflated price of its markets. Housing prices had been driven by easy financing that allowed loans for up to 100% and even beyond to be granted with minimal oversight. Along with these speculative loans that were dependent on the continued increase in housing prices were another sector of loans that had been issued to high-risk people who ordinarily would not have qualified for any house loan. These loans were forced to be made by a Federal Government program called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was passed way back in the late 1970’s and signed by President Carter. The idea behind these loans was to make home ownership viable for lower income people by requiring banks to issue a set percentage of home loans to be CRA loans.

One might ask if this law had been in place since the 1970’s, why did it take until after the year 2000 to become a problem. There are two reasons behind this remaining dormant for so long. The first cause was during the Clinton Presidency the CRA was broadened such that more people would be made eligible for such loans and banks were pressed to make even a higher percentage of their loans as CRA loans. With the one two punch of the overheated speculating market and the higher percentage of marginal loans being made at the same time, a time bomb had been laid for the housing mortgage market. The fuse to this bomb was lighted when housing prices stagnated then fell approximately 10% at the same time as the economy took a slight downturn. This caused numerous defaults from both ends of the market; the high-end speculative loans and the low and low-to-middle end CRA loans. When these loans defaulted it made for a glut of available housing on the market, which immediately forced prices downward, that pesky supply and demand thing. With that further downturn coming before the market could ratchet back up from the correction, causing another round of failures almost immediately behind the first wave, the collapse was set in motion. Where the finance companies could probably have handled the initial failures, even including those from the two separate causes, they were unable to recover when another wave hit, causing the doubling up like a series of punches leading to a knockout.

Now we were looking at the potential collapse of some of the major financial institutions that were left holding worthless mortgage papers. Government changes in regulations meant to make the CRA loans able to be melded into larger financial packages that were given higher credit ratings that they deserved now were near to worthless thus knocking much of the underpinning out from the financial tables. Since it was the lax credit requirements imposed by the government that caused a sizeable percentage of the defaulted loans, the government hurried to cover their complicity by offering bailouts in exchange for silence on their complicity. Now the piper has come for his payment and the cupboard is bare. So, what to do?

The initial response from our government, surprise, surprise, was to turn to other countries to acquire loans to cover the further bailouts that were necessary. Guess what? With our economic house in such disarray, no country rushed forward to loan us the needed monies. What a surprise. This left only a few bad choices from which to pick. The lending institutions could be allowed to default, the absolute worst choice. The Federal Reserve could force interest rates way down to try and give some cover for the failing companies to dig their way back to solvency. Tried this, failed. Or the last choice, start up the Government Printing Presses and make bales and bales of money. There is one very large problem to printing money for the sake of printing money. This makes every single dollar worth less by an amount equal to the percentage of the money supply being printed. If they print money equal to 25% of the money supply, then each dollar you hold is immediately worth only seventy-five cents. Instant inflation.

This also will lead to even less desire by other nations to lend America money as it makes our money a liability to hold. This could lead to a rush by other nations to dump their dollars. Should this occur we would have little choice but to do whatever it takes to buy those dollars in order to salvage any value for the dollar. This is where we currently stand. Any further deficit spending will only exacerbate the problem. Despite the fact that only through financial restraint can we fully recover from this assault upon our money supply, the government is cruising ahead as if there has been no crisis. With the government setting to implement federalism health care, a money drain unlike anything we have ever seen, we are creeping closer and closer to an event horizon to an economic black hole. Once we go beyond that singular point of no return, America will face a slow and final economic death that will drag even a super power into the depths of despair. If you want to see what our leaders are gambling on doing to our economy, look no further than Zimbabwe where if you take too long to cash a paycheck it halves in value. We need to impress upon our governing leaders the necessity to show fiscal restraint until we have sufficiently recovered from the shock to our financial markets. There is no way to spend your way out of this economic dilemma. It is time to freeze spending, not to look to federalize 17% of the American economy, the percentage taken up by our health care industry. But then, if the governing aim is to force us into economic fascism where the government and industry rule and the citizens obey, then by all means, spend us all the way into serfdom.

Beyond the Cusp

Death Watch Over Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:46:00 +0000

The past few weeks have been full of articles decrying the coming demise of the Israel-American alliance in favor of a troika of Europe, the Arab/Muslim States, and America. The virtually universal phrase has been the “Throw Israel under the bus” phrase that caught on during the campaign as candidate Obama disposed of those who became a liability during his run for the Presidency. Truth be told, there have been numerous warnings and ominous threats reported to have come from different White House sources. The question that will be answered is whether these threats have been issued to lower expectations, or sent to make a wary and cautious Israel and those supporting them within the United States, or actual premonitions of a new tact in American policies pertaining to the entire Middle East.

I have no doubt that the Obama Administration would dearly love to lower the level of support for Israel enabling significant cuts in expenditures supporting Israel, both politically and militarily. This would be a natural extension of President Obama’s plans to emphasize butter over guns. There is a definite push to spend more on domestic agendas while taking the needed funding from military proposals. The canceling of the Raptor F-22 and proposed cuts in a now proven missile defense systems are just the tip of the iceberg. Slashing military support for Israel could be seen as savings in military budgets with little or no pain at home. But that takes the position that Israel is not a needed cog in American foreign policy. Time will tell if changing our alliances will be a boon or a bust in Middle East relations or if it will lead to more violence and possibly ignite open warfare in one of the most volatile areas in the world.

The truth of the matter is Israel still has many supporters in the Washington power structures. These supporters will still have their say and will have some direct influence on whether or not President Obama will be allowed to throw Israel under the proverbial bus. The one reason for keeping some fair degree of influence through continued support of Israel would be to avoid forcing Israel into a position where they feel betrayed and totally on their own. Such a situation could force Israel to take measures that would be counter-productive to American interests, a major one being avoidance of the frictions of the Middle East bursting into the fires of open warfare. If the predictions of President Obama turning America’s back on Israel prove valid, then all bets are off and further negotiations by the rest of the world with Iran over their nuclear program may prove futile. The only view that may end up being crucial regarding Iran and their presumed nuclear weapons program will be the Israeli opinion towards the use of a military solution. There is an old proverb that nothing is more dangerous than a mother protecting her children. In this case, Israel would be that mother and her citizens the children she would protect. As the old threat goes, “We truly live in interesting times.”

Beyond the Cusp

The New ‘F’ Word

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 09 May 2009 19:38:00 +0000

There is a word beginning with ‘F’ that everybody appears to be afraid to use. Many of them know it is the truth but just cannot bring themselves to speak the dreaded word. They have watched as the Federal Government has moved to take the reigns of our financial sector and the automobile industry starting with the deceitful use of TARP Funds by the Bush Administration. Bush and his minions came to Congress and asked for billions of dollars to buy up the toxic debts that were bringing many financial firms into insolvency. Then, once they had procured the funds, they declared a great new plan that would put those very funds to better use; they bought preferred stock gaining a substantial interest in owning and controlling these financial institutions. To make matters even more complicated and making all their noble claims crumble into the ruse which spawned them, they started by buying up preferred stocks in healthy banks and mortgage companies under the guise that by doing such they were removing any stigma getting these funds might cause. There is a word for when government takes the reigns of industry and federalized the banks, a dread word beginning with the letter ‘F’. But none use the ‘F’ word.

Then came the pleas from the automakers with outstretched hands looking for a handout, their piece of the bailout billions. Chrysler and General Motors came as beggars while Ford joined initially with some reluctance. Ford proved to be the prudent of the Big Three. Initially, the government played coy and hard to get, but they were, in reality, chomping at the bit to get their claws into the automakers and take them over. Ford smelled the stench of the deal and backed away, Chrysler and General Motors could not afford that luxury. Well, General Motors took the deleterious dollars and paid the price of being forced to sack their CEO and accept a government appointed replacement. Chrysler was pushed too far too fast and ended up turning to bankruptcy, an alternative they could have and should have employed without surrendering their company to the government. Now Chrysler had had the settlement dictated and their investors, the people who fuel the economic engine in this country and around the world, closed out and swindled out of their rightful claims under bankruptcy law. There is a word beginning with ‘F’ that is defined by the actions of the government controlling the spoils of industry and production.

Now the truth has begun to come into focus. The Car Czar has spoken, or perhaps misspoken, letting the cat out of the bag. Car Czar Steven Rattner stated the need for the government to direct the big three automakers on what kind of car they should, and presumably will, be directed to make to meet the demands of the American people. All of this sounds so perfect, so neat and tidy, so Atlas Shrugged that I am now walking around asking if anybody has heard of or knows the whereabouts of John Galt. With all of this happening in the here and now, many have forgotten about the next set of goals for a government takeover of large sectors of the American economy. We must remember that we still have the government controlled universal health care coming towards us at breakneck speeds and showing no signs of slowing, let alone being stopped. And right on the heels is the Cap and Trade carbon tax scheme. With this, the government will have all but assumed ownership over the energy industry and with it all of what manufacturing is left in America. So, for those who are English-challenged, the ‘F’ word I’ve been alluding to is Fascism! Yes indeed boys and girls, Fascism, the latest and greatest answer to cure all the ills caused by Capitalism, that very same failed economic system that simply has not been implemented with the right people in charge. This time it will be different, it will be better, this time it will work because now we have President Obama and, truth be told, both the Democrat and Republican Parties and their accumulated wisdom being showcased every day on Congressional Hill. Oh boy! I can hardly wait.

Beyond the Cusp

Supreme Criteria

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:11:00 +0000

President Obama will soon be revealing a nominee for the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land and the one court that is the final arbitrator on justice and the interpretations of our Constitution. So, one has to wonder what kind of person will President Obama seek out? Will he seek a devout jurist who will interpret the written law and only the written law thus preserving the much-valued blind justice mode we have come to revere in this land? Unfortunately, no. President Obama has stated that he is seeking “somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” So, what kind of ramifications and decisions can we expect for the next who knows how many years from such a choice?

What we can expect is he will choose a very liberal judge who believes it is the court’s responsibility to heal society and mend the perceived social injustices that are popular at the time. We will most likely get a justice who sees their position as filled with the ability to mold the law to meet the modern perceptions over the literal word of law. We will get a juror who sees being a friend to the oppressed and providing them with understanding and a hand up to be more important than upholding the tradition of the law. We will get a nominee who sees the Constitution as a clay tablet that can be smoothed over and rewritten rather than ideals and ideas chiseled permanently in stone. He will present us with a new Supreme Court judge who feels that he should amend the constitution through his decisions guided by his sensitivity and moral compass. The new-age judge we will get will see his job to warm the law in order to soften and remove any harshness rather than to implement the cold hard law as a fact. No longer will the Constitution be the law of the land to this jurist, it will be the supreme suggestion of the land, not a rule book, but a guide book, not the last word, but only the next to the last word open to be molded and changed for all time by their own desires to make it more humane.

The judge that will likely be given the appointment, and probably get an easy approval, as history has shown has been the case more often than not with Democrat Presidential appointments to the court, will be so far from the definition of a strict constructionist as to make such a view merely a figment of our imaginations. One of the most disastrous consequences of such an appointment will be the ruling that nothing is beyond the power of the Federal Government. Any and every social justice program will be found to be within the bounds of the Constitution. The person we get is most likely to be a lawyer that resembles a cross between a community organizer and a social worker than an officer of the court and the law. G-d help us.

Beyond the Cusp

Our Twisted Horizons and the Middle East

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:23:00 +0000

This article deserves a disclaimer before reading. I admit that at times I go off the deep end and write crazy stuff. This is the most dire and extreme of any crazies I have ever written. Take with large grain of rock salt. End of warning. Remember, crazy does not necessarily equal not true.

The worst-case scenario just over the horizon for the United States, as well as Europe and much of the world, is financial instability and worsening economic outlooks. Despite the reputed signs of a recovery in the stock market, we will soon have news that a number of major banks and other financial institutions faired worse than expected in the recent stress testing. We have heard the claims that these stress tests were structured to take into account the worst possible cases for the future environment facing the tested institutions. Unfortunately, the stress testing does not test for any of the looming and dire circumstances that are fast approaching. Much of the housing markets are on the verge of another steep tumble of their market value. This will erase any vestige of value that will further erode the ability to make mortgages to cover the excessive loans still considered viable. Banks, mortgage companies and all other credit establishments holding current mortgages will find that even people who are current and not considered at risk will find themselves upside-down in their houses. We are likely to see home values will retreat to their values from way back in the mid 1960’s. This could very well cause a massive value deficiency that will very possibly force revaluing every outstanding mortgage. The only people who will be stable in their home values will be those who have very large equities or have no mortgage and own their homes. This crisis will also cause massive demands from the people for new and adjusted estimations on their home values and reduced property taxes to be more inline with the devalued values of their homes. This will speed the coming crisis for local governments that depend largely upon property taxes for their budgets, including the many school systems totally funded through property taxes.

Before the end of September, probably at some point this summer, the economies of the West will face a new and crippling problem. The twin crises of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict and the rise of the Taliban in Pakistan and Iran through their imminent nuclear capabilities will erupt with devastating consequences. With the Taliban soon to assume rule over Pakistan and take ownership of their nuclear weapons along with Iran probably having built as many as a half dozen nuclear devices, both India and Israel will be facing the imminent possibility of what could best be framed as extinction events. The world will have come to the precipice of a wide-ranging nuclear exchange. With this tension tearing at the world stage, one slip or misread move could very well disrupt the flow of oil, the blood energy of our economies. By this time, unemployment will have surpassed 10% by the end of summer. The intolerable situation from a Middle East nuclear standoff causing oil shipping to come to a standstill will very likely have the same affect upon the stage of world economies that the Soviet Union faced right before their collapse.

There is an immediate need to reassess how we are addressing our economic difficulties that threaten world financial stability. Government bailouts that are being used to transfer ownership, or at least control, over much of the economic engines to centralized government control is probably the worst possible path we could have taken. Between the inability to turn around many of these failing companies that should be allowed to fail and be replaced with fresh companies with new, more efficient methods. Instead, we are setting up government to take the fall right along with these over-bloated and inefficient industries and financial institutions. Add this to the steady rise in unemployment that is showing signs of increased strain along with the inevitable inflation, some say possibly hyper-inflation, that is guaranteed to follow such massive increases in debt and new, unbacked monies injected into the economy in the name of saving these behemoth companies that are only big enough to fail, and we are facing a world where the United States will be so self-involved as to be unable to impose any influence. Nobody attempting to stabilize, or at least have a calming affect in, the Middle East at this juncture is a recipe for devastating disaster. This is one possible nightmare scenario that we are facing over the immediate future. Fortunately, I will join those who will say, what do you know, you are no authority on anything, and that is true.

Beyond the Cusp

Putting Bush to Rest

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sun, 03 May 2009 02:52:00 +0000

One thing that can be said about President Obama’s first 100 days, he appeared put the Bush Presidency completely to rest. Almost nothing of the Bush agenda remains intact after Obama has had everybody working overtime to bury every vestige of the Bush Presidency. There is one little problem though. President Obama has no sooner buried everything Bush than he has started to dig much of it back up as he has found a need for them. President Obama is now considering reforming the Military Tribunals. He has made a decision to keep the Patriot Act and has adopted the wiretap and other surveillance methods. The further along we go, much of Obama’s methodologies begin to have a remarkable similarity to those of his predecessor. The funny thing is that nobody seems to have noticed, or at least those who have are being awful quiet.

But how about those things that President Obama was in complete agreement with President Bush and his policies. Very little had been done to point these things out. There is the open borders and the amnesty for illegal aliens, no, not undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens. President Obama has grabbed on to the bailout idea with a vengeance. He has even endorsed the slightly controversial idea of using the bailouts for purchasing preferred stock in both troubled companies and even some financial institutions that were not stressed in the slightest. Much of President Obama’s economic recovery program has been a straight continuation of President Bush’s economic recovery sham. We have the same Defense Secretary, the same Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and many of the same people in both the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am sure there are other programs that have been continued that I have not mentioned and fully expect that others will emerge over time. Often, by taking a critical look at Administration changes we find that many of the underlying basics do not change appreciably.

Now, I would like to point out something that has been my major source of distress. It seems that President Obama has kept just about every program and approach that I despised from President Bush. Sorry my liberal readers, I am not an ex-Bush-bot. I am nobody’s mind numb robot. The only people I almost totally agree with politically have been long dead. I agree greatly with Thomas Jefferson except that I feel life needs to be enjoyed more. I also agree very much with Benjamin Franklin with a proviso that I tend to be more cynical when it comes to trusting my fellow man. Benjamin was a populist who saw mankind as basically good. I unfortunately have read Lord of the Flies. When it comes to contemporary people in American politics, I would have to say that John Bolton and Sarah Palin, the little exposure she has given, seem to be closest to this cynical old man’s positions. I am sure if they were to gain high office that my differences with them would expand, but until then, I can have hope. The last President I found most favorable was Ronald Reagan, and before him Dwight Eisenhower or Harry (S. for nothing) Truman. On that possible distressing note to many of my readers, I will stop before doing any further damage. Take care and good cheer to all.

Beyond the Cusp

Obama, Israel, and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:52:00 +0000

Though President Obama received an overwhelming percentage of the Jewish vote, despite this fact and the claims of many of the paleocons, their vote was not what caused McCain’s loss. McCain lost because, as is always the case, when the Republican candidate is almost indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent on many of the most important issues, he loses the support of most types of true conservatives and is unable to gather sufficient Democrat voters to make up the difference. There are insufficient Jewish people in the United States, counting every man, woman, and child to account for the margin of victory of President Obama. The other side of the coin is that since the Jewish vote was not crucial to President Obama’s victory, he is not necessarily vote-bound to support Israel in order to assure keeping the Jewish vote. So, where does that leave Israel in the foreign affairs mix of things?

Many have expressed fear that President Obama will, as it has been stated, throw Israel under the bus as he has so many other pesky people and issues that impeded his way. An equal number point to the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff as a sign that President Obama will honor the apparent favorable relationship between the United States and Israel. This is a somewhat hollow sign as Rahm Emanuel, while being a veteran of the IDF; he was also partially to blame for the failed Oslo Accords. So, in many ways the arguments from each side are equally weak and thus cancel each other out. So, where does that leave the future for the American-Israeli relationship?

Some might say that is the $64,000 question, except that nothing is that inexpensive in government any longer. With reconciliation with Iran being high on President Obama’s priorities, it might seem that any close ties with Israel would prove a cumbersome hindrance. But, sacrificing American relations with Israel could prove extremely counter-productive if Israel should decide to attack Iran and their nuclear program, no longer having the United States support to fall back upon. But, on the other hand, except for the Obama misspeak on the status of Jerusalem to AIPAC, the stated policy of his Administration has been to repeat the stock points about supporting the Israeli right to exist within secure borders, that Israel has to work with the Palestinians towards the establishing of a State that has relinquished terrorism, and for a negotiated settlement on a host of issues that all lead to peace and security for all concerned through mutual recognition. This pipe dream, a nightmare in the reality of pursuit, has been repeated so often since Oslo that it has become a recurring nightmare for all involved.

What can we conclude from all the information, speeches, policy statements, and political histories that would make sense? Well, absolutely nothing. The stated policies of the Obama Administration seem to be in direct opposition to the stated positions of virtually every single person with whom President Obama has had close relations. The Reverend White, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley and a host of others have all been advisors to President Obama who favor and sympathize with the Palestinian side of this issue. Meanwhile, one would be stressed to find anybody close to President Obama with the possible exception of Rahm Emanuel who could be seen as pro-Israel. Still, President Obama has appeared to be approaching this subject with an almost cynical practicality, which has indicated that he may take a position that would seem in contrast with his known history. This is why I have concluded that we do not know exactly what to expect from President Obama even though we seem to be able to break down the positions of his senior staff who appear to heavily favor the Palestinians, many not even caring a whit about Israel. The true and final test will be how President Obama reacts when things get nasty, the negotiations seem on the verge of breaking down, and both sides are making stands drawing red lines in the sand on points of contention which neither side will compromise. This is the point where I fear President Obama might reject his pragmatic approach and have his emotions on this subject control a possibly fateful decision.

Despite all the exclamations by policy wonks, despite the reams of editorial opinions by presumed experts, despite the exclamations and demands defining the Israeli and Palestinian and Arab positions by the respective leaders, despite the fact that this has been one of the most hotly covered items of policy. In the end we really have no idea what will happen. The only thing that is certain is that between now and the end of the summer everything will have come to a head. What is ironic is that the deciding factor in the whole Israeli-Palestinian issue as it stands could very well come down to what happens with Iran. Watch Iran and you will see the early signs of which direction all these varied problems from the Middle East are going to fall.

Beyond the Cusp

Pennsylvania Senator Specter’s Specter

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:23:00 +0000

Some in the Republican Party today are morning the passing of Pennsylvania Senator Specter from the ranks of the Republicans to the ranks of the Democrats. Others are celebrating the change and it seems as if the vast majority could not care less. Personally, I am gleeful and dancing a jig at his finally joining the Democrats officially, something he seemed to have done unofficially many many years ago. I had lived in Pennsylvania while he was a Senator. By having this left-wing-nut run as a Republican every six years, it only served to have the unique situation of having a choice between two Democrats for all intents and purposes. As far as I am concerned, that just leaves one less Demo-Republican cluttering up the halls of the Senate in Washington. Now if we could only get Senator Olympia Snow and Senator Susan Collins of Maine to cease filling Republican Senatorial Seats with de-facto Democrats and we will be on our way. Granted, these are not the only RINOs taking up Republican seats, but these are among the most flagrant offenders (along with the finally gone Maryland’s Connie Morella).

I do not know what possesses a significant sector of the Republican Party that holds the belief that the best, or often only, way to be elected is to run candidates that are as close as possible to being Democrats as the Democrats that are running. How does this offer any choice? It should have occurred to them some where along the way that left wing voters given a choice between liberal Democrat and liberal Democrat Lite will pick the real Democrat almost every single time. All this accomplished is to leave true conservatives and a good section of the Republican Party with no incentive to get out and vote. Running a pseudo-Democrat not only offends and weakens the Republican Party in that State, it also detracts from having motivated Republicans voting for the other candidates and issues that may be on the ballots. This practice weakens the Republican Party nationally and could cost them the White House and other positions in some close elections. The Republicans need to figure out what is their core identity and then run candidates that will honestly and fully represent that identity. The Republican identity must be something different from the Democrat identity or there is no reason to bother running a Republican, just all become Democrats if there is not going to be any significant difference.

Having Arlen Specter defect to his true party should bring a day of joy and celebration to both true republicans and conservatives in Pennsylvania. Finally, if they are willing to take the initiative, they can run a true conservative Republican against Specter rather than running from Specter who has corrupted the Republican Senatorial slot he held hostage for so long. Ding-dong, Specter’s gone! Long live a true Red, White, & Blue Conservative replacement.

Beyond the Cusp

Time to Squeeze Israel into Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:54:00 +0000

The title of this article might have been more to the point if we substitute ‘Pieces” for ‘Peace,” as the breaking up of Israel is seemingly looming just over the horizon. With President Obama promising to take whatever steps are necessary to not only avoid any war or conflict, but to actually force a peace settlement establishing a Palestinian State upon Israel and the “occupied territories”, the Arab World has seen this as an opening to finally defeat Israel, a goal unattainable by their past aggressions. Now they have the magic formula, threaten a possibility of war, then sit back, and watch as President Obama takes the bait and moves forcefully forward pressuring Israel to compromise whatever it takes to establish a Palestinian State and avoid any conflict. The reasoning stems from a silent acknowledgement that the Palestinians and Arabs will not make any concessions while Israel has proven to be willing to make concessions to reach a lasting peace. Of course, any peace reached that leaves an intact Israel in any form will not hold, as the only peace acceptable to Israel’s enemies is the complete and total eradication of the Jewish State. Unfortunately for Israel, this reality does not figure into the West’s picture of a future peace in the Middle East, only the establishment of a Palestinian state and the signature of all concerned on a piece of paper matters, the modern version of “Peace in our time.”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II, while meeting with United States President Obama this past week, urged a more forceful and immediate effort in America’s role as a facilitator of an inclusive peace in the Middle East. He stressed during an interview on Meet the Press, "In the next 18 months, if we don't move the process forward, and bring people to the negotiation table, there will be another conflict between Israel and another protagonist.” This was meant more as a threat to motivate immediate actions from the United States in their proclaimed intention to implement a regional peace, by overt pressures if necessary. This is even more important to Jordan as they see the Palestinians as a threat remembering the events that culminated in the Black September hostilities between the Jordanian government and Yasser Arafat’s PLO. King Abdullah further stressed the erroneous conviction that the Palestinian-Israel conflict lies at the heart of all problems in the Middle East and is the main obstacle standing between the United States and the Muslim World.

Hopefully, this ruse will not influence the Obama Administration into taking brash actions that may prove detrimental and harmful in the future. I wish I could feel confident that reason would persevere over blind actions in reaction to this alarmism. The Middle East has been a tripping entanglement for many years and multiple administrations. This should be taken as an advisement to caution rather than simple immediacy for the sake of action. The Middle East cauldron will not be simmered from its long-lasting roiling boil by any quickly patched together actions. This tangled Gordian Knot will take careful, thoughtful and metered plans implemented with care, diplomacy, and thoughtfulness. We would be better served to take slow and definitive steps in building an atmosphere for trust. This issue would be well served by remembering the old adage, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Beyond the Cusp

Facing Down Iran, Now What?

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:59:00 +0000

President Obama promised during the campaign that he had the secret answer for opening negotiations and resolving our differences with Iran. I’m not entirely sure what his methods for delivering on this promise were, but I think they have run headlong into a political brick wall. Obviously, his idea that Iran would be anxious and grateful to talk to him if only the United States would drop all those silly, burdensome, and horrid preconditions that the ill-tempered Bush Administration had insisted Iran meet before we would sit and talk fell short. Well, President Obama did indeed drop the Bush preconditions that were supposed to be the impediment to talks and lo and behold, Iran suddenly had their own preconditions for the United States to meet. Since the Iranian preconditions were even more unrealistic than the previous Bush’s American preconditions, they had the desired effect of slowing progress towards talks allowing precious time to expire as all sides had to haggle over what stipulations were to be met and which were of lesser importance and could be forgiven. Funny thing is we are still working on finding that common ground where meetings can begin. So much for instant respect and understanding with Iran.

Another tact promised during the campaign was that as President, Obama would employ a more intelligent approach to Iran and the rest of the world built on multilateralism and mutual respect. Through this “high road” moralistic approach, we were to gain the respect and cooperation from the rest of the world. This was supposed to reaching out to Europeans, Russia, China, all the Muslim countries of the Middle East, and to include even some of the “bad boys” such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega, and more. This fresh approach where the United States would partner with and listen to the rest of the world rather than standing off being aloof while dictating demands for the world to do our bidding probably did not have the affect desired or intended. After three months of heading in this new and somewhat revolutionary direction, many have said that President Obama has simply shown a deep naiveté while compromising America’s place in the world. This assessment is not entirely true as there have been a few bright spots that have been revealed by President Obama’s actions.

By placing a non-threatening face to the world giving the appearance of befuddlement and weakness, President Obama has allowed for many of our presumed enemies to no longer fear American might. Being freed from the need to step cautiously, these forces have removed any veil of caution and boldly stepped up their campaigns baring fully their intentions. This has served to clear the waters to reveal exactly where each of our possible adversaries stands and what their goals truly are. With the smoke cleared from our eyes, we have an opportunity to honestly deal with these challenges and we should have a clearer understanding of exactly where everybody stands and how the different sides are lined up.

It has become even more obvious that there will be absolutely no way to enlist the help of the Russians with respect to Iran. Actually, we have very solid evidence that the Cold War never ended; it just shifted slightly, took a little nap, and has returned with a renewed vigor. As was the case from the early 1960’s through the fall of the Soviet Union, the Middle East is Russia’s little sandbox filled with mischief to blunt the United States at every turn while also forcing up the price of energy whenever possible. We must now admit that though the Soviet Union may have fallen, Russia remains and is just as much a rival as they were during the height of the Communist expansion. Russia by whatever name it is known has always been and will continue to be an influence on the world, one that is not necessarily to be held as our friend. Russia is for Russia, as it should be. Unfortunately, for Russia to rise in her influence, everybody else, the United States in particular, must be brought low. It has been that way from the Czars to the Communists to whatever you wish to call Putin and the boys today and I do not think I will ever see this fact change.

Another truth to be made naked in the light of honesty is the fact that much of Europe is not on the same page with regards to Iran as the United States. Our dear friends in Europe are far more interested in their trade balance and the bottom line than they are in facing the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. For most of the countries of Europe, especially Western Europe, Iran is nothing more than a trading partner that has a large quantity of oil and an increasing desire for dual use and other military hardware. The fact that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons and has developed missiles able to target almost all of Europe does not seem to phase our European friends one whit. Most of Europe sees Iran as a threat solely to Israel, the United States, and the other Muslim countries, particularly the other oil producing areas. Our new and true allies in Eastern Europe seem to share our trepidations about Iran but are far more concerned with the resurgence of Russia as a regional power, if not a world-class power. With Russia showing interest in re-attaining her control over the European nations that consisted the Soviet Empire, these friends will back the United States in exchange for our protection against Russian designs. As they say, “A friend in need is a friend indeed.”

The final area revealed when the cloud dissipated in our crystal ball is the greater Middle East. The picture here is probably the most grim of all. An old ally, Turkey, is ever more rapidly turning away from the West and embracing once again their Islamic roots. Saudi Arabia is once again proving that no matter how many and how advanced the military hardware the United States provides them, they are pretty much defenseless. This goes double for the rest of the countries that make up the Arabian Peninsula. Despite the massive amounts of military and economic aid given to Pakistan, they seem both unable and unwilling to resist the efforts of the Taliban to rise to power and control all of Pakistan. When Pakistan is allowed to fall into the hands of the Taliban extremists, this will enable al-Queda to attain nuclear weapons directly from Pakistan’s arsenal. Between the slow surrender piecemeal of Pakistan to their self-created monster, the Taliban, and Iran’s inexorable march to nuclear weapons capability, the end result of nuclear-armed terrorist entities appears unavoidable. The single effort to stop such an inevitability would be preemption, something President Bush was dragged over hot coals for implementing, and a route President Obama seems resolute to avoid. All in all, the immediate outlook for much of the world, the United States and Israel in particular, is bleak and ugly. It may take a miracle of unprecedented scope to save the world from a new and prolonged Dark Ages.

Beyond the Cusp

American Football in Israel?

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:05:00 +0000

Enough for the politics and threats of wars and other coming apocalyptic news, why not spend some time in a more hopeful realm. Who would have thought that Israel has a nascent American style football league? Well, they have a growing league in their second season sporting five teams with plans to add another team next year. Remembering that Israel is about the size of New Jersey, five teams is rather impressive.

The players are pulled from all sectors of Israeli society. They have Jews, new immigrants, and Arabs all playing on the same field building camaraderie that only comes from sports. As is noted at the end of the video below, the fact that players show respect and exchange hugs, not accusations, at the end of each game may be one of the few signs that a future can and will be found in an area that has seen more than its share of tragedy and violence. Perhaps sports might just lead the way to unifying the vastly differing sectors by supplying a common thread they all can share. Hope is a wonderful thing.

Beyond the Cusp

Hillary Warns Israel Alone

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:42:00 +0000

Adding the United States to the list of countries, mostly European, demanding that Israel immediately return to the peace negotiations with the Palestinians or face ostracization, Secretary of State Clinton further insisted that Israel would also lose the support of the Arab Nations when it comes to Iran. I must wonder, when was it that Israel had the support of the Arab Nations when it comes to, well, exactly anything? From what this run-of-the-mill observer has seen, the only support the Arab Nations have ever given Israel is for their demise as a nation among the nations of this world. No matter to what degree any Arab Nation might oppose Iran, or at least Iran’s drive to attain a nuclear arsenal, supporting Israel in any actions against a fellow Muslim State, even a Persian Shia State, is something none of us will probably live to witness. So, in this instance, Hillary’s warning, along with all those from the European front, are naïve and empty and will probably only serve as amusement and not be taken seriously. Israel is quickly realizing that once again they are on their own to prevent the on-rushing catastrophe that is a nuclear-armed Iran.

What may turn out to be the most tragic outcome in this standoff between Iran and much of the world is a scenario where Israel ends up with the solo task of preventing Iran’s nuclear program from coming to fruition. It is well known that any military solution to this problem would require some very special ordnance combined with massive sorties carried out over a prolonged period. Unlike when Israel took out Iraq’s Osirak reactor via a one time single strike, ending Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s march to nuclear weapons, Iran has spread their program to far flung places and often either encased them in deep underground bunkers or placed them in residential areas or near Mosques and other non-military sites, or both. Many have ascertained that to totally cripple Iran’s whole nuclear program would be well beyond Israel’s capability short of Israel using her presumed nuclear arsenal and thus becoming a pariah amongst nations.

The entire weight of this on-going problem is completely and totally the fault of President Bush. Of all his shortcomings and broken promises, the promise to address the Iranian nuclear program and not leave it to the next Administration falling by the wayside was very likely Bush’s greatest disappointment. By not following through on this sensitive and urgent problem, President Bush may very well end up being responsible for some very serious consequences and unimaginable loss of life should Iran attain and use nuclear weapons. Between President Bush’s procrastination leading eventually to his inaction with Iran, coupled with President Obama’s apparent lack of urgency on this same subject, we very well may end up looking at a nuclear arms race and eventual nuclear war in the Middle East. The ramifications of such an event are cataclysmic. I fault every politician with taking what should have been a bi-partisan problem of the highest magnitude and treating it as a gotcha overly-politicized issue. I simply hope that we do not realize a future where we are investigating where everything went south and by whose hands after a couple of dozen major cities lie smoldering under a nuclear mushroom. Granted, this is a worst-case scenario, but it is also where we may very well be heading. Wake up World, this is not solely an Israel problem; it is a Worldwide sized problem.

Beyond the Cusp

Obama Stealth Agenda for Change

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:35:00 +0000

President Obama and a core cabal of far leftist Democrats are finding devious and covert ways of enacting their vision of a new America by circumventing the normal route for legislation. Their underhanded plans include stringent Gun Control, drastic Cap and Trade Carbon Caps, and Universal Government Health Care. Each has been slated for their unique plan tailored to mute all Republican, as well as any Democrat, objections or amendments. So, you ask, how are they going to get around any Republican Filibuster in the Senate and also remove any chance of amendments from either Democrats or Republicans in either the House of Representatives or the Senate? Well, pull up a chair and hear my macabre tale.

We will start our story with their plans to enact new and far-reaching Gun Control. How can they enact gun control legislation that is so stringent that it would never get out of committee in either the House or the Senate? Well, they are counting on the fact that Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, tend to respect and preserve traditions. The secret here is to totally circumvent the House of Representatives and rush it through the Senate under conditions where only a majority vote is needed and a filibuster would be bad etiquette. The plan is to formulate a treaty with Mexico under the shield of disarming the Mexican drug cartels. The first steps have already been taken by the mainstream press with coverage of claims that the murderous Mexican drug cartels have been procuring their arms in the United States. There have even been articles claiming that these cartels are buying fully automatic machine guns and grenades from gun shops in the United States and these dangerous weapons must be removed from sale. Nobody seems to care that there are no machine guns and definitely no grenades available to the public or anybody else at any American gun store. These weapons are only available through clandestine deals with the international arms traders. As usual, they are counting on shock value and rushing through a treaty to make law that they could never attain through normal channels for legislation.

Next, let’s look at the Cap and Trade Carbon Caps. Here the plan is to use the Environmental Protection Agency to enact regulations that carry the same weight as law but need no debate or vote from either branch of Congress. By simply including carbon dioxide as a dangerous gas, the EPA can regulate it and make regulations limiting its production and levy fines and other necessary mechanisms to reduce emissions. This can be made conditional by stating the need to bring the United States into compliance with United Nation guidance on carbon emissions and would only require a resolution from Congress rather than an actual piece of legislation. The EPA already has extensive powers to regulate any substance that can be classified as dangerous or poisonous. Once again using international guidelines could be used to minimize any input from Congress.

Finally, we have Universal Health Care. Obviously, this would require legislation that would have to pass through Congress. The Democrat leadership is attempting to place President Obama’s Universal Health Care Plan on fast track legislative route that is presumably to only be used for bipartisan budget legislation to smooth its movement through Congress. The Democrat leadership is pointing to the same methods being used for some of President Bush’s tax cuts to claim this is no different. They are also hoping by using fast track the limit on debate and amendments will allow passage of the plans with minimal time for public reaction. The best hope for stopping this last scheme would be for enough Democrats to join with every single republican to prevent fast tracking this legislation. The only hope for that is for loud and sustained public outcry.

All of these designs are simply strategies designed to circumvent the will of the people and their representatives. These are ways of using convoluted twisting and bending of rules that stretch Constitutional mechanisms beyond their presumed breaking point in order to silence opposition to President Obama’s leftist agenda. This deceit must not be allowed to stand as to allow this much treachery and manipulation of our system simply to deny dissent is simply un-American. Where are those who claimed that rejecting President Bush’s agenda was the highest form of patriotism now that the shoe is on the other foot? These deceptions must be rejected outright,. We just had a considerable showing for the anti-tax and spend Tea Parties across the land. Now it looks as if we may need to hold many more Tea Parties, one each time an attempt is made to sneak through these alterations that change the face of America With things progressing at such a break-neck speed, it is up to we the people to put on the brakes and salvage the America we love. I’m ready for another Tea Party, how about everyone else?

Beyond the Cusp

Islamist One World Diplo-Speak

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:51:00 +0000

One truth that escapes many of our political leaders is that words have different meanings in differing cultures. Much of our political environment is inhabited by people who see sugarplums and dancing pixies when they hear phrases like, “Lasting peace based on honesty, justice and respect.” They respond as if these words mean the same thing to such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, Hezballah Leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the other radical Islamist leaders, both political and terrorist.

Western countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, would define the words; Peace, Honesty, Justice, and Respect with a definition straight from a dictionary or encyclopedia, perhaps Webster’s Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica. The Islamic leaders who support the ideals put forth in the Koran have definitions that are pulled from the Koran and other Islamic writings. The difference is that where the West uses a secular definition, the Islamist leaders use definitions steeped with religious implications and apocalyptic references. Without recognizing these differences, understanding each side’s true intentions becomes quite impossible. Where I feel the Islamic representatives fully understand these differences, I do not have that same feeling of comfort with many in the West. On the other hand, it appears many from the West actually do understand the differences and choose to ignore the differences to facilitate solutions that they can back with use of Western definitions and logic and the populations ignorance, knowing full well that doing such speeds the Islamic goals.

But, exactly what do the Islamists mean when they use these key words and phrases? I am so glad you asked (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). The easiest one to define is “Peace”. When used in a Koranic sense, “peace” means surrender or submission. They imply by peace that one has submitted to Islam and not only no longer opposes Islam, but now fights in Jihad with other Muslims against the infidels and unbelievers. Thus, “World Peace” means that the Ummah (Muslim People) covers the entirety of Earth and encompasses and includes all peoples.

The next word on the list is “Honesty”. The Muslim definition of “Honesty” is extremely Orwellian. It actually means anything that furthers the ideals and ideas of Islam, including lies, misdirection, deceit, misrepresentation, and any other device necessary to cajole, trick, sway, convince, or force somebody to become a Muslim. This is a far cry from the George Washington definition of honesty. In Islam, the concept of honesty also includes the use of Al-Takiyah, which is the concept that any act, lie, deception, misrepresentation or other twisting of truth and reality is acceptable as honesty as long as it serves Islam.

“Justice” is another word that takes on a completely different meaning than that used in the West. Where the West defines “Justice” as rightfulness or lawfulness or moral principle determining just conduct or the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings. Only the last meaning, “moral principle determining just conduct or the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings,” resembles the Islamic definition. The difference is that they would only allow a religious, a Koranic frame for any interpretation of the proceedings. Koranic Justice has some very different ideals than do the equality before the law style justice in the West. Koranic Justice holds the weight of a Muslim woman’s evidence as being worth half that of a Muslim man. A non-Muslim, especially a Jew or idolater, have no recourse to Justice and may not give witness or call witness in a court of Koranic Law.

The final term we are discussing is “Respect”. For the Muslim, “Respect” means belief and subservience to the Koran and total submission to the Islamic codes and ideals expressed in the Koran, the Sirah and the Hadith. Respect in Islamic culture is totally framed as a religious concept, as it seems are most of the important concepts to do with civilization and societal interactions. So, respect is completely determined by the person’s following and submission to the one true faith, namely Islam. As long as one follows all the dictates and performs all the acts and performances of faith, then they are worthy of respect. If one does not perform according to Islam they are not to be given respect and are to be either brought into Islam, forced to pay a special tax on unbelievers (called Jizyah) and accept being a lesser person in society, or simply slain. This is completely different than the Western definition of respect, which has little religious application in most determination.

As long as our leaders, the people of the media, and others who form the public opinion refuse to accept and use the Islamic interpretation of these phrases, Peace, Honesty, Justice, Respect, as well as others, then every interaction we have with Muslims will be fruitless as we will be talking past each other, not to each other. Real progress in any negotiations is dependent on both sides first reaching agreement on the definition of the terms. With our dealings with Islam, the West has refused to do this and thus much of the rhetoric between the two sides is empty and sightless. Much of this problem comes from the Western refusal to grasp that their definitions are not necessarily universal. That is the one thing the Islamists have dead set correct, much of the West refuses to learn and understand any culture different from the West’s secular humanism. To continue in this blind meaningless insistence on misinterpretation of Islamic speech and ideas, we will never reach viable compromise and will continue to be led around by double meanings that are constantly implemented by Islamic politicians and negotiators.

Beyond the Cusp

The Ahmadinejad Question

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:52:00 +0000

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech to open the misnamed UN World Conference Against Racism causing many of the European Union attendees to walk out for the entirety of the speech. The vile racist rant made by Ahmadinejad went so far it caused one nation, Czechoslovakia, to withdraw completely from the Durban II Conference, joining Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United States. My disappointment is that there are only ten countries that found the venue of Durban II so disgusting and hateful to refuse to validate the conference with their attendance. As expected, the speech given by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized and condemned mainly Israel with some of his bile also used against the West in general and the United States in particular. The only proposal made during his despicable rantings was for the world to, once again, remove the initial criteria for the founding of the Jewish State and for the Jews to be eradicated from the Middle East. Sometimes President Ahmadinejad comes off as a one trick pony, hate the West, Hate the United States, and Hate with an Extra Zest the Jewish People and Israel.

This was not exactly the best idea for an opening speaker to lend any credibility to the presumed Durban II message. This was also not all that surprising as speeches of this ilk were the meat and potatoes of the original Durban Conference. Since Durban II was organized to critique the progress made toward fulfillment of the first Durban Conference which ended with an official mission statement that could have been condensed to simply state, Israel is the center of all evil and must be destroyed and all the rest of the world is just peachy keen, especially the Muslim and Arab world.

So, since this start to Durban II was not a surprise, what new, if anything, can be expected from this conference? To figure this out, all one needs to know are who were placed in charge of the Durban Review Preparatory Committee and thus wrote the mission statement that serves as the basis for the conference. Chairing the planning was Libya, a standout of virtue. Follow this with the co-chair being Iran and the full flavor starts to become obvious. Filling out the planners are South Africa, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Morocco, Cuba, Libya, Egypt, and China.

Other than condemning Israel, the mission statement also stressed the finding that the West in particular is guilty of Islamophobic racism and religious defamation of Islam. With such a stellar start, and probably equally glorious results, I can hardly contain my disgust that I will have when they inevitably hold the Durban III Conference in another five to ten years. The one thing one can depend on from the United Nations is whenever they have a truly horrid and putrid idea, they will repeat it every few years and proclaim it in proudly misleading titles and descriptions on and on ad-infinitum.

Beyond the Cusp

A New Look at the Middle East Peace Process

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:32:00 +0000

I always fear when writing on the Middle East Peace Process that I may wake up in a catatonic state, moribund, bereft of even a glimmer of life, resembling this so called Peace Process. The only thing worse than writing an article on the newest and greatest initiative is having to listen to the optimistic exuberance touting the great new wisdom inspiring this revolutionary, breakthrough idea. You just know the plan will end up mired, bent, twisted, and mutilated within a next few weeks until it bears no resemblance to the shiny new idea so recently touted. Finally, we have a new idea that may need to be watched, not because it will lead to peace, but it will have a different end just the same. It seems President Obama is going to try a drastically new approach.

The first signs that President Obama was taking a new approach to the Palestinian Israeli peace came a few weeks back. General Ashkenazi, Israeli IDF Chief of Staff, was scheduled to meet with senior members of the new Obama Administration. His visit had been set up before the inauguration with President Bush’s Administration. General Ashkenazi came bearing new intelligence about the Iranian nuclear program and was supposed to discuss options and try to synchronize the approach to be taken by Israel to the new direction being implemented by President Obama. The General received a rude awakening as to the new Obama Middle East Policies. He was shunted and ignored by every single top-level member of President Obama’s staff from the State Department, Defense Department, and Presidential staff. He was finally allowed to meet with a junior State Department official who refused to discuss Iran, wishing only to talk about the formation of a Palestinian State. When General Ashkenazi attempted to leave the Israeli intelligence report, he was refused telling him the Administration had no need or use of anything Israel has about Iran and to only worry about how Israel could assist in establishing a Palestinian State and supporting said state to assure its well-being.

As if this was not enough of an insult, we have learned that President Obama and his Administration have cancelled all meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits the United States early next month. The Prime Minister has been told that all doors will remain closed to his Government, as they are not welcome by President Obama. The Israeli Prime Minister was coming to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, after which he was to meet with Obama Administration people, as has been the custom in years past. Now, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff and considered to be strongly pro-Israel, has informed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s people that Israel had "better get ready to evacuate the West Bank" if they expect to get any assistance from Washington on the Iranian situation. Obama has additionally let it be known that his Administration does not plan to continue with the Bush policy of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town. It is hard not to feel the sudden severe drop in temperature in relations between the two new Administrations. This reaction to the election of Prime Minister Netanyahu is seemingly more severe than when President Clinton’s campaign election staffers such as James Carville went to Israel to assist the campaign of Ehud Barak against Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1999 Israeli elections.

In related news, President Obama has made clear through statements that all Israeli settlements beyond the pre-1967 War borders must be dismantled and their residents moved back within the Green Line. This presumably includes all the newer suburbs in and around Jerusalem that had been assumed Israel would hold within slightly modified borders and exchange some land well south of Jerusalem as compensation.

On another front developing in the United States Israel front are the future commitments and promises of funding of military projects. There have been rumblings that the United States will pull funding their part of the Arrow-3 anti-missile system and instead offer Israel the American SM-3 system used by the United States Navy. Israel has been further informed that changes in the level of manufacture for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter might result in a considerably higher price tag than Israel and the previous Administration had agreed upon. After meeting with delegation of US senators, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a meeting of senior Israelis that, “"we have joint projects with them (US); I'm not talking about the Iron Dome missile defense system, but about defense against long-range missiles. But due to the economic crisis in the US, they are cutting budgets and want to allocate some of funds toward purely American projects that better suit the US' needs." Supposing the Arrow 3 Project is closed down, this will have wider ranging affects than simply Israel having to use off-the-shelf United States Navy munitions systems, it would also close down a very crucial sector of the Israeli anti-rocket/missile research and development programs. So, this would have military, research, and economic ramifications on Israel and reach deeper levels of Israeli concerns.

Adding these new developments with President Obama’s new softer approach to Iran, it is obvious Israel has some serious and tangible concerns that go deeper than simply the Palestinian situation. And on the Palestinian situation, even there the situation has changed. It is evident that President Obama is determined to have a peace agreement with two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian, living together side-by-side. Obama is dead set to assure that the Palestinian State will consist of every inch of the occupied West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Golan Heights thrown in for good measure and as payment to Syria to renew relations. Obama has made it clear that he will be willing to use any and all means necessary to force this peace into fruition. Since making demands upon the Palestinians never brings any changes to advance the Peace Process as they have yet to even honor the very first pledge made by Yasser Arafat, namely to remove the call to eradicate Israel from the Fatah Constitution. Since the Palestinians cannot be forced to compromise, that only leaves one party that concessions can be wrung from, Israel. This has met with tacit approval as the way and means to reach the desired peace, thus Israel will be forced against the wall and will need to make a difficult decision, whether to cave to Obama’s demands and surrender everything or to refuse and thus bring United States/Israeli relations to a violent and crashing close. It is quite possible that should President Obama push Israel too fast or too hard, then Israel may just take her leave and try to make it on her own. This may even be the preferred move and the best for Israel in the end once their economy and community get past the initial shock. Things are about to get very interesting, in a crashing roller coaster kind of way.

Beyond the Cusp

Tulsa Midday Tea Party

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:11:00 +0000

With some amount of physical effort, I dragged this broken old body to the Tulsa Tea Party, one of the three, held downtown from 11AM to 1PM. There was a sizeable turnout, though it was not easy to estimate standing (actually sitting as I am unable to stand too long) at the fringe off to the left side of the stage. If I had to guess, I would estimate 1000 to 1250 people were attending, which I feel is a fairly decent turnout for anything downtown here in Tulsa. I am glad to point out that almost every speech accused both of the main political parties with having their full share of the blame for our current problems. They blasted the entire bailout starting with Bush initiating this anti-Constitutional use of our tax monies. The emphasis was placed more on the out of control spending rather than higher taxes. The understanding seemed to point that until we tackle the spending problems there will be no possible way to address the tax problems. It may be called a tax and spend problem, but in reality, it is a spend and tax problem.

Spirits were high and the mood was very positive. The largest applause and cheering of the day was in respect of our military members, both current and veterans. There was appreciation paid to the police security details and some good-hearted laughter about the filming of the event by the police. The crowd was made of all ages from kids in strollers to some people my age and even a few even older relics. All in all, the crowd was younger than I had expected with many young families, many with their children in tow and even a few family puppies (one real cute Newfoundland kept insisting licking whoever came within range). There were a wide variety of posters and signs, all very obviously homemade, and none of them were mass-produced by any sponsors of any kind. It was simply great to be among so many kindred spirits.

Now for the more serious side of these events. Where getting the numbers of people to turn out without any major political party backing is a very solid reason to be optimistic. My fears are that this high level of emotional outbursts kindled today will not hold up until it can have an effect, namely to the 2010 elections. These Tea Parties held today can only be taken as an encouraging start, not an end in themselves. American history is strewn with political outcries that died out without ever having any lasting influence. Yes, there were many, many people with tons of energy and enthusiasm who turned out all across this great land, but will they still be as unified and motivated in six months, let alone the almost two years to the next major elections? In some locations there will be local elections before then and they will prove whether or not this anti tax and spend movement will have any staying power. I am hopeful but not overtly optimistic that this will prove to be a turning point in American politics. What would be unfortunate would be this movement dying prematurely before having the intended affecting of change.

To close this report out, there was one sign where I just had to ask the holder if he had seen John recently. The sign, of course, was “Go Galt”. The question was met with a hearty laugh and a smile. It is nice to encounter the well-read people. Perhaps if this movement does not work we can all meet John Galt hidden somewhere in the mountains of Colorado, what other choice will there be?

One last request, my friends, if you attended one of the many Tea Parties, please leave a quick summary of your experiences, your hopes, and your take on the viability of this movement of ideas taking hold. Thank you very much.

Beyond the Cusp

Confession of a Population Generator

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:33:00 +0000

I must start with an official pleading of guilty as charged. I am guilty of exceeding simple replacement numbers by having more than 2.3 children, well over that limit. So, when we hear the lamenting of those on the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) front explaining the harm done by people who are overpopulating the planet with, of all things, more human beings, think of me as one of the guilty. I take the full blame for flagrantly reproducing past my ZPG officially allotted number of offspring. I did it willfully and I take great pride and joy in each of my children. But now it has come to my attention that one of my offspring has taken the first step to also polluting the planet with another human life, and she and I are both very proud and happy about this fact. Without the ZPG people’s permission, my daughter will bestow upon me the honor of becoming a grandparent.

Needless to say, the ZPG folk will take horror in any live birth of another human being and will speak in woeful terms of all the resources that will be needed to support another human life and that this takes away from the resources needed by nature. So, apparently they see humans as something outside of nature, as something unnatural, unwanted, and a needless waste. I can only have pity for these people whose philosophy denies them the joy and celebration of new life. They will never feel or understand the greatest joy G-d can bestow upon a person, to be a parent, or, as I am now realizing, becoming a grandparent. They will not experience the anticipatory glee that attains total fulfillment each time you hear about the progress of a coming blessed child. I pity that they must be bitter and empty people to condemn people having children.

What is even worse is the effect of such selfishness has when carried to extremes, as is happening in Europe with their declining population. The lack of sufficient younger people will have only destructive effects upon those societies. It not only steals from their lives the joy and refreshment that one gets when in the company of the young, it condemns their civilization to a slow and painful death. It also denies the children that do exist in such a society of an optimistic future and replaces it with a future full of dearth and of death. There is reason behind the Bible’s Commandment to go forth and multiply, and it is more than to create and overcome the ancient problem of child mortality. It was a Commandment that knew that with a goodly proportion of youth, a society insures their survival and gives promise to the future that only a healthy youth injects into a society.

I plan to enjoy the coming of the blessing of new life with the birth this fall of my first grandchild. My prayers are for a healthy baby that will live in a happy and healthy family upbringing. May my grandchild be the first of many and may they all know the joys of siblings. I do not fear that the world will run out of raw materials. And even should some materials become rare, it is the children who will find replacement materials and other sources. Children are not a burden; children are eternal hope and eternal blessings upon those who came before. Children are one of the few blessings that are passed back up the ancestral lines giving joy to parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents as well as many branches of relatives who will all bless their arrival and share in their fascinations as they discover the same wonders found by children since the beginning of time. I’m going to be a grand-pa, I feel so blessed and proud.

Beyond the Cusp

Is Obama Overly Criticized?

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Ever since the inauguration of President Barrack Obama, the wailing banshees on the right end of the political scale have been caterwauling with growing intensity. Their resemblance to the anti-Bush zealots of the past eight years is rather frightening. Perhaps a quick study focusing on President Obama’s recent jaunt through Europe, including his side-trip to Turkey and a stopover in Iraq with the troops, would serve us well. We can compare reactions by the media and both factions of each end of the political spectrum and uncover what things are the same and where exactly they differ.

The first impression that leaps out is the complete turn around of the major press coverage. The press that emphasized every act of President Bush’s Administration as a potential disaster that was destroying America’s image in the world, now with President Obama’s Administration we have the exact opposite as much of the press seems to hang on every word with fawn admiration. In her recent article, Helen Thomas sounds more like a junior school girl writing in her diary about her boyfriend than a seasoned White House correspondent in her coverage of President Obama’s European trip this past week. This same Helen Thomas never found a single kind word for President Bush for eight long years. Unfortunately, this is more of a typical representation of the transition the press has experienced than being the exception. We have all heard Chris Matthews’ coverage of Barack Obama during the campaign where he said, "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." Compare that line with Tim Robins admonition of President Bush and conservatives who said, “A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.”

So there you have the sweeping change by the Press, but what about people from both sides? From what I have noticed, the change between people has been almost as stark even if not quite as complete. The people who fell dead in line with President Bush and his people are universally opposed to President Obama and his people. Just as complete are the people who now support everything coming from President Obama and his Administration were dead set against President Bush and his Administration. But what about those people who were not so totally blind in their allegiance? Here there are some interesting differences. It does appear that President Obama does appear thus far to have a larger and more devoted cross-section who appear to be in total support than President Bush was able to carry. I place some of this on the fact that President Obama is still very early in his term. I fully believe that this will change some as there are cracks beginning to appear in President Obama’s loyal following. With his recent adjustments on the speed with which he will pull troops from Iraq combined with his plan to keep a higher level of troops stationed there after the initial draw down has some from the anti-Iraq War front questioning his decisions. Even so, all evidence does point to a higher level of supporters sticking with President Obama than were loyal to President Bush.

The largest difference is one that comes as no surprise to me. It is the loyalty shown by their own party from the leaders and other politicians. As has been the norm, the Democrats are more supportive of President Obama and his policies and positions than the Republicans were with President Bush. The Iraq War and adopting the new terminologies for the struggle with terrorism originating from the Middle East have shown almost no deserters from the Democrat camp. In contrast, when President Bush initially went into Iraq there were a fair number of Republicans who, though agreeing in general with the idea, had a very different idea of how to fight the Iraq War. On the other side, President Bush did not have even the slightest support from Democrats on virtually every issue during his Presidency while there have been a fair number of Republicans who have voted in favor of much of President Obama’s programs. One might rightfully ask where are the Republicans who will boisterously and vigorously oppose everything coming out of the White House as was done by many Democrats such as Pelosi and Reid did against the Bush White House. Instead, we have seen the Republican candidate who lost the Presidential race to Obama, Senator McCain come out in support of much of President Obama’s agenda. Unlike during President Bush’s time in office, President Obama does not seem to be facing what could be termed a group becoming the loyal opposition. Time will tell if such a group will develop, though I have my doubts.

In conclusion, I would have to say that President Obama has thus far faced a friendlier atmosphere than did President Bush. This may change, but only if he manages to lose the support of a fair percentage of the liberal press. During the Bush years he received sizeable opposition from conservatives on numerous issues, examples being amnesty for illegal aliens, prescription coverage for seniors, his “No Child Left Behind education policies, as well as those who differed on his handling of the War on Terror. We will see if President Obama has such opposition on any of his policies down the road or will he have near total and blind support from his fellow party members. My opinion is that not only will President Obama receive more total support from his own party, but he will also have more cooperation from many of the Republicans, especially with any appointments for his Cabinet provided he finds anybody who has actually paid their taxes. President Obama will most definitely have more support from both sides of the aisle with any appointees to the Supreme Court and other judgeships. All in all, Obama will have a more compliant Congress than Bush faced, and that may or may not be a good thing depending on your political slant.

Beyond the Cusp

Plight of Iraqi Christians Continues on Two Fronts

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:44:00 +0000

It may seem odd that an article about the troubles and persecutions of Christians in Iraq and Turkey, and most of the Muslim World, should start with references to Israel and the Jews, but it is necessary. The number of Jews still residing in Egypt is less than 100, in Iraq is less than 100, and in Turkey is estimated to be from 17,000 to 25,000 depending on the source. The treatment of Christians in these same countries is directly proportional to the number of Jewish residents. This reinforces the concept expressed by the phrase that the Muslims will attack “first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.” Life for Christians is much worse in Iraq, somewhat less so in Egypt, and probably close to bearable in Turkey, unless you happen to be an Iraqi Christian who fled into Turkey seeking some degree of safety. These Christian refugees have found relative safety but are experiencing other difficulties with their new lives.

It is a sorry consequence that the removal of Saddam Hussein as the oppressive dictator of Iraq actually was the cause for severe difficulties for the Christian population in Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, the Christians were actually protected by the regime as those in power under Saddam were too busy oppressing and murdering both the Kurds and the Shiites to assure that the Sunni minority would not face any challenge to their iron fisted rule. With the toppling of the Sunni government, the Christians came under attack by both the Shia and the Sunni Muslims, especially the extremist groups of the insurgencies. Some Christians did find asylum within the Kurdish areas. Even this protection did not prove adequate and the Christians ended up living in camps that were, by necessity, guarded. Leaving these “safe areas” could prove life threatening. Many more Iraqi Christians fled the country. This story deals with these refugees.

The lucky Christians were able to get to the West, mostly those with relatives and sufficient money, either their own savings or had their passage out of the Middle East paid by their relatives. A fair number of these Iraqi Christians ended up escaping to Turkey. It is these unfortunates that are having great difficulty and facing differing levels of abuse and exploitation. They are having difficulties finding employment, and those who do find employment are often paid far less than Turkish workers. Many are unable to find adequate housing leaving many homeless or dependent on the mercy of others. Thus far, the West has not recognized this problem and offered to open their borders to accept sufficient numbers of these refugees of Muslim persecution. In my opinion, the United States owes these people the benefit of expedited immigration free from the restrictions of quotas and other obstacles that normally stand in their way. Since the United States overthrow of Saddam Hussein that caused the plight for these Christians, we should take the responsibility for ending their misery and give them all our assistance.

For more about their difficulties, read this detailed article by Compass Direct News, a news service specializing in articles about persecution. The article is an eye opener worth the time to understand the plight of these Christian people.

Beyond the Cusp

Israel: How Would the Word Vote Today?

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:58:00 +0000

If the U.N. took a vote today in order to establish a Jewish State out of the British Mandate Lands of the Middle East would it turn out as it did with the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 when they formally established intent of the British Mandate land be for the establishment of a Jewish State and taken up again by the United Nations after the Holocaust by passing the General Assembly Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947? This question is more vexing than it initially appears as the fact that many of the anti-Israel, or more accurately, anti-Jewish State, feelings are somewhat a direct result of Israeli actions they say are necessary for their survival.

If a vote were taken now that would mean that the past sixty years of Israeli history would never have taken place, therefore, much of the anti-Israel animus would not exist, or at least would have no basis beyond pure anti-Semitism. On the other side, with the memory of the Holocaust fading from the world’s memory, the horror and revulsion at the actions of the Nazis, and sympathy towards the Jewish people would be less of an influence than they were in 1947. The importance of oil to the world economies would be of greater influence while today many of the oil producing nations have nationalized their oil industries thus taking control of the production of crude oil out of the hands of the companies that owned these rights at the end of WWII. This has made the nations of the West dependent on the good graces of these oil-producing countries, the vast majority of which would be actively opposed to forming a Jewish State in the Middle East, or anywhere else in many cases. This places the question of how much the resurgence of anti-Semitism would affect the way many nations would vote on the issue of a Jewish State. These factors would have a huge affect on the way much of Europe voted, mostly pushing them to be against forming the state of Israel than they had been in 1947.

Another factor would be the feeling that the recurrence of another Holocaust is a remote possibility in this presumably more tolerant world. In actuality, this exact feeling is what makes a repeat of the Holocaust an actual and real threat that only grows more imminent every day. I honestly feel that if the world were to vote on establishing a Jewish State today, the vote would be very different and the outcome would be not to do so. The reasoning would be the lack of necessity in having a Jewish State for the protection of Jews as well as a heavy emphasis on not taking any position that might offend the Muslim World. We have seen evidence of this emanating from such events as the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The facts are that just these thoughts are the reason that having a Jewish State is probably more important in the modern world than it was back in the late 1940s.

Often the more people protest that some idea is not necessary is reason alone to call for exactly such an idea to be fulfilled. It is the very same animus towards Israel and the Jewish people that are the best arguments to support the need for a state such as Israel. The protestations make it all the more necessary to protect the Jewish peoples from those same acts we slough off as impossible. It is quite warped that as acts against Jews world-wide are drastically increasing that the same world claims that there is no need for Israel to exist as a last haven for Jews against the mindlessness of anti-Semitism. As Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, “I think the lady doth protest too much,” so too does our world protest the existence of Israel while calling it unnecessary. No, I seriously doubt the world could find itself establishing Israel now as it did back in 1947. The real lesson would be to scrutinize why.

Beyond the Cusp

Sly Crookery at the U.N.

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:04:00 +0000

How does the United Nations investigate war crimes by Israel in the recent Gaza offensive, get the desired guilty condemnations, absolve Hamas of any wrong-doing, and be able to claim all proceedings were fair and above board, while credibly claiming to have a pro-Jewish slant to the investigations? This was the criterion facing the U.N. Human Rights Council this week as they gleefully accepted to investigate charges of abuse and human rights violations by Israel during the recent Gaza offensive called “Operation Cast Lead”. The U.N. Human Rights Council found their solution in a renowned Jewish judge from South Africa named Richard Goldstone. With a Jewish judge presiding over the hearings, how could anybody doubt the findings of the investigation? Unfortunately for the U.N., we here at Beyond the Cusp did some research and will present why anyone should doubt the accuracy and validity of the findings of this investigation.

All it took was a little look into Justice Richard Goldstone’s history to smell something rotten was afoot. Justice Goldstone is best known for being one of the chief prosecutors for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Justice Goldstone has already signed a petition calling for an investigation into the Gaza operation that, according to the petition itself, claimed they were “shocked to the core” by the Israeli actions. Among other fervent Israel haters signing this petition were Desmond Tutu whose hatred is well documented, and Mary Robinson whose past includes being the chairperson for the Israel bash at the infamous Durban Conference of 2001. Justice Goldstone was also a member of the commission to investigate the Iraq Oil for Food program, was a member of the Argentine sponsored panel to investigate any Nazi history of activity in that country, and began his career serving nine years as a justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa where he was tasked with supervising that country’s transition after the fall of the Apartheid Government.

In all fairness to Justice Goldstone, he has been quoted as saying his commission will investigate "all violations of international humanitarian law" committed by either side of the conflict. He further stated, "I've taken a deep interest in what happens in Israel. I'm associated with organizations that have worked in Israel. And I believe I can approach the daunting task that I have accepted in an evenhanded and impartial manner." I really do hope his words are not merely vacuous statements meant to place a calming suave to hide a preplanned slant to his investigations.

Justice Goldstone will have on this panel Christine Chinkin, British professor of international law, Pakistani lawyer Hina Jilani and retired Col. Desmond Travers of the Irish Army. But, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Yigal Palmor, has said, "This committee is instructed not to seek out the truth but to single out Israel for alleged crimes," He also pointed to the history of U.N. investigations against Israel and the history of obvious bias and bigotry exhibited.

To further guarantee the conclusions, the council initially restricted the investigations to solely the Palestinian claims and Palestinian victims of Israeli actions in Gaza. It is not much of an investigation if the investigation is, by its definition, blindly one sided and need only approve the foregone conclusion presented as the premise at the beginning of the investigation. Martin Uhomoibhi, the council president, explained the apparent contradiction by saying the mission always intended to evaluate the proportionality of Israel's response to the endless rocket fire at Israeli civilians. This, of course, requires that acts of both warring parties be examined. We will see what the results bare. If they are totally one-sided, then we will know why. I am not optimistic, but there does exist a slight chance that the findings of the investigations will be fair. If this should be the case, the next question is whether the media coverage can also be even-handed.

Beyond the Cusp

The Audacity of Lawlessness

noreply@blogger.com (Beyond the Cusp) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:03:00 +0000

As we approach another census year with the Democrat Party holding the reigns of power, we will once again witness brazen examples of abuse of power to pursue an illegal agenda. U.S. Rep. William Clay, a Democrat representing North St. Louis, Missouri, has asked the White House to relax immigration laws through next year’s census. His stated rational behind this request to set aside national immigration law enforcement is to allow illegal immigrants to be comfortable giving accurate information in order to include them in the population count and statistics. Plainly put, illegal immigrants are not supposed to be counted in the census and used to determine proportional representation for States in the U.S. House of Representatives. Illegal immigrants are supposed to be deported with the most possible haste once found.

The Clinton White House back in the 2000 census employed these same tactics and we are probably looking for a repeat of this chicanery again in 2010. Such flagrant defiance of our nation’s laws by the Party in power, while not being new or particularly surprising, opens a Pandora’s Box of possible unintended consequences. In this particular case one can only draw one conclusion from this request, the Democrats plan to institute an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants and thus we may as well count them as citizens during the census as their becoming legal citizens in inevitable.

Sometimes I wonder why we even bother with borders and immigration laws, let alone a Cabinet level department with an entire division, ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement), and whatever funding we spend if we are not going to honor the letter of the law, or even the spirit of the law. I find this disregard for all Americans and for those who invested years of their lives to legally immigrate to the United States when those who sneak into our country in the dark of night are given a free ride on the fast-track express to citizenship. If we do not care to enforce our laws because they temporarily do not support our agenda or because it is difficult, then how can we expect anybody to obey these same laws? The first step in addressing the illegal immigration problems we face is to actually enforce our immigration laws and under no circumstances lay these laws aside for political expediency. I would hope that loyal Americans will reject those who support such outright and shameless flaunting of our laws for expediency sake by voting them out of office at the next election. To do any less would be, well, un-American.

Beyond the Cusp