Dumb And Dumber

egypt map SC Dumb and Dumber

Errors by the party in power can get America into trouble; real catastrophes require consensus.

Rarely have both parties been as unanimous about a development overseas as they have in their shared enthusiasm for the so-called Arab Spring during the first months of 2011. Republicans vied with the Obama Administration in their zeal for the ouster of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak and in championing the subsequent NATO intervention against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both parties saw themselves as having been vindicated by events. The Obama Administration saw its actions as proof that soft power in pursuit of humanitarian goals offered a new paradigm for foreign-policy success. And the Republican establishment saw a vindication of the Bush freedom agenda.

“Revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda,” Charles Krauthammer observed in February 2011. “Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman,” Krauthammer added, “the [Obama] administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.” And William Kristol exulted, “Helping the Arab Spring through to fruition might contribute to an American Spring, one of renewed pride in our country and confidence in the cause of liberty.”

They were all wrong. Just two years later, the foreign-policy establishment has fractured in the face of a Syrian civil war that threatens to metastasize into neighboring Iraq and Lebanon and an economic collapse in Egypt that has brought the largest Arab country to the brink of state failure. Some Republican leaders, including Sen. John McCain and Weekly Standard editor Kristol, demand American military intervention to support Syria’s Sunni rebels. But Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote on April 11 that “Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad,” because “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” If Assad appears to be winning, he added later, we should support the rebels. The respected strategist Edward Luttwak contends that America should “leave bad enough alone” in Syria and turn its attention away from the Middle East—to Asia. The Obama Administration meanwhile is waffling about what might constitute a “red line” for intervention and what form such intervention might take.

The once-happy bipartisan consensus has now shrunk to the common observation that all the available choices are bad. It could get much worse. Western efforts have failed to foster a unified leadership among the Syrian rebels, and jihadi extremists appear to be in control of the Free Syrian Army inside Syria. Syria’s war is “creating the conditions for a renewed conflict, dangerous and complex, to explode in Iraq. If Iraq is not shielded rapidly and properly, it will definitely slip into the Syrian quagmire,” warns Arab League Ambassador Nassif Hitti. Iraq leaders are talking of civil war and eventual partition. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, meanwhile, warned on May 1, “Syria has real friends in the region, and the world will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or takfiri [radical islamist] groups,” threatening in effect to turn the civil war into a regional conflict that has the potential to destabilize Turkey. And the gravest risk to the region remains the likelihood that “inherent weaknesses of state and society in Egypt reach a point where the country’s political, social and economic systems no longer function,” as Gamal Abuel Hassan wrote on May 28. Libya is fracturing, and the terrorists responsible for the September 2012 Benghazi attack are operating freely.

Read More at meforum.org . By David P. Goldman .

Do We Have Another Woodward?

Bob Woodward SC Do We Have Another Woodward?

The House of Cards is beginning to crumble. All of a sudden, Uncle Joe is back in the closet. Valerie Jarrett is nowhere to be seen. To the task at hand:

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson bucked the trend and was the only mainstream media reporter who dared to investigate Benghazi-gate, and now it is being reported that she may lose her job over it. And the fact that the president of CBS News is the brother of a top Obama Administration official is allegedly not helping matters.

The Daily Caller is reporting: “The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.” I wonder how a reporter covers a story “too aggressively.” I think if they had asked Bob Woodward if he was being too aggressive with Watergate, I think they would have gotten a different answer.

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months. “We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But last Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported; and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. There is speculation that the Obama administration is keeping the survivors away so that they can’t do damage. The White House advisors never expected Benghazi to develop legs. Recent developments, especially the emails that were released the other day, show that there are concrete links from the State Department to the White House concerning the wording in the revisions.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters degree in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012. That is three days after the airing of the event. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Mr. Rhodes, also a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria as well. But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda. According to Rhodes: “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,”

David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.

So the plot thickens. Day by day, the Obama administration is sinking into the mud and mire that it created after the attack on Benghazi. One question we need answered is: Who decided on sending Susan Rice out to mislead the public the way she did? That was such a glaring breach of protocol that even an eighth grader would have questioned the choice. As far as the display that Hillary put on, I for one care very much why our Ambassador was tortured and murdered (and why three brave men who came to his defense were deserted by our government and sentenced to an ignominious death.)

It doesn’t matter whether you are Democratic, Republican, or Independent. If you care about America and the future of freedom, you have to demand that there is a complete revelation of the truth. There is something on display in the Truman Library that every American should take note of. Harry Truman was a man of his word who did not look for someone or something to blame for his shortcomings. The sign on his desk was simple and straightforward. It read: “The Buck Stops Here.” That simple statement should be applied to President Obama and the Nanny Media that did everything it could to get him elected and prevent anything or anyone from exposing his incompetence or dishonesty. Now I am sure they will circle the wagons around Hillary and her preparation for a presidential run in 2016.

Who Will Guard Us From Our Guardians?

Obama Big Brother SC Who Will Guard Us from Our Guardians?

The government scandals of the day are packed with irony:   from the seizure of reporters’ phone record to the bungling in Benghazi; from the president’s slight of Thomas Jefferson to the IRS targeting opponents of big government.  If Woody Allen, Carol Brunette, Mark Twain, and anyone else who made the observation that comedy is tragedy plus time  are correct, perhaps this will be the fodder of funny men in the future, much as Monty Python tried to milk a few laughs from the Black Plague from the safe distance of 600 years.

But the Plague wasn’t funny then to the hundreds of millions who lived through it and died from it.  And there is not much laughing room now in watching our government grow more lawless by the day.

Nothing can really top the irony of President Obama’s belittling just days ago of people who say we need to be aware that governments can become tyrannical.  Presumably, Obama’s disdain extends to people like Thomas Jefferson who have warned about the need for vigilance against government abuse.

Such people “gum up the works,” said Obama.

What works, specifically, are those?  The answer came within only days with the discovery that the IRS was politicizing enforcement of tax provisions.   To make the irony complete, that story was immediately followed by news that the Justice department was snooping on reporters’ phone records without benefit of court orders or warrants.

The news that the Justice Department has been snooping through reporters’ phone records at least got the attention of the news media.  It would be nice if the media were as concerned with the rest of the government’s neglect of the Constitution.  It would be nice to see the lapdog press turn into the watchdog press.

Speaking of ironies, there are probably many in the media who don’t at all mind the IRS targeting opponents of big government – Tea Partiers and those interested in the Constitution – just as there are probably many conservatives who really don’t mind big government harassing big media.

Just when you think all of that is enough, we get the news that the Justice Department, itself suspected of gross indifference to the formalities of warrants, is now charged with investigating the IRS, which is indifferent to just about everything.

Meanwhile, those shocked – shocked, I tell you – to discover that the IRS has politicized tax enforcement are either wet behind the ears, or just dangerously naïve.  We know that presidents from FDR to Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all used the IRS to target their opponents.

But use of the IRS as a weapon has not been limited to the executive branch.  In a Wall Street Journal column (“A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting,” 5/14/2013), James Bovard recounts episodes of congressional abuse, for example of  “an IRS official who had explained at an IRS meeting in San Francisco that audit requests from members of Congress or their staff had been shredded and also suggested how future requests from Capitol Hill could be camouflaged.”

Of the same practice used again, Bovard reports, “Audit requests from congressmen were marked ‘expedite’ or ‘hot politically’ and IRS officials were obliged to respond within 15 days. Permitting congressmen to secretly and effortlessly sic G-men on whomever they pleased epitomized official Washington’s contempt for average Americans and fair play. But because the abuse was bipartisan, there was little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for an investigation.”

Sadly, it is true that the only time there is enthusiasm on Capitol Hill is when an investigation can produce partisan victories and electoral advantage.  That would explain Capitol Hill’s interest in the Benghazi fiasco:  If Hillary can be neutralized, and if Democrats can be faulted for mishandling Benghazi, Republicans are on the case.  But their interest stops dead in its track at the question of what we were up to in Libya to begin with.  After all, both Republican and Democrat fingerprints are all over the intervention in Libya.  And if the government was using Benghazi as a staging area to run guns to rebels in Syria – fighters uncomfortably similar to Al Qaeda -  then nobody wants to know.

The death of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi is a tragedy; but if the so-called diplomatic mission there was a CIA base, we deserve to know.  We do know that whatever it was in Benghazi, it wasn’t an embassy.  Or a consulate.

If the ambassador was really a CIA agent, that is a violation of our laws.  We deserve to know.  There is no law that commits the United States to protect illegal gunrunning.  And there is no diplomatic immunity for weapons dealers.

Where would the Benghazi trail lead if Congress cared about more than their own political fortunes?  Here’s a hint:  what we do know is that of the people evacuated by air from Benghazi the night of the attack, seven were diplomatic and State Department workers.  Twenty-three were CIA officers.

So from illegal operations overseas (does anybody remember a Constitutional declaration of war that authorized the U.S. to topple the government in Libya?) to snoops in the Justice department; from the targeting of political opponents by the IRS to a Congress concerned solely with the next election; from one badly stained department of government charged with investigating another to the president’s derision of Jeffersonian vigilance; from all this we are left to ask: who will guard us from our guardians?

Maybe it will all prove to be hysterically funny with the passage of enough time.

But for now, Ron Paul deserves apologies from those who, like Obama, believed that his calls for us to be vigilant about intrusive government were over the top.

 

Charles Goyette  is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown. His new book is Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy.

This article is taken from Charles Goyette’s  Freedom & Prosperity Letter, a monthly political and financial newsletter, helping Americans protect themselves and their families.  GO HERE.

 

Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)

What No One Wants To Hear About Benghazi

Benghazi exposed 300x199 What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi

Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.

Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?

Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.

It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.

Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.

Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

This post first appeared here, and is reprinted with permission.

John Boehner: Call A Special Investigation!

John Boehner 3 SC John Boehner: call a special investigation!

BENGHAZI: Why have Hillary and Barack lied and covered up so vigorously for so long?  Obviously, there is something terribly damaging being concealed.  The truth, in their estimation, would be more damaging that the appearance of impropriety.  Better to be seen incompetent than be judged criminal.

One theory claims it was a staged kidnapping to set up Obama the hero when he saved the day, all to guarantee re-election.

Another theory: arms were being shipped to Syria via Libya and Turkey, managed by our ambassador; and something went sideways and the terrorists we were arming turned on us.

Still another theory holds that Chris Stevens was involved with something illegal or unethical against his will. He was about to blow the whistle, and the Administration set him up for elimination.

Perhaps it was only sheer incompetence and an attempt to deflect bad news in deference to re-election.  However, if that were the case, why all this post-election cover-up and deception?

No.

There is something very, very rotten in the Obama WH. And Boehner and the Boys had better roll up their sleeves and get to the bottom of it, or they will forever suffer shame and dishonor.

Prince Not-So-Charming

Barack Obama 6 SC Prince Not So Charming

We can all save a lot of time (and Tylenol) by simply acknowledging the fact that Barack Obama is a Machiavellian “Prince.” The Prince does what is needed, and he is the one who is feared. His use of force will be needed to achieve and hold his power.

He doesn’t have to tell you the truth. He doesn’t have to obey the law. The rules don’t apply to him. He can do whatever he wants because he is the Prince. If you ask him a question, he is going to lie about it. He is also going to lie to America’s allies and conspire with our enemies. He will compromise the Constitution because that’s what Princes do. And if you ask for his birth certificate, he’ll make one.

He is like a road repairman, covering up all the potholes. As soon as you find a hole in his story, he’s going to rush over and cover it up. Machiavelli advised that “one should avoid being despised and hated.” Obama missed the mark on that one, but nobody’s perfect.

With a hefty dose of Karl Marx, Obama’s dreams of his father are a “legal and political superstructure… and social consciousness”. . where the government allocates values for its citizens based on demand.” And Obama IS the government. (OK, who wants to line up for Little Debbies?)

This is a far cry from the Magna Carta and the Constitution. The Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. It is the bedrock of Britain and British Law (and as we already know, Obama despises anything British.) You’re never going to catch him at the Renaissance Festival.

There are two principles expressed in the Magna Carta:

“No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”

“To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice.”

Obviously, they don’t teach the principles of the Magna Carta in Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. They don’t get it.

The Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The Founders embedded the philosophy of the Magna Carta into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obama wants no part of it.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (“no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) is a direct descendant of the Magna Carta’s guarantee of proceedings according to the “law of the land.”

We need to confront ourselves with the truth and stop whining about our predicament. No more White House press conferences, asking the same old tired questions. No more Fox News trying to figure out what Obama is thinking. No more birthers waving a phony birth certficate, asking for an explanation. No more wondering about Benghazi, or Obamacare, or terrorists visiting the White House.

Face reality. Obama sees himself as an etherical philosophical creature, like Puck (no pun intended.) He immersed himself in the contemporary plutocrats but strictly avoided anything to do with Kirkegaard. Obama’s morality is based on Islam and the reformed Christian doctrine “Do unto other before they do unto you.”

Obama Could Be Indicted For War Crimes

On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama burst onto the national scene with his famous anti-war speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Mysteriously—or not so mysteriously per the 2008 Obama presidential campaign—video of the speech was “lost” except for thirteen seconds (shown in the above video). Many believe it was lost because the panning camera would have revealed a who’s who of radical leftists, anti-Semites, and “social justice” (that is socialist) unions  in the audience.

It was only one step then from the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech to the presidency. Along the way, Obama continued to rally his anti-war shock troops, complete with “Bush is a war criminal” posters and frothing protesters reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Oddly, or not so oddly, these anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared once Obama ascended to the presidency. But lo and behold, when the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way, the same radicals who were part of the anti-war movement were now part of the “pay your fair share” movement.

But “anti-war” President Obama proved himself nothing of the kind. He embraced the use of Orwellian doublespeak and secrecy to conduct endless wars that has made George W. Bush look like a pacifist.

The non-war war in Libya wasn’t a war because Obama never invoked the War Powers Act—or more correctly, he refused to seek approval for the war from Congress. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta famously told Congress that seeking “international permission” from NATO was sufficient for action against Gaddafi.  Obama’s rationale, on the other hand, for not seeking Congressional approval, was because we didn’t have any boots on the ground. Because we pulverized Gaddafi with a blitzkrieg of air power instead of a standing army, then, technically, war was never declared. According to this line of reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually a declaration of war.

Because of Obama’s non-war war in Libya, we have much of Libya (and North Africa for that matter) controlled by al-Qaeda, which led directly to the attack on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of 9/11.

Why didn’t Obama send in help to save Americans when the Benghazi consulate was attacked? We now know at least one stand down order was given. It is a forgone conclusion it was because Benghazi was ground zero for another one of Obama’s non-war wars—in Syria—in which Obama had been secretly shipping weapons to the Syrian “rebels” (and sending in help would have revealed this.)

The difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the fact that the rebels were linked to al-Qaeda was kept under wraps. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, make no bones about their links to al-Qaeda.

But this is only the surface of Obama’s non-war wars. John Brennan (simply a terrorism advisor to Obama until recently being named CIA director), according to the extensively research book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked groups for years. Brennan and his minions at JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) have not only been operating outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!

According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent”—now completely debunked by the release on Monday of the “revised” White House talking points—but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia.

Not only in charge of dozens of secret wars, Brennan then as now is in charge of the vast drone program that has reached a frightening level. Obama authorized more drone strikes in the first ten months of his presidency than George W. Bush carried out in his entire eight-year presidency.

Obama authorizes, for the most part, what are called “signature” strikes, which means in a nut shell that you are never sure who you are killing. This of course translates into hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, including women and children.

Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a warmonger.

Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single “high value target” (HVT) on a funeral procession!  According to Dirty Wars:

Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help… they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”

And this is just one instance of what many are calling war crimes. It is estimated that for every “high value target” killed by a drone, fifty civilians are killed, predominantly women and children.

All of this has been conveniently covered up by Obama’s compliant media, but it appears the wheels are now coming off the “anti-war” Obama bus.

Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, an organization called the Constitution Project  released the mammoth 600 page study entitled “The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.”

The report comes to some shocking conclusions. It in effect makes the case that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.

In the coming days, we will be looking at this mammoth document along with Jeremy Scahill’s equally mammoth study, discussing Obama’s Dirty Wars in order to determine if in fact Barack Hussein Obama is a war criminal who should be indicted for war crimes.

Obama’s War Is Coming

General Obama Forward Stand Down SC Obamas War is Coming

Obama’s war is coming. President Putin warned him. Prime Minister Netanyahu told him it was likely to happen. Now it may be here. Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force launched missiles and jets at Damascus, Syria, the second bombing attack in the last forty eight hours.

First, on Friday, the Israeli Air Force bombed a military convoy inside Syria, which they said was transporting weapons to the Hezbollah group of fighters in Lebanon. This was caused, according to the Israelis, in response to the deal that Hezbollah has struck with the Syrian regime. By the account of the Israelis, Hezbollah is providing fighters to assist the regime against the rebels in Syria’s civil war. In return, Syria provides Hezbollah with rockets to use against Israel. The second strike on Saturday was against a military research site inside Syria on the outskirts of Damascus. This second strike has reportedly killed as many as 400 Syrians and injured an unknown number of others.

I am by no means a supporter of the Socialist Government in Syria. What I am warning of are the implications that are below the surface of this conflict. Syria’s primary ally in the region is Iran. Iran, as everyone knows, is no friend of Israel. The Russians have strategic interests in Syria as they have several sea ports there for resupplying their warships and support ships. The Russians have also had a long-standing relationship with Syria. While they do not support the regime’s actions often, they have always been able to depend upon the regime’s support for their needs in the region.

In order to understand how delicate the situation really is, one only needs to look at the last six weeks of activity in the region. Turkey and Syria recently had a stand-off concerning possible deployment of the Patriot Missile systems in the region. Israel and Turkey also recently (supposedly in conjunction with Obama’s trip to the region) patched up their differences over the deaths of Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara aid ship. When Turkey called for the deployment of the missile system to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia responded with unscheduled military exercises in the Black Sea off the coast of Syria and with long range flights from Russia into Syria with its nuclear capable bombers. At the same time, China conducted unscheduled exercises in the China Seas. This was just after the conclusions of the BRICS meeting in South Africa, where they discussed the formation of an alternative to the IMF and committed to forming a new international monetary system of exchange that would not include the IMF. China is also currently in a deal with Iran for the country’s oil export for use in China.

It would not be the first time Israel was used as a surrogate operator for the furthering of the US policies in the region. In 1956, when Egypt annexed the Suez Canal, the UK and France conspired with Israel under the direction of (or at least the acquiescence of) the US. They got Israel to attack Egypt; and then once the war had started, they intervened under the premise of taking control of the canal to keep it safe for international trade.

No one at this stage knows if there is a replay of that method of staging an event to ensure the intervention of international forces to assert control over the region. What is evident though is that the world has changed greatly since the US and its allies through NATO and the UN could operate unrestrained to further their empires. The US and their allies have been warned by the increasingly strong BRICS against further interference in the Syrian Civil war. The stage is set for the conflict to begin at any moment. The future is in the hands of the leaders of the West. Will Obama’s plan to bring about the fall of the USA become a reality?

The US has a nearly crippling national debt; should an international conflict of global proportions come to pass, where would the US government acquire the funds it needs to operate the government on a day to day basis, let alone finance a global conflict? Would confidence in the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency be sustained? If the US Dollar should lose its position, the consequences could be catastrophic for the western world.

 

 

Open Letter To German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Angela Merkel SC Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Dear Madame Chancellor:

We strongly recommend that Germany reject the entrance of Croatia to the EU. However, if Germany determines it is willing to take on the financial and political risks of admitting Croatia into the EU, then we urge you to require conditions. Absent these conditions, it would be a mistake to admit Croatia into the EU and provide over €11 billion (2014-2020) in EU and German taxpayer funds to the country.  The recommended conditions are as follows:
1. Croatia agrees to accept foreign visiting judges and prosecutors from strong rule of law nations to be empowered with official duties. There are precedents for this in the Balkan region and in Commonwealth nations.
2. With the above assistance, the government of Croatia recovers illicit financial outflows of over €11.4 billion in crime, corruption and tax evasion (during 2001-2010) and confiscates the wealth illicitly amassed by Croatia’s politicians, government officials, and their private partners in crime and pays it back into Croatia’s treasury.
With a politically influenced judiciary, Croatia cannot effectively deal with rampant corruption. Foreign judges and prosecutors will be able to address the illicit outflows and illicit enrichment, and assist in establishing an independent judiciary with a proper foundation of the rule of law. Croatia’s corrupt politicians and their private partners in crime should be prosecuted; their assets in Europe and beyond should be frozen; and they should be barred from all EU offices and European parliamentary seats.
BackgroundThe EU is closing its eyes to organized crime and massive corruption in Croatia. By prematurely accepting Croatia as its 28th member, the EU would not only fail Croatia’s citizens, but also expose EU taxpayers to costly bailouts. In the meantime, an unreformed Croatian government is unlikely to use EU structural funds as intended.

Dr. Daniel Kaufmann’s study, completed at the Washington, DC-based Brookings Institution, with excerpts published in The Wall Street Journal, found that Greece’s crisis was due to rampant corruption and opaque public finances. Croatia is on the path to becoming the next Greece.

For the past two decades, Croatia’s two major political groupings have rotated power while politicians enriched themselves. While engaging in rampant corruption, politicians have blocked judicial reforms, interfered with the judiciary, failed to strengthen the rule of law, encouraged a dysfunctional economy, held fraudulent elections, and brought the government debt down to junk status. Under these circumstances, investors with honest intentions avoid the country.
Investors have no legal certainty and lack the fundamental protection of property rights. According to the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom for Croatia, published by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, “Judicial corruption continues to undermine the rule of law. The court system is cumbersome and inefficient, and backlogs cause business disputes to drag on for years.”
  
Twelve Reasons for Concern

1.  $15.2 Billion in Illicit Financial Outflows (2001-2010) Via Crime, Corruption, Tax Evasion and Illicit  Enrichment Since 1991

Based on the research by Washington, DC-based Global Financial Integrity, Croatia experienced an illicit outflow of $15.2 billion (€11.4b) during 2001-2010 via crime, corruption and tax evasion. Croatia’s government has not yet answered the questions of theOpen Letter of February 21, 2013 co-signed by members of the European Parliament Monica Macovei—Romania’s former justice minister—and Roger Helmer (UK) and Adriatic Institute’s leadership.
Moises Naim, a scholar at the Washington, DC-based Carnegie Endowment for International peace and the author of “Mafia States,” explains: “In mafia states, government officials enrich themselves and their families and friends while exploiting the money, muscle, political influence, and global connections of criminal syndicates to cement and expand their own power.” Croatia fits the description.

2.  Corruption and Money Laundering Related to Hypo Alpe Adria Group (HAAG)

While German taxpayers were bailing out Bayerische LB with €3.75 billion connected to the “losses” of the Hypo Bank in the Balkans, the accounts of corrupt Croatian politicians and criminals remained safe, protected by Liechtenstein’s banking secrecy and its new owner Prince Michael von Liechtenstein. Prior to Bayerische Landesbank’s purchase of the HAAG shell in 2007, Hypo Consultants Group, a lucrative real estate arm of the HAAG owning a portfolio of real estate in Croatia and Serbia, allegedlyestimated at €1.6 billion, was divested. The HAAG branch in Liechtenstein was excluded from the purchase. Germany’s Honorary Consul to Croatia, RobertJezic, who allegedly received HAAG’s loans, was also a lobbyist for HAAG in Croatia.

Over the last 22 years, illicit gains from bribes, phony privatization schemes, illegal trade, and arms and oil smuggling left Croatia and allegedly landed in secret HAAG bank accounts in Austria and Liechtenstein. Part of that money was laundered back to Croatia, and invested in the real estate. The only individual held responsible was Mr. Sanader, Croatia’s former prime minister, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the multiple bribery cases. One of the cases involved Austria’s HAAG. Mr. Sanader is currently appealing the court’s decision.
 
3.  Extradition of Ex-General Vladimir Zagorec, and Public Assassinations in Zagreb
Vladimir Zagorec, Croatia’s former defense assistant minister and ex-general indicted for embezzling diamonds worth $5 million during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, was extradited from Austria to Croatia on October 2, 2008. According to published media reports, during the war in Croatia, Mr. Zagorec transferred about $450 million to secret accounts in HAAG, which he used as a deposit for his construction projects. Jorg Haider, an Austrian politician who spearheaded Hypo’s foray in the Balkans, and whose wealth of EUR45 million was found in Liechtenstein foundations, was killed in a car accident on October 11, 2008.Prior to his extradition from Austria, Mr. Zagorec allegedly announced that he would reveal 77 secret accounts belonging to politicians in Austria and Liechtenstein. On October 6, 2008, Ivana Hodak, the 26-year-old daughter of a lawyer defending Mr. Zagorec, was executed in front of her apartment, shot twice in the head. On October 23, 2008, a bomb explosion in Croatia’s capital killed Ivo Pukanic, a publisher of an independent weekly Nacional, and another company executive, Niko Franjic. Mr. Pukanic was one of the key witnesses against Zagorec.

Vladimir Zagorec was sentenced to seven years in prison in Croatia. He has not yet publicly revealed the names of politicians withsecret foreign accounts in Liechtenstein and Austria.4.  Ministry of Interior’s Obstruction of Investigations

Tomislav Karamarko, a former intelligence head (currently party leader of HDZ political party, which is under investigation for corruption and for siphoning around €9.5m for HDZ party slush funds used by senior party officials) was hand-picked by Mr. Sanader to immediately replace the Minister of Interior after the assassinations of Ms. Hodak, Mr. Pukanic, and Mr. Franjic.  The only result of the investigations under Mr. Karamarko’s authority was that a homeless person was jailed for allegedly killing the lawyer’s daughter. Tomislav Karamarko eventually appointed his people to police departments.
Croatia’s current Minister of Interior, Ranko Ostojic, has an apparent conflict of interest, having worked for, and resided in a Zagreb apartment owned by, Nino Pavic, a media tycoon. Mr. Pavic is the  owner and founder of EPH, with 50% of the print media market share. As reported by Washington, DC-based Freedom House, Mr. Pavic has not yet been charged in the HGAA corruption scandal, which was allegedly discarded by Croatia’s main prosecutor, Mladen BajicMr. Pavic also has been mentioned as one of the alleged owners of Hypo Consultants Group.  German Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ) is a 50% owner of EPH in Croatia.

5.  Persecution of  Journalists and Independent Voices
Just two weeks ago, the Croatian state-run broadcaster’s HRT executive editor Denis Latin and his colleagues were removed from their positions. OSCE expressed concern about the treatment of journalists “following criticism from the country’s Prime Minister Milanovic” and it called “the government and the HRT management to refrain any action that could lead to censorship and threaten editorial independence.”  OSCE also stated, “This action can undermine media freedom in the country…”  According to media reports, HRT’s director, Goran Radman serves on the supervisory board of Hypo Alpe Adria Bank in Croatia and is tied to alleged conflict of interest cases.
TomislavKaramarko, former head of Croatia’s intelligence and minister of interior, and currently HDZ party leader, was called out by journalists and anti-corruption activists for harassment.
Under the title, “Judicial Harassment of Zeljko Peratovic Must Stop,” Reporters Without Borders released this statement, “As he already tried to do last year, [Tomislav] Karamarko probably hopes to be able to convince the court to ban Peratovic from publishing information for an indefinite period, thereby preventing him from working as a journalist, whether writing for his blog or for other media.”
Police protection was denied to media publisher Ivo Pukanic, who was assassinated in a car bomb explosion in October 2008. Those who ordered Mr. Pukanic’s murder have not been found. The assassination attempts on Dusan Miljus, a journalist who has been covering corruption and its ties to organized crime, and Igor Rađenović, director of Zagreb Roads who allegedly unearthed corruption in a company owned by the city of Zagreb, have never been resolved. Journalists on the state-run television HTV have been exposed to constant harassment.

6.  Involvement In the The Balkan Route
Croatia lies on the “Balkan Route,” which originates in Afghanistan/Pakistan via Iran and is used by criminals and terrorist networks to smuggle heroin, weapons, and young women and children into Europe. In the arrest of several Balkan criminals in Spain in February 2012, all possessed official Croatian passports. Further investigations led directly to Croatia’s Ministry of Interior and a record of illegal sale of passports since 2006. This corruption has emboldened Balkan criminals to run an international criminal enterprise and the Balkan Cocaine Ring with direct access to the EU. No high-level official was held responsible in Croatia.
The Balkan Route’s heroin trade is estimated at $20 billion annual market value. The Western Balkans, which includes Croatia, is included in Europol’s organized crime threat assessment.
 
7.  Fraudulent Elections and Other Political Abuses:  One Million Illegal Voters for a Nation of Four Million
In spite of the reports on Croatia’s electoral fraud by Brussels-based The Parliament, a Written Question to the European Commission by Daniel Hannan, member of the European Parliament from UK, and in BBC’s live interview with Stefano Sannino, the European Commission’s director general for enlargement, in December 2011, the EU failed to include Croatia’s democratic deficiency in its monitoring reports. Croatia’s current Minister of Administration, Arsen Bauk, finally admitted in May 2012 that in his country of just 4.2 million people, “over 1 million surplus voters” were on the electoral list in 2011 December’s parliamentary elections.  These illegal votes had a potential to determine more than 70 seats in Croatia’s 151-seat parliamentary assembly.
Croatia’s 2011 parliamentary elections and the January 2012 EU referendum were decided on the basis of more than one million illegal votes. The upcoming elections for the European Parliament and Croatia’s local elections in May of 2013 will be decided through the same fraudulent electoral list.
Sasha Radović (72), retired colonel and anti-corruption activist, was arrested on November 17, 2011, the very day he announced his candidacy in the December 2011 elections. In his many books, Mr. Radovic had exposed political corruption and unexplained wealth of top state leaders, including cabinet ministers and a military general. Extortion charges against Mr. Radović were brought by Ivan Cermak, an ex-general and alleged war-profiteer whose wealth has been investigated by journalists and anti-corruption activists but ignored by Croatia’s authorities. Mr. Radovic is currently appealing the decision of two years of jail time through Croatia’s court system.
Croatia’s current foreign minister, Vesna Pusic, and the Croatian People’s Party (HNS) she heads, forged a coalition with HDSSB political party of Branimir Glavasconvicted of war crimes and serving jail time in Bosnia. Croatia’s electoral commission, presided by the president of Supreme Court Branko Hrvatin, approved Mr. Glavas’ leading the HDSSB list in the 2011 parliamentary elections despite his serving the sentence. Three members of HDSSB were reported for murder threats and a physical attack on a journalist. According to published reports, Mr. Glavas is alleged to have threatened a judge and journalists.

8. State Prosecutor Mladen Bajic’s Blocking of Corruption  Investigations
The current Prime Minister, Zoran Milanovic, investigative journalists, and whistleblowers have accused Croatia’s Chief State Prosecutor Mladen Bajic of blocking corruption investigations. The EU’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia, released on October 10, 2012, urged that “further attention should be paid to the system for checking on dismissals of criminal cases by the prosecutor. The current system does not provide for independent checks on decisions by State prosecutors to dismiss reports of crime.”
9. Conflicts of Interest and Abuse of Office
The media have reported conflicts of interest and the abuse of public office. However, those allegedly involved generally have not been prosecuted. Allegations have been made against Croatia’s current Prime Minister Zoran MilanovicPresident Ivo Josipovic; deputy prime minister and minister of foreign and European affairsVesnaPusicfinance ministerSlavko Linic; former tourism minister of the current government Veljko Ostojic; former interior minister Tomislav  Karamarko; former finance minister Ivan Suker; former economy and defense minister BrankoVukelic; former transportation minister BozidarKalmeta; former minister of public works, construction and reconstruction Marina Matulović Dropulicformer minister of foreign affairs Miomir Zuzul; former speaker of the house and currently president of the anti-corruption parliamentary committee Vladimir Seks (who has not yet been charged for alleged war crimes); former minister of public works, construction and reconstruction RadimirCacicformer Prime Minister Jadranka Kosorformer minister of foreign affairs Mate Granic; Istria county prefect and IDS president IvanJakovcic; former foreign minister KolindaGrabar-Kitarovic; chairman of the state-owned oil company, Petrokemija, JosipJagust; and a host of other politicians in Croatia.
The EU’s comprehensive monitoring report from October 10, 2012 stated, “Croatia has not fully implemented the conflict of interest legislation and has overturned the previous provisions on the criteria for membership of supervisory and management boards of public companies.” Vesna Pusic’s attempt to appoint HNS party secretary-general Srecko Ferencak to the supervisory board of a state-run oil pipeline operator, after he was sentenced for embezzlement, would be considered highly problematic in rule of law nations.In sharp contrast to the record in Croatia, Monica Macovei, former Minister of Justice, Romania and member of the European Parliament stated through the EU’s post-accession monitoring mechanism, “1,000 [Romanian] public officials ended up behind bars for corruption.” Based on evidence, Ms. Macovei recently advocated for “the establishment in Croatia of a post-accession mechanism to evaluate the track record of conflict of interest, corruption and organized crime cases as well as the implementation of the judiciary reform action plan.”

10. Abuse of Private Property Rights 

Individual property rights are trampled on, and, according to the US State Department, the adjudication process in expropriation cases is an area of potential concern for investors. Croatia’s legislature ensured inherent conflicts of interest in the legislative framework for the restitution and compensation of the property confiscated during communism. According to the EU report from 2010, “This strategic move by the Croatian Government and legislature places the rule of law and the rights of people entitled to restitution or compensation in jeopardy.”
11.  Arms Sale to Syrian Groups, in Violation of EU’s Embargo
Croatia was recently reported to be selling arms to Syria. The unanswered questions remain: Where did these arms come from, how were they originally purchased, to whom were they sold, who is getting the proceeds from the sales, and why has the EU not reacted in light of the EU’s embargo?
12.  Depressed Economy
As a consequence of corruption and poor policies, including high taxes, Croatia’s government budget has been drained; business and consumer confidence has been lacking; the economy has been in recession since 2009; unemployment has been growing for years and is now at 22%; youth unemployment has been around 45% since October 2012; public debt and budget deficits are unsustainable; people are suffering from poverty; and people are leaving the country.
………
We look forward to your positive response and leadership in blocking Croatia’s EU accession or requiring the conditions described above.

Sincerely,

Natasha Srdoc
Co-Founder and Chairman, Adriatic Institute for Public Policy
Co-Founder and Co-Chair, International Leaders Summit
Honorable Maurice McTigue, QSO
Co-Chair, Executive Advisory Board, Adriatic Institute for Public Policy
Advisor to US Members of Congress, US Administrations, US State Governors
New Zealand’s Former Cabinet Member, Member of Parliament and Ambassador
Joel Anand Samy
Co-Founder and Trustee, Adriatic Institute for Public Policy
Co-Founder and Co-Chair, International Leaders Summit
Boris Divjak
Senior Fellow, Adriatic Institute for Public Policy
Founder and Board Member, Transparency International, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cc:
Norbert Lammert, The President of the German Bundestag
Mark Rutte, Prime Minister, The Netherlands
Elio Di Rupo, Prime Minister, Belgium
Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Prime Minister, Denmark
Frederik Reinfedlt, Prime Minister, Sweden
Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister, Finland
David Cameron, Prime Minister, United Kingdom
François Hollande, President, France
Jean-Marc Ayrault, Prime Minister, France
John Kerry, US Secretary of State
Chuck Hagel, US Secretary of Defense
Eric H. Holder, Jr., US Attorney General
Janet A. Napolitano, US Secretary of Homeland Security
Carl Levin, US Senator
John McCain, US Senator
Jeff Sessions, US Senator
Tom Coburn, US Senator
Bob Corker, US Senator
Ben Cardin, US Senator
Jeanne Shaheen, US Senator
Kelly Ayotte, US Senator
Mark Begich, US Senator
Susan Collins, US Senator
Jeff Flake, US Senator
Tim Kane, US Senator
Tedd Cruz, US Senator
Marco Rubio, US Senator
John Boehner, Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Ed Royce, US Congressman
Eliot L. Engel, US Congressman
Christopher H. Smith, US Congressman
Adam Smith, US Congressman
Howard P. McKeon, US Congressman
Frank Wolf, US Congressman
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, US Congresswoman
Joe Wilson, US Congressman
Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament
Monica Macovei, Member of the European Parliament, Romania
Roger Helmer, Member of the European Parliament, U.K.
Daniel Hannan, Member of the European Parliament, U.K.
Geoffrey Van Orden, Member of the European Parliament, U.K.
Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council
Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission
Catherine Ashton, Vice-President, European Commission
Viviane Reding, Vice-President, European Commission
Štefan Füle, EU Commissioner for Enlargement
Photo credit: arne.list (Creative Commons)

Why America Spends So Much On Foreign Aid

20 Dollar Bills SC Why America Spends So Much on Foreign Aid

When our bank accounts start to get low, we all find ways to cut back, right? We scour our budgets, look closely at our needs, and find a way to tighten our belts.

Well, that may happen in our houses, but it never happens in government. Congress continues spending, and our debt keeps growing. And the reason this happens is very simple.

You see, powerful special interests benefit immensely from the spending. And they pass some of the profits back to members of Congress in the form of campaign contributions. In a neighborhood, this might be called protection money. But in Washington, they call it a fundraiser; and it’s perfectly legal.

The Destructive Cycle

Everybody knows about the power of special interest groups at home. But it may come as a surprise that special interests have a huge stake in our foreign aid programs, too. In fact, the connection runs deeper than almost anyone knows. Let me explain.

American foreign aid is structured into two major programs. The first is food aid, and the second is called military aid.

In the U.S. food aid program, the government buys corn, soy, and other farm commodities from American farmers and then ships the foodstuffs to poor and starving villagers around the globe.

That sounds nice in theory. But the program is very damaging to poor farmers across the globe. You see, free food tends to destroy domestic markets. Why would you pay your local farmer to grow soybeans when Uncle Sam will ship them to you for free?

Because of that, the Obama administration is currently pushing a plan to reform foreign food aid. Obama wants to stop buying food from America’s farmers and start sending cash to the world’s poor instead.

But my sources on Capitol Hill tell me that Congress is going to block the reform.

You see, the sad truth is that Congress only supports food aid because farm group lobbyists occasionally drop by and hand out checks. Without the checks, why risk voting for an unpopular program (like foreign food aid) that’s going to send money away from America’s borders?

Ultimately, the power of special interests will completely stymie any efforts to revise our broken food aid program.

Putting Guns in the Wrong Hands

As I said before, the other part of America’s foreign aid is called military aid. Military aid money helps foreign governments buy weapons from America’s arms manufacturers. The money also sends American troops to teach foreign soldiers to use their new weapons.

Military aid allows the United States to get on both sides of many conflicts. For example, we supply advanced military equipment to both Israel and Egypt. The countries are fundamentally at odds, but we win either way.

Military aid occasionally gets us into a lot of trouble, too. Osama Bin Laden got his start with American guns and money. He received aid as part of a radical Islamic group in Afghanistan. Our common enemy was none other than the USSR.

With that in mind, consider our big aid push right now in Syria. We’re funding radical Islamic groups linked to Al Qaeda. Sound familiar?

Times change, and alliances come and go; but our misguided aid program continues unhindered. And why not – the military aid program works great for Congress. Military contractors are happy to deliver checks to congressmen as long as they can continue shipping guns, tanks, and aircraft abroad.

Unfortunately, we can’t expect foreign aid reform anytime soon. The aid programs are ultimately way too profitable to members of Congress, so the spending will go on unabated.

 

This article originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.