Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

I actually spoke about this rape kit situation during a radio interview back in November. Here’s an article that was just published updating this extremely poor situation:

100 Serial Rapists Identified After Rape Kits From Detroit Crime Lab Are Finally Processed: http://www.wxyz.com/news/100-serial-rapists-identified-after-rape-kits-from-detroit-crime-lab-are-finally-processed

China Warns West That Sanctions on Russia Could Spiral Into Chaos: http://scgnews.com/china-warns-west-that-sanctions-on-russia-could-spiral-into-chaos-us-eu-indicate-sanctions-to-begin

Maryland House Bill 33, Lynette’s Law, has passed out of the Judiciary Committee and will get a vote in the house. “One Voice” suicide prevention music video montage:

 

Tapping into the American Live Wire for a few items of interest…

A father breaks a judge’s gag order over the concern his daughter is being held at a hospital against his will:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/17/ready-jon-father-so-heartbroken-about-daughter-held-at-hospital-against-his-will-he-just-defied-a-judges-order-to-talk-to-us-i-want-to-have-all-my-guns-blazing/

Human traffickers using social media to prey on victims:
http://www.wogx.com/story/24757808/human-traffickers-using-social-media-to-prey-on-victims

Bullying’s health effects snowball over time:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/bullyings-health-effects-snowball-over-time-n30806

And in world news… the latest from the Ukranian conflict:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02/19/protesters-clash-with-police-in-ukraine-capital-as-opposition/

Leaders of the world will meet next month at a global conference in Copenhagen to sign a treaty concerning the controversial climate change issue. Developing countries around the world are accusing the United States of not doing enough to prevent greenhouse gases from being emitted and are seeking a world tax to be placed upon America for its usage. In many eyes of those countries this tax would be a type of reparation for the United States growing rich while using “cheap fuel.”

U.S. Lawmakers have already come under heavy scrutiny for the energy bill that narrowly passed the House in June, a measure that would raise energy rates. Said Jim Imhofe (R-OK), “This is not an energy bill. This is a cap-and-trade bill. This is a huge tax increase.”

With the world now in a cooling trend, people are becoming skeptical about the global warming coverage of recent years that has now been renamed “climate change.” Opponents of the theory, including many scientists, have urged for years that the temperatures of the planets work in a cyclical nature and have more to do with the sun and oceanic thermal venting than emissions produced by humans. Some data even suggests that to prevent a one degree warming of the planet via carbon dioxide emissions we’d have to stop all current emissions for more than 30 years.

With this sort of controversy over the validity of the issue, trying to pass legislation on the matter is becoming harder for lawmakers. Putting it into the hands of world powers becomes increasingly uneasy.

Wording in the current draft of the Framework Convention on Climate Change sets up a world government entity that, “will be ruled by the [Conference of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.”

This is worrisome wording for those that are concerned about the country’s sovereignty and fear that interests of the United States will come under the control of other world powers. While that may be the long-term controversy, the short-term issue remains a monetary one.

Stated Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst for energy and environment of the Heritage Foundation, “The developing world especially wants hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The developed world is offering up tens of billions. So there’s a big gap that hasn’t been narrowed there in terms of being able to come up with an agreement in Copenhagen.”

For more info: Divisions Remain Ahead of Climate Change Conference in Denmark, Lord Moncton’s Warning to America, Inconvenient Alarm, Draft of Copenhagen Treaty

Update: Eight more American soldiers died in bomb blasts today in Southern Afghanistan. Additional troops were injured and one Afghan civilian died in what was described as “multiple, complex bomb strikes.” The October death toll in Afghanistan has reached 55.

———————————

President Obama plans to pull out of Iraq by August 2010. He continues to be undecided about troop deployments in Afghanistan. However, casualties have steadily mounted in recent days.

In Baghdad, Iraq, 155 died from twin suicide bombings over the weekend, including up to two dozen children that had been trapped in a bus leaving a day care facility. Many believe this was an attack directed at the Shiite government in light of proposed election law that is supposed to aid the country in moving forward with January’s election.

On the deadliest day for Americans in four years in Afghanistan, chopper crashes littered the landscape on Monday. The first was escaping a fire fight with insurgents and 10 Americans were killed. The second was a collision of two helicopters in which four American soldiers were killed and another two were wounded. The previous day two other Americans were killed in firefights.

Later on Monday, President Obama reiterated in a speech at a Naval Air Station in Jacksonville that he will not “rush the solemn decision” to send more troops into Afghanistan. “I won’t risk [American] lives unless it is absolutely necessary.”

Critics of Obama’s wait-and-see approach say the time for him to make a decision is emminent.

“It’s been more than two months since the recommendation went to the president,” said Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ). “And Gen. McChrystal is talking about a 12-month time frame. So clearly time is of the essence here.”

Even the United Nations envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, urged NATO defense ministers on Friday to send more troops to the country and help stabilize the region. Nation nations, however, are still awaiting a decision from the United States by President Obama.

In the meantime, lives continue to be lost.

While President Obama lingers in the situation room and continues to waffle on whether or not to send in more troops to Afghanistan, he’s also preparing to accept some involvement of the Taliban in the country’s political future. The Taliban seemingly celebrated the news by setting off a bomb at the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing 17 and injuring 63 others.

While officials say Obama’s decision is still two weeks away, U.S. Troops are working overtime on counterinsurgency tactics to keep the Afghan people on their side and in fending off constant Taliban hit-and-run attacks. Said Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), “When [the Taliban] see us acting in an unsure manner, they’re able to go out to all the villages and different people and say America is going to pull out.”

With the Taliban regaining strength, they’ve been able to instill fear tactics once again, threatening violence during the August elections and now this bomb at the Indian embassy. However, the Obama administration would prefer to concentrate on efforts against al-Qaeda and downgrade the emphasis on the Taliban. They believe the Taliban is too enmeshed in Afghanistan’s culture and would be willing to consider Taliban members that renounce violence. The Taliban, on the other hand, have not been eager to do so.

Many believe an Iraq-like surge would put an end to the Taliban resurgence.

Nancy Pelosi would like us to cower at her fear tactics, citing the San Francisco violence in 1977 in comparison to concerned citizens speaking up about the current health care bill. While the health care bill itself is rather scary, those against it are not and just want to have a discussion, but what is frightening is Iran flexing its military muscle.

In the wake of UN General Assembly walk-outs last week, Iran has spent the early goings of this week test firing its longest ranged missiles, Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles that can travel up to 1200 miles. On top of that, a second nuclear facility in Iran has been discovered and in response, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated Iran will refuse to negotiate its nuclear program at Thursday talks in Geneva. While it was odd that the administration waited until G20 in Pittsburgh to announce the facility rather than at the UN, Iranian hostility is certainly heating up.

President Obama’s solution: sanctions. Sanctions in this case, unless it’s on refined oil, are a lot of hot air that generally won’t effect a regime that’s hell-bent on bringing about the end of the world with any real significance. Even if the sanctions were smartly placed on refined oil there are still ways Iran can deal with it, such as raising gas prices to stop consumers from by buying. So if Obama tells Iran, “I’m not going to let you play with my ball,” and Iran says, “That’s ok. We have our own ball.” What then?

To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this is a religious thing. His sect of Islam believes that they must create as much chaos as possible in order to bring about their religion’s second coming and end days. Does Obama really believe that he’s going to be able to negotiate peace with those that don’t want peace? And he thinks he has local countries like Russia backing him on this… the same Russia that has been Iran’s leading supplier of weapons for years and is the country that sold Iran nuclear fuel in 2005.

As for other countries like the U.K. and France that stood up with Obama at the Security Council, French president Nicolas Sarkozy believes that Obama is naïve and egotistical. The international community’s confidence in the United States is wavering at the precise wrong time.

There has been a bit of a silence on American Live Wire the past few days, but it is not without reason. First of all, we wanted to leave up the research on the Bloom-Obama-GE-Russia-Iran-Syria connections for the public to take in, especially with the UN General Assembly this week and foreign policy rife. Secondly, I’ve been reading the been One Second After by William R. Forstchen. It is a book I think every American should read, but I will follow up with a book review at a later time. Today is an analysis of President Obama’s speech to the UN yesterday.

Diving right in… (Obama speech in italics)

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

First and foremost, we should be looking out for the interests of America. Secondly, America has been the policeman of the world for years, absolutely looking out for the interest of others, freeing nations from oppression, sending billions in aid to third world countries, and promoting democracy. This sounds too apologetic and weak although a couple sentences later Obama claims it’s not.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it is what I will speak about today — because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

Globalization. The words sound rather eloquent, but when you put it all together, it’s one of the focuses of the progressive movement: a one world government.

On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. (Applause.) I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

You can’t lead with an example of weakness. The more civilized nations of the UN are nodded their head in approval of these things and applauded, while those more ruthless are salivating. If one of their own get detained under suspicions of terror then it’s no more than being tossed in a cell and being asked some questions. There will be no fear of compromised information because hardened terrorists don’t talk under such minor circumstances. They are thanking Obama for securing a breach of their intelligence network.

In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

I would love a world completely devoid of nuclear weapons, but with countries like Iran and North Korea trying to develop their own this is simply a fantasy. We don’t need enough to destroy the world 10 times over, but Barack Obama is a man that told us in speeches prior to his election that he would disarm America. Nuclear weapons are just the first step.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

Awesome… he neglects to mention that unemployment in the U.S. actually went up after his stimulus plan and our budget estimates were adjusted higher by $2 trillion. That $20 billion global food security sounds nice, but it would be even better if he would turn the water back on in California so we can grow crops again and put farm hands back to work.

We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills.

Really? And how much are we borrowing from other countries like China? Thought so.

This cannot solely be America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

I actually agree with this part of this point. Too many times America is called upon to bail out other countries from their problems only to be chastised for it later. But if we sit around and wait for other countries to step up to the plate we’ll almost never get anything done because other countries don’t have the cajones.

Consider the course that we’re on if we fail to confront the status quo: Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world; protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions.

Well, thanks for the double-speak because that line was absolutely meant to strike fear. And the “melting ice caps” remark is pure bunk since the ice caps have not been shrinking but growing the past couple years.

Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way — and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations — or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

Idealism brought to you by the progressives. Can you hear John Lennon singing in the background? Remember, Roosevelt’s idealism kept us in a depression for years and it took a world war to bring us out of it.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

So we’re to be equals with France, Canada, and Libya now? Yeah, that’s the American dream. Again, this is part of the one world all equal rhetoric of the progressives. The United States been a leader in promoting freedom for years, which did rise us above the others as a “super-power.” If that offends other countries then maybe they need to do something to raise their nation up to our level. We’ve been saying for a long time now that we can teach people how to do that. But we shouldn’t devolve ourselves to their level, yet that’s what the agenda of our current administration is.

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Hearing the John Lennon again?

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

Well, obviously there are going to be nations that will continue to develop regardless. That’s just the way it is. That’s reality, no matter how much you wish for the opposite.

America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

Oh good… weaken ourselves while hoping beyond hope others comply to the ideal.

Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences.

Like what? And he never does say what. Oh, sure Obama is working with Russia on some sanctions against Iran, but those really aren’t in Russia’s interest. So… invade Iran to go after WMDs? I wonder if Obama would then like the parallels to George W. Bush.

The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.

Wow… so… Barack Obama just threw Israel under the bus. Contiguous territory for Palestine means splitting Israel. There’s continuous fighting there for a reason and that’s the dispute and to who actually owns that piece of land. Obama pretty much just said that it belongs to the Palestinians… which will fuel the fire in the Israelis, and hurting our alliance with them.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on — why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

Actually, it can be denied, because “climate change” and “global warming” can be refuted. The fear tactics presented in the rest of the paragraph just try to hammer home his (and the progressives) agenda tied to the carbon credit cap-and-trade scheme.

We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050.

Again, this is reference to the carbon credit scheme that will make a number of companies (ahem, GE) and investors billions of dollars.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Nice how he ties the AMERICAN Great Depression to the rest of the world. Germany was rolling right along during the 1930s.

And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed and the excess and the abuse that led us into this disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

Anti-capitalism. He’s right on one count – greed and abuse is what hurt us. But implementing more rules and regulations (especially his tax schemes that promotes socialism) will hurt capitalism and the free market system. I also wonder how he can make a statement about greed and excess considering his ties to GE.

Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibilities. And that means that wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice.

He doesn’t straight out say it, but this sounds like it’s bordering on a suggestion of global redistribution of wealth.

And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts — democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I’ve discussed today, because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than narrow interests of those in power.

If he truly believes that then he needs to stop campaigning for his idea of health care reform and start listening to what the people of this nation are telling him, because many more people that oppose the current bill. But since he’s still trumpeting the same rhetoric I can’t believe that he truly believes in the principles he proclaimed. He used it as fluff.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident — and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

Still trying to get my head around this one. First he says that America is no longer going to be a champion of democracy. Whatever any other country wants to do that’s fine by us and we should embrace that because it’s based on the culture and past traditions of that country. Sounds peachy for those countries that have had a history of totalitarianism. Then he turns around and says we’ve been too selective in our promotion of democracy, our commitment is reinforced, and then he starts paraphrasing Jefferson. So… what’s the real story?

And then he ended it with another quote from the progressive Roosevelt and additional fluff. It was a speech littered with “give peace a chance” mantra, some anti-Israeli speak, and some double-talk that just didn’t jive. But he delivered it, as usual, very nicely.

On September 8, we posted an article about Ron Bloom, our new manufacturing czar, and his involvement with the sale of steel manufacturer Wheeling-Pitt to Esmark which was subsequently sold to OAO Severstal, the largest steel producer in Russia. The deal placed more than half of the U.S. steel industry in the hands of foreign powers. With last week’s controversy over the abandoned missile shield in Poland, a shield which Moscow criticized but was to thwart Iranian missiles, it’s becoming clearer that many roads are leading to Russia. After all, at the end of the week President Obama had set up a business meeting with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

GE has been looking to further expand its Russian interests. The meeting with Putin was an effort to prioritize Asian resources since Immelt believes Russia can be a great leader in energy and technology. This is not GE’s first foray into Russia. GE Energy’s Sales, Service and Technology Center in Moscow was established in March and GE owns DeltaBank, a Russian financial leader and that country’s largest issuer of credit cards. Incidentally, GE Money also owns Bank BPH, Poland’s third largest bank.

Additionally, GE manages Russian interests in the United States, in particular with Severstal. GE Corporate Lending backed the financing for Severstal steel mill construction in Columbus, Mississippi, and also provided $200 million to Severstal Warren (OH). However, GE isn’t the only major U.S. company cutting deals with Russia. In a deal orchestrated by the U.S. government, GM has sold off its European unit Opel to Canadian auto parts maker Magna and its partner, the Kremlin-controlled bank Sberbank.

With all these Russian financial deals, missile stand-downs, and our president setting up meetings between Immelt and Putin, does this mean that Russia is now our ally? Hardly.

Since July, Russia has:

More concerning is Russia’s relationship with Iran. We’ve been led to believe that Russia will help us negotiate sanctions with Iran, but why would they? Russia has been Iran’s leading supplier of weapons for years and in 2005 they cut a deal with Iran to supply them with nuclear fuel. Now Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Just recently, Russia and Iran operated a joint military exercise in the Caspian Sea. And remember that abandoning the Polish missile shield against Iran made Russia happy.

Will the real America please stand up? We elected our officials into office in order to represent the will of the people. Is this our will? Letting Russian companies take over and cuts deals with American industry while they sell weapons to Iran, Venezuela, and Syria? Whatever game the administration is playing with the Russians, they’re losing.

Sales,Sales, Seri
Services and Technology Center in Moscow