Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

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:

China Warns West That Sanctions on Russia Could Spiral Into Chaos:

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:

Human traffickers using social media to prey on victims:

Bullying’s health effects snowball over time:

And in world news… the latest from the Ukranian conflict:

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.