30 May 2008

Trade cannot do what Charity does

Fascinating times lead to interesting conclusions, some warranted and some not warranted. Consider Ronald Bailey's article in Reason 29 MAY 2008 (H/t: Instapundit) about the need to increase free trade and the benefits that would come from it looking at a recent Copenhagen Conference on this issue by Kym Anderson:

Anderson looked at a number of econometric modeling scenarios and calculated the cost and benefits that would obtain from full trade liberalization under realistic assumptions derived from the current World Trade Organization's Doha Development Agenda negotiations. Anderson estimated that liberalization of global merchandise trade would mean an annual increase of $287 billion per year in global GDP, of which $86 billion would go to developing countries. This compares very nicely with the $104 billion in development assistance that the governments of industrialized countries gave to developing countries in 2006.

In other calculations, Anderson found that the long term effects of trade liberalization would be that global income in 2098 would be up to 10% greater than it otherwise would have been. The associated net present values from freer trade range from $50 trillion to $424 trillion. Consider that in 2007, total gross world product was $53 trillion. In other words, both the immediate and long-term benefits from free trade are enormous. Anderson reports benefit cost ratios ranging from 269:1 to 1121:1.

Unfortunately this only looks at government assistance to developing countries, which is by far not the whole story. Consider the following from the USINFO site on charity for the year 2006 written on 26 JUN 2007 by Jeffrey Thomas:

Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions.

The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.

[..]

Americans long have preferred to donate their money through the private sector or to private charities. Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005, the most current data available, $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, according to the latest annual Index of Global Philanthropy, which is published by a Washington research organization, the Center for Global Prosperity at the Hudson Institute.

The Giving USA report does not take into account the value of contributions Americans make in terms of time and labor. More than 61 million Americans volunteered for charitable and national service organizations in 2006, and about half of all Americans participate in volunteer activities each year, according to Brooks. Volunteerism is “a major cultural phenomenon in the U.S.,” Brooks says.

Consider that the annual charitable donations in foreign aid, $122.8 billion, is roughly 43% of the proposed estimate of what increases in global trade would accomplish. Even better is that this aid is targeted and accountable by individuals and private organizations who ensure that money spent on projects that they solicit funds for are, indeed, well spent. The amount of American after-tax income that is donated to achieve such levels? 2.2% via the USINFO article, with a substantial portion of that coming from households with sub-$100,000 per year income.

When I took a look at the FY 2007 budget for the US in relation to foreign assistance, the amount the US puts forward via its government is interesting: International Assistance Programs came to just under $17 billion, and there would be some portion of the State Dept budget also devoted to this, but would be a fraction of their $14.4 billion budget. There are other 'freebies' tucked into places like Dept. of Agriculture, Interior and so on, but that total should be well under $20 billion per year, across the federal government, and certainly under $30 billion. So US charitable giving outstrips US government foreign aid by at least 10 or 15 times, or a 10:1 to 15:1 ratio.

Over at Charity Navigator a 31 MAR 2008 article by Arthur C. Brooks looks at the donations of money and time:

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

Much of the foreign trade increases only come about because of such things as micro-lending systems and charities actually able to go into poorly developed areas and provide targeted aid beyond humanitarian assistance. There is a problem with depending on government solely as a way to develop trade via foreign assistance, and it is clearly pointed out by the Charity Navigator article:

Q. Monetary giving doesn’t tell us much about total charity, does it? People who don’t give money probably tend to give in other ways instead, right?
A. Wrong. First of all, there is a bright line between people who give and people who don’t give. People who do give time and money tend to give a lot of it. According to the Center on Philanthropy, the percentage of givers donating less than $50 to charity in 2000 was the same as the percentage giving more than $5,000. Similarly, the same percentage of people who only volunteered once volunteered on 36 or more occasions in 2000.

Second, people who give away their time and money to established charities are far more likely than non-givers to act generously in informal ways as well. For example, one nationwide survey from 2002 tells us that monetary donors are nearly three times as likely as non-donors to give money informally to friends and strangers. People who give to charity at least once per year are twice as likely to donate blood as people who don’t give money. They are also significantly more likely to give food or money to a homeless person, or to give up their seat to someone on a bus.

The problem with seeking government solutions to problems such as building economic structure in poor nations is that it must go through the highly bureaucratic structure that, itself, takes up anywhere from 35% to 55% of the funds just to ensure accountability of those funds and pay for government overhead. Private and institutional charities instead compete on the lowest amount of overhead so that the most relief is provided, and charities that spend more than 10% on overhead are seen has having a problem. Trade, going through commercial channels, can and does develop minimal means of manufacturing or labor markets, but the support of society to ensure that things like a 'work ethic' are developed and that the poor have an opportunity to gain jobs from such commercial activity is a charitable concept.

Trade liberalization in and of itself does not build institutions of liberty, freedom, self-worth or ensure that societies are reinforced by it. China is better since 1972 not for trade but for the removal of Mao, and yet the authoritarian and fascistic state that has grown up since his death has not improved the actual ability of individuals to express themselves freely, take part in an open government via democratic means or even have better health. China, today, is one of the world's largest polluters in carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, has a 20% nation wide unemployment rate, has nearly 17% of its population below the poverty line, has 25 to 50% of all loans being Non-Performing Loans which puts the amount of GDP depending on that poorly structured debt at between 30 and 60%. Due to pollution *alone* the city of Beijing loses an estimated $1.5 billion/year due to health effects and poor sanitation. And it has LOTS of trade with the US and the rest of the world! Just one of its companies supported by the State, Huawei Technologies, has infringed on intellectual property rights to undercut competition and sell knock off equipment of reputable manufacturers. In the US. And then seeks to buy its way into the market via a leveraged buyout. It has also been cited for competition practices depending on blackmail and coercion. It, too, is part of that 'global trade' system, and yet its mafia style tactics and willingness to break international copyright laws is abundantly clear.

That is the problem with gross growth numbers for global outlooks: it ignores the problems that have come in with current 'trade liberalization' in the way of ensuring accountable enterprise activities on a global basis. This is a problem with the modern view on trade, deriving from the Wealth of Nations view, which I have looked at before. It is a nasty bit of learning that trade is to support National interests, and while more trade is better, when it undermines the National interest and degrades the ability of a Nation to manufacture or support itself in key areas, it becomes a negative factor. The division of labor on a global scale argument only goes so far as it does not address liberty on a global scale. We have three major places where trade was placed as the key to creating liberty, and yet in each of those places it has failed: President Wilson would not attack the Ottoman Empire which was allied with Germany and placed US trade and corporations as the reason and trade as the means to increase liberty in the region in 1917, President Nixon proposed the same for China starting in 1972, and Presidents Carter and Reagan proposed the same for Yugoslavia in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In each of these instances of large scale trade views to increase liberty and increase security for the citizens of those Nations, it was a failure.

On the overall scale of things, looking at the Reason article's $53 trillion level for the global economy, the US accounts for nearly $13 trillion of it (Source: indexmundi) for the year 2006, or nearly 25% of it. Now, if US charitable giving were emulated by the REST of the top 10 nations in the world, we might have a system of global interaction that would support societies by individuals and private concerns addressing the needs of poverty, hunger and basic education on how to keep oneself fed. In fact US charitable giving at $295 billion places it, GDP-wise in 2006 as the 34th largest nation in the world between Malaysia at $309 billion and Sweden at $285 billion out of a list of 210 nations. The foreign aid amount via charity falls lower, of course, at 122 billion between the 57th placed UAE at $130 billion and 58th New Zealand at $106 billion. Throw in $20 billion from IAP and other government sources and that pops it up to right after 54th Morocco $147 billion.

If China, Japan, India, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia and Brazil had private charitable works equal in percent of post-tax income to the US, that personal contribution would not only foster commitment to international growth but have accountable systems via private institutions to go with it. The argument that external government donor aid plays a larger factor is belied by this the results seen at indexmundi for external donor aid where the US comes in fourth ($6.9 billion) after the UK ($10.7 billion), France ($10.1 billion) and Japan ($8.9 billion).

That $6.9 billion comes out of the IAP, State Dept and other federal funds sources as donor aid and note that the fraction missing is quite high even just taking the IAP *alone* ($17 billion) the overhead is in the 40% range. If you are hot for international trade, then, the idea is to get governments out of the way for promotion and development of it. What National governments are given TO DO is to protect their Nations and ensure that trade does not undermine their societies or their Nation. Wealth and wealth production is not the same thing as liberty expressed through human freedoms: it is a measurement of buying power, not human liberty. China is going great guns on unstructured debt, lowered life spans, suppression of political and religious organizations, and utilizing its workforce for national power vested in the government, not its people. Also notice where China sits on the giving side of the equation from its government.

It is in this area where we confuse the ideal of Wealth of Nations with the hard-headed reality of the Law of Nations, where National gain and prestige is not necessarily equivalent to human liberty and freedom. The idea that mere cash 'empowers' an individual is belied by a place like China that is slowly grinding its people, no matter how wealthy, for its national ends for its government. One cannot decry Tibet and then support the idea that increased trade is helping the people of Tibet due to the goliath that controls it being able to do what it wants without respect to human liberty and freedom. And with the Chinese poverty line set far below that of the US, indeed looking more like the poverty line for a rural based economy, that 16% below that line points to a major problem in China beyond what trade can accomplish.

Trade liberalization when it is not hard and deeply coupled with the expansion of teaching human liberty and the price to secure it does not promote EITHER. A fine and dandy 'global labor pool' devolves towards the lowest, poorest common denominator for liberty and rights as those are the most available for the highest profit margin on output. And when pay gets too high in one region, the transnationals shift to others leaving those who had jobs without them. My article on NAFTA looks at this and the results for a place like Mexico with 'free trade' with the US. The local job pathways out of poverty and for self-sustainment by agriculture were broken by cheap, industrial crop production in the US (any high capital expenditure system becomes an industrial enterprise, as opposed to a manual labor one). Jobs along the northern border for low end manufacturing in textiles and other goods shifted jobs from the US south east and midwest to northern Mexico. Labor headed north for those jobs and to the US as higher paying work with no penalties worth mentioning was available there, which depressed local pay scales and increased pressure on social services. The manufacturing sector then saw the Far East as the next place to go (Philippines, Malaysia, China) and soon the factories in northern Mexico were idling down or shutting down. The US then went for its 'biofuels' binge and increased food costs in Mexico which now had no local agribusiness due to the hard competition it suffered from the US for nearly a decade. Those people had to seek jobs northwards, also. The last employer of opportunity became organized crime which is now supported transnationally and that is leading to a criminal based insurgency backed by foreign organizations on the other side of the US border.

Trade liberalization may have put more money into the pockets of Mexico in general, but it is now getting them killed at a higher rate than ever before due to the economic effects on the poorest there. This is really not the harbinger for a rosy world of the future with a non-accountable 'global labor pool' and 'global business climate' that has no adherence to Nation based societies and cultures. In treating labor as a commodity we ignore the human aspects of labor to be creative and have free reign via liberty for self-expression and support of society. It is possible to get both richer and no more free, because money does not buy liberty and freedom. The US should understand that because we have the saying that tells what *does that* and money cannot buy it:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson

Sphere: Related Content

29 May 2008

All the nuance you could want in Sen. Kerry

Ah, how the winds of fate twists and turns on those seeking the Presidency!

From AP via Yahoo! news 28 MAY 2008 (H/t: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/28/are-you-ready-for-secretary-of-state-john-kerry/):

Four years after a failed presidential bid and amid a race for a fifth Senate term this fall, Kerry's moves have prompted some questions:

_Is the Massachusetts Democrat positioning himself to be secretary of state in a potential Barack Obama administration?

[..]

Kerry aides insist he's not angling for the job and point to his long involvement in foreign affairs. It started with his famous testimony as a 27-year-old veteran questioning the Vietnam War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It continues today, at age 64, as the No. 3 Democrat on the same panel.

But envisioning him in the post would hardly be a stretch given Obama's chances at securing the Democratic nomination, a general election shaping up as a "change" campaign and Kerry's relationship with the Illinois senator.

Kerry would likely face competition from Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former Peace Corps volunteer who also sits on the panel, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a top Obama adviser.

Really, that has been something that folks on the Right have been quick to criticize Sen. Obama on - his nuanceophilia! Where meetings without preconditions are somehow different when he prepares for them! Yes, such lovely 'nuance' that it is unsurprising to see the Junior Senator from MA angling for a spot in diplomatic circles. I mean, he was in Vietnam, in case you have forgotten! He has the 'magic hat' to prove his daring deeds, and the home videos he had others shoot of him doing heroic things while he was there. Then he came home and talked about how his fellow soldiers were like unto Genghis Khan's army... and then threw someone else's medals over the White House fence. And he was for the Iraq war before he was against it!

Do note that the majority of that litany is pre-Iraq, although his lack of stance after it follows in the same line of thought: say tough things today and tomorrow say just the opposite, all to look tough and 'nuanced'.

So, here is the question: would a Presidential candidate considering Sen. Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Daschle, et. al. be a candidate you would trust? I mean look at the squish factor there, where brave talk in the 1990's against Saddam turned into jello knees when it came time to pay the price of removal and putting something better in its place. I mean they were all so hot for stopping Saddam from getting WMDs that they even asked for Iraq to be attacked while under a cease-fire:

"We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Signed by Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

October 9, 1998

All 'bi-partisan' and everything, too! I am sure that they were all aware that attacking during a cease-fire effectively ENDS IT? Oh, wait, Saddam had been shooting at us all that time and we were not doing a damned thing to hold him to his word. How silly of me to forget that we can't even understand the Laws of War and Peace. I mean such Congresscritters should realize this, no? Firing during a cease-fire ends the cease-fire. Apparently not, not enough 'nuance'.

Still, the idea is that some of these folks looking for this job of Sec. State might just want to have some idea of what they are doing, right? Maybe keep a continuous thought in their heads about calling for 'tough action' means following through when the action actually gets tough? So, considering that some of these 'bi-partisan' Congresscritters aren't all that hot in understanding basics of foreign policy, and how firing during a cease-fire ends it and such like, you wouldn't want to place much on them calling for simple missile attacks that would, of course, signal that we were done with the cease-fire. Because if the US can't stick to its word, then why should we try to keep Saddam to his?

Got a bit of steam up on this concept? See Sen. Obama as a bit of an appeaser looking towards the squishy left to get support?

In a FindArticles archive article from Insight on the News of 13 MAR 2000, we get just what the McCain senior team would look like when he last ran for President, and if you don't like Sen. Obama's inclinations, then do think about what Sen. McCain was looking at back then:

"What's the first thing you would do as president?" the Detroit News recently asked McCain.

"The first thing I would do," the candidate answered, "is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel and several others and say we've got to get foreign-policy, national-security issues back on track."

That statement ricocheted through cyberspace, with Washington national-security experts wondering, "Is McCain nuts?" The formula doesn't compute:

* John Kerry is the very liberal senator from Massachusetts who ran Vietnam Veterans Against the War and whose dogged efforts to save Nicaragua's Marxist regime in the 1980s prompted his hometown paper, the Boston Herald, to refer to him as "the Sandinista ambassador."

* Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democratic senator and Clinton/Gore critic, is retiring and won't even be in the Senate when or if McCain makes it to the White House.

* Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, solidly on the left, is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but won't set its agenda because Sen. Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican, still will be the chairman.

* Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter's national-security adviser, is admired for a toughness toward Moscow that's matched by a puzzling softness toward Beijing.

* Henry Kissinger, architect of President Nixon's premature detente with the Soviet Union and the opening to Communist China, has made millions of dollars consulting with international business while advising U.S. political leaders (see "Lion Dancing With Wolves," April 21, 1997).

* Dick Lugar, the thoughtful, even-handed Indiana Republican senator, has been a key ally of the Clinton administration's failed Russia policies.

* Chuck Hagel, Lugar's eager apprentice, is a first-term Republican senator from Nebraska whom Kissinger wowed on a trip to China. Hagel is formally a member of the McCain camp's "senior foreign-policy team," with a grand total of three (count 'em, three) years' experience in the Washington foreign-policy world. (Hagel is such a Kissinger fan that he told the newspaper The Hill that Kissinger's book Years of Renewal was his "summer reading.")

McCain's anointment of these men left GOP national-security experts scratching their heads. "It shows he has a certain lack of confidence when he has so many people from wholly different environments," a former senior State Department official tells Insight.

That is not what I would call an outstanding concept even in 2000. Not only was this team stuck in the Cold War, they were some of the prime architects that led to the inability of the US to actually understand terrorism. Kissinger, if one can recall, decided that siding *against* the world's largest democracy because it was getting help from the USSR meant that we should help Pakistan, then undergoing one of its regular cycles between dictatorial rule and quasi-democracy, because it was aligned with China which was more or less siding against the USSR. Say, why couldn't we just talk with another democracy and see what we can do between us against thugs, tyrants, communists, and totalitarian states? Even during the Cold War President Nixon and Henry Kissinger were criticized on these grounds. Brzezinski was the prime architect of 'Support the Shah' then 'Don't Support the Shah' then 'Feel out the Ayatollah to form an alliance of Green Islamic States' against the USSR and then against that when it became clear the Ayatollah wanted nothing to do with either the US or USSR.

Can you imagine Sen. McCain turning to *that* team on 2001? A year after 9/11 they would still be trying to figure out which way to go and waffling all over the landscape, because they had no clue as to what to do during the Cold War to thwart Islamic terrorism.

So do remember, that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama both thought to a lot of the same people as the FIRST ONES to turn to... of course Sen. Obama now can see how the nuancers and wafflemaniacs have performed under pressure.

And Sen. McCain? When looking around I found this article Human Events looked at this on 02 APR 2007:

At a recent Manhattan fundraiser, Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) was asked whom he is relying on for foreign policy advice in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He listed Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Robert Kagan, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, William Kristol and Robert Zoellick. “And, you’ll be surprised how often I touch base with that circuit” he told the crowd.

Yes, more of the failed 'realists'. Don't worry, I am sure that Sen. McCain can make it more 'bi-partisan'. I just can't think of anyone from the Democratic party I would want in that sort of arrangement, especially if these nitwits are showing up to pontificate about their 'experience' during the Cold War.

The Cold War is over.

Can we get a President who can understand this? We are really in need of one who doesn't see old ideas like 'rational states' as a way to deal with Iran: it hasn't been rationally governed for a few decades, now. Or heading back to appeasement: that didn't work out so well for the world, either.

Going back to those is a 'change' but it is certainly not 'progress'.

Sphere: Related Content

28 May 2008

What, me worry?

The long time premier magazine of the satirical was MAD Magazine, assured to festoon the lives of children for the very irreverent attitude taken towards all things. But it was not without its competitors, one of the best of which was Cracked magazine, which always tended to be a bit more cutting and even handed on its satire and irreverence. If MAD was aimed at pre-teens and 'tweens' then Cracked went for teens to young adults, and both had their place in the ecosystem of the age of analog printed material. I lost track of both coming into my teen years and really hadn't thought much about them, until I started to notice some of the Cracked lists showing up... brand new lists. Cracked.com's list of Funny Stuff is a compendium of its new productions in the irreverent, coarse, rude, crude and somewhat socially indifferent. It is, perhaps, one of the greatest time wasters invented if you like the sort of thing they produce. From 5 Certifiably Insane Politicians People Still Voted For to Your Body Hates You: 6 Gruesome Disorders Anyone Can Get to The World's 16 Least Inspiring Flags to The 6 Cutest Animals That Can Still Destroy You the entire panoply of sex, scat, art, politics, religion, pest control and history all are fair play at Cracked.

Still, they do slip in a semi-serious to actually useful article now and again, of the sort that were BS sessions in High School, College and seemingly everywhere online. Those have their own areas of fascination like looking at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and how something that starts as fiction turns into a near cult following to things that Atheists and Christians really do have to agree on. That sort of thing is why Cracked looked at an older demographic than that of Alfred E. Neuman. After that latter one there is a column on trying to do a reduction of scientific secularism, which is fascinating not only for the authors view, but what the author misses. When conversing with a follower of the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we get this view:

What is baffling about the Pastafarians, however, is that they don't demand that. They stop short in their understanding. While rightfully mocking this magical force called "will" in the form of religious belief, many of them seem to cling to the idea of "will" in the human brain. They'll accidentally use words like "mind" as if the "mind" is some separate thing that exists apart from electrochemical signals transmitted between neurons. They may talk about "love" as if it were also some kind of mystical energy and not just a certain kind of neural chain reaction. They laugh at the idea of a "soul" and then proceed to talk and live every day as if they had something exactly like it inside themselves.

Even worse, one Pastafarian chatted with me online and went from mocking the silly creationists, to talking about attending a rally on environmentalism. He said I "should" support cleaner alternative fuels and cutting greenhouse gases:

"Othwerwise global warming is going to get really bad in 30 or 40 years, mass starvation, the whole bit."

"So? I won't be alive for that. I'm already 72 years old."

"Well, yeah, but your children..."

"No kids. I drive an Escalade and I leave it running 24 hours a day, because it might hurt my wrist to twist the key every morning. Don't worry, I can afford it."

"But... what about future generations? Don't you want them to survive, too?"

"Why? How does that affect me? I'll be dead."

"But... but... you should care about your fellow man even if it doesn't benefit you!"

"That's a false emotional impression, left over from our ancient herd instinct. Surely you're not saying that it's 'better' to care about your fellow man than not to."

"Of course I am! People will die if you don't!"

"So you say it's better that people live than die? Why?"

"It just is!"

I was shocked and disappointed. He believed in this invisible, unmeasurable force called "better" as much as he believed in man's equally-unmeasurable ability to discern and act on the "better" thing and that "it just is" right do that "better" thing when given the chance. He believed in things science can't quantify. He believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Learned lesson one - if you believe in GW you already have a religion, but it is a nice one and allows others to co-exist with it right up to the point you disagree with GW.

Second, however, is that arguing from the Larry Niven view of a biological end-state, that is where you can't reproduce easily and most of your vested energy has already been spent, has a negative problem all its own: your reason *to* exist (that of reproduction and continuing the species) is no longer viable. More easily put, once you get old, mother nature is out to kill you to make way for the next generation. That was a great bit of insight from the SF invention of boosterspice in Niven's Known Space works, and that as you went beyond your natural life span, you learned to be very, very careful about what you did as mother nature was no longer looking out for you.

That second point has a non-trivial outcome: you come to understand the utility of laws and society as they are now the ONLY things keeping you alive. If society goes, the boosterspice goes and in a short period of time your biological age will start to re-assert itself and catch up with your chronological age. If you have lived, say, 250 years, being dead in 20 or 30 is no longer having a lot of time left to live compared with how long you have been around. You also get a very different perspective on children, however, as now the short period of time to support raising children is balanced directly against your ability to survive. It may be a short period of time, less than 20 years, but you could be out doing other things and not taking up your time raising children. The positive benefit to you once having passed through the normal age-span is no longer as strong as it is when you were younger.

From that the third point is that brought up by the author of the 'false emotional impression'. The author is clearly indicating that emotional instincts are false, yet they are just the opposite: they have positive value to you and beyond you even and especially if you are from the scientific determinist view of the world. If those emotions are false, then, exactly, which ones are *true*? What is the balancing point of that? Are instinctive emotions any less valid than instinctive muscle contractions or biochemistry that acts without thought to defend your body? If you answer that the entire class of inherited characteristics are useless, you are then arguing for something that is unreasonable: that is not the argument of reasoning out emotional behavior but one of denying that the unreasonable or irrational can have justification and reason for being. To do *that* requires a belief in will outside of such behaviors, and yet all of humanity, including the author, demonstrate just the opposite.

So, the question is: having these emotional responses to reproduction, what are their source?

The reason you do good things is actually astonishingly simple: it makes you feel good. In other words it has a positive reinforcement value in your mental view that helps to lower stress and other biochemical influences within your own body that have a negative impact on your survival. But there is an even more subtle reason that comes from the 'herd mentality', which, for humans, would date far back before the Cretaceous along mammalian lineage. It is one that is seen throughout the animal kingdom and even in the plant kingdom, and it is so obvious it is taken for granted.

That is the division of labor. The benefit to you of helping others out is that it not only feels good to *you* but it helps the recipient feel good *also*. As a part of that herd, or now our society, that has indirect benefit in reducing larger scale tension amongst individuals. That is why the ability to apologize for doing something hurtful leads to the opportunity of acceptance that something done was not meant, or if it was ill-meant, that the activity is owned up to by the individual and this is an attempt to stem hatred before it gets out of hand. Accepting an apology means that you must understand your personal feelings and that this larger herd, this greater society, has requirements upon you for the well being of all involved. That is because the survival of everyone depends upon the specialized skills and knowledge brought by individuals to this larger group and put to work so that the overall group has a higher chance of survival.

Not only does doing good feel good, it gives you and everyone around you a higher chance of surviving.

To not do so lowers overall survival rate for personal satisfaction and pleasure absent societal benefit. In that direction is Perfect Liberty and it has only one state of being: under the Law of Nature. Even if you are of the scientific deterministic view absent of religion, the Law of Nature is *still* present, in this case as the base operational system of the planet given its history, biosphere, solar output, volcanic activity, spatial position and if you are being chased by a carnivore or not. In that state of being you have Perfect Liberty and No Security: you are left up to your own devices and NO ONE will help you. That said very few creatures live in that Perfect State for as soon as there is longer term survival for the species when vesting energy in raising young, you will feel good doing so.

Why do you feel that way? Because those who didn't died off as they didn't have any positive stimuli to invest that time and energy, and so they adapted less well and soon their genetic traits were lost. Of all the higher animals, Sharks are the closest to that state, and even some of those spend time caring for their young, usually via internal gestation of said young. What the author posits is the position of being a male black widow spider now beyond time to mate, and it has only one reasonable value left to it: food. Mother nature likes to clear out the old and unfit, to make way for the next generation, so that 72 year old male without children unwilling to contribute back to society has a negative survival factor for his own beliefs and outlook. Others will come to assist you if fallen, as there is worth in you as a potential: it is possible to change one's way and contribute towards the greater good of all involved. You will be remembered that way, and even folks like Carnegie and Ford made sure that their rapacious reputations would be mollified by starting foundations and libraries that would exist far beyond their mortal time.

None of that requires an extra-body 'will' or greater good from outside source. Our biology gives us many impulses which we have then built upon so as to create larger groupings more able to survive the rigors of life on Rock 3 from the Star Sol. And there is a human example of what happens to a society that does *not* sustain such things, and is a clear representation of what happens when civilization makes non-support of society acceptable and concentrates interest in the here and now: The Roman Empire.

The decay of support for the greater Empire meant that there were fewer citizens, more slaves and a higher transit of wealth out to procurement of entertainment and 'pleasures' than there was going into the upkeep of roads, bridges, aqueducts, and the military. The result is what was called 'decadence': the Empire started to decay as being a Roman Citizen meant less to society and even some slaves gained riches that allowed them power without having to be an accepted part of society. Decadence also turned to debauchery, where base feelings and impulses were allowed to run free amongst the citizenry and the value of life and society decreased further. The Roman Empire was decaying as personal liberty took a primary importance over the security of society. In the Western Empire they soon found they were unable to have security, which then led to a further eroding of society until there was no society left to uphold or defend or even adhere to.

Thus, seeing someone try to put a 'rational' view to work for irrational personal safety so as to secure personal pleasure, I can only call it, as my ancestors did of Rome: decadent.

A society in decay because its individuals no longer gain personal value from upholding it is well described:

"Our present condition, is, Legislation without law;
wisdom without a plan;
a constitution without a name;
and, what is strangely astonishing,
perfect Independance contending for dependance.
The instance is without a precedent;
the case never existed before;
and who can tell what may be the event?
The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.
The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.
Nothing is criminal;
there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases."

- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

That is where it being all about *you* and personal self-satisfaction ends, with perfect liberty... and soon Revolution. Because you no longer want to survive and are aiming to take society down with you.

And the GW enthusiast is no better having forgotten the basics:

Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them
;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections,
the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first a patron, the last a punisher.

That is what happens when the multitude no longer have a fixed object before them... some seek perfect liberty, some seek perfect tyranny and the struggle between them can get millions killed.

This sort of thing is always why I preferred MAD Magazine.

What, me worry?

Sphere: Related Content

27 May 2008

The Blueprint of ignorance

H/T to Lee Cary at American Thinker Blog for his article pointing to Sen. Obama's Blueprint for Change.

This is in the 'I report, you think for yourself' category, and I will restrict this post to *just* the overview.

From the 'At a Glance' very top of the Blueprint, page 3.

Point number one:

A Leader for Reform
Obama reached across the aisle and challenged leaders of both parties to pass historic ethics reforms both in Washington and Springfield, IL. Unlike other candidates, he refuses to accept campaign contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists.

From Kathy's US Politics Blog at About.com on 31 MAR 2008:

Given that PACS must be "bad" for Obama's campaign to make such an assertion, regardless of its merit, what do we make of the fact that Obama himself runs a PAC? And Obama's Leadership PAC (The Hope Fund) accepted donations from 56 PACs in 2004-2006, according to the Globe. In 2006, Harper's itemized corporate and legal (law firms) interests, PACs and lobbyists who had financed Obama's campaigns and Leadership PAC.

[..]

These tables show the extent of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's leadership PAC donations and whether or not the candidate has been endorsed for president, if that is known. There is not yet a direct cause-and-effect: that is, everyone who has gotten money has not endorsed a candidate. And both candidates have endorsements from senators and representatives who have not received leadership PAC contributions.

Instead, the Leadership PAC, like Obama's history with political money, remind me of Caesar's justification for divorce: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

"Change" or "more of the same"? Seems pretty clear to me.

From Trudy Lieberman at the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk on 15 FEB 2008:

The word “lobbyist” seems to have a particular meaning in Obama’s campaign
vocabulary. His stump speeches imply that he is not taking money from people who
want things from the government and push for them. The reality is that he has.

To explain: Opensecrets.org, the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, is the most authoritative source on campaign finances. Basing its reports on data from the Federal Election Commission, the Center shows that Obama indeed doesn’t take much money from a sector the Center calls “lobbyists.” Through the end of December, Clinton received more than $800,000 and McCain around $400,000 from this group, which the Center says includes people who work for lobbying firms at the local, state, and federal level and their relatives who are not otherwise employed, as well as those who are officially registered as Washington lobbyists. Obama received contributions of about just $86,000 from this group. Obama’s Web site says he doesn’t take money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees,and the Center says that if his campaign finds that the money came from registered Washington lobbyists, it does get returned.

[..]

Significantly, the Center’s lobbyist sector excludes in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group. These people may lobby, but their contributions are grouped in the totals for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations which, of course, carry lots of weight in the horse trading that occurs when legislation is drafted. (Corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates.)

[..]

Last August The Boston Globe, in a piece by Scott Helman, took a hard look at Obama’s contributions, noting that “behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth.” That truth revealed that as a state legislator in Illinois, a U.S. senator, and as a presidential aspirant, Obama had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs. Helman quoted an Obama campaign spokeswoman saying that after he experienced firsthand the influence of Washington lobbyists, he was taking a different approach to fundraising than he had in the past, and that “his leadership position on this issue is an evolving process.” If Obama’s leadership on campaign financing is indeed evolving, more news outlets should be following the evolution.

Then there is Michael Isikoff's Newsweek piece of 02 JUN 2008 Issue:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

No he doesn't want lobbyists to give him money, he wants them to work for him, especially ones creating deceitful ad campaigns for companies putting out 'astroturf'.

That is the first point of the Blueprint demonstrating Sen. Obama's concept of change.

Point number two:

Close the Revolving Door
Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests.

So, will he vet his administration any better than his campaign staff? Or are campaigns tied to lobbyists ok? Well, lets ask K-Street! From The Hill's Alexander Bolton on 28 MAR 2007:

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: “I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list,” in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give “policy” and “campaign support.” Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent. While other Obama supporters have described him as a leading activist, Williams demurs: “I wouldn’t want to put my position as a spearhead.” He acknowledges that the gains Obama is making among Washington’s Democratic establishment are hard to see because Obama’s K Street supporters have kept a low profile. As a result, Obama’s K Street network is a stealthy operation.

[..]

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton said the senator knows that it is impossible to completely escape the influence of Washington’s establishment, but that rejecting lobbyists’ money is an important gesture.

“Senator Obama said when he set out this policy that it doesn’t solve the problem of money in politics but it is a sign and symbolic step in the right direction,” said Burton. “It’s not going to stop the sway that money has over policies or that special interests have over legislation, but it indicates the type of administration Obama would have if elected.”

Other K Street players working to build momentum for Obama are former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.

[..]

One lobbyist who has worked hard for Obama behind the scenes, according to two pro-Obama lobbyists, denied that he was in the Illinois senator’s camp when queried by The Hill. The shy lobbyist wanted to keep his allegiance secret because he represents a New York-based company and his job could be harmed if he alienated Clinton, explained a fellow Obama partisan.

Other pro-Obama lobbyists are open about their plans to help him become president.

“He’s like Bill Clinton with no baggage,” said Jimmy Williams, of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers. “He’s got that aura and people are talking about him. You realize you’re in the presence of something incredible. He has broad appeal.”

“He won’t take our money but we can go out and campaign for him,” he said. “I’m more than happy to campaign for the guy because the country is in dire need of honest leadership.”

Williams, a former aide to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said he was in contact with Durbin’s office to plot out ways to get more young voters interested in Obama.

He also said he would try to raise money for Obama’s campaign in his home county of Rappahannock, in Virginia “We’ll have a fundraiser in Little Washington or Sperryville or something. I haven’t locked it down yet,” he said.

Jimmy Williams of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers wants to get the youth vote out for Obama? Hold a fundraiser? Any sponsorship of said fundraiser? But you really do have to love how the Obama campaign admits it really can't do anything about K-Street Lobbyists, and just takes the anti-lobbyist position to 'set the tone'. Because to do something would require legislation.

From Congress.

Where Sen. Obama currently resides.

Over at Roll Call they have the list of those K-Street lobbyists openly pulling for Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama (20)

Donald Alexander (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld)
Theodore Bornstein (Foley & Lardner)
John Buscher (Holland & Knight)
Kevin Chavous (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Tom Daschle (Alston & Bird)
Stan Fendley (Corning)
Elizabeth Fox (Jolly/Rissler)
Francis Grab (Washington Council Ernst & Young)
Tim Hannegan (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
Tom Jensen (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Broderick Johnson (Bryan Cave Strategies)
Mark Keam (Verizon)
Bob Maloney (Maloney Government Relations)
Marcus Mason (The Madison Group)
Ronald Platt (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney)
Andy Rosenberg (Ogilvy Government Relations)
Bobby Sepucha (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Jarvis Stewart (Stewart Partners)
Tom Walls (McGuireWoods)
Michael Williams (Credit Suisse)

The interested student of lobbying look-ups can go to The Center For Public Integrity's LobbyWatch search and have at it! Never know who these various lobbyists are supporting. Remember that CPIC is pretty partisan, but the numbers do speak for themselves. But do remember, that Sen. Obama's campaign recognizes that the Platform is unrealistic.

Point number three:

Increase Transparency
Obama will increase transparency so that ordinary Americans can understand their government and trust that their money is well spent.

Can we start with Sen. Obama? He has released his earmarks, according to Lynn Sweet at the Sweet Scoop at the Chicago Sun-Times, but only after initially refusing to do so:

Sweet scoop: Obama, after initial refusal, releases all earmark requests. Read them here. UPDATES

WASHINGTON--After refusing since June to make public earmark requests from 2005 and 2006, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is releasing Thursday all the earmark requests he has made since he entered the Senate in 2005.

This disclosure was made just before the campaign starts a conference call with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to discuss congressional earmarks. This interest in earmarks comes as Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) --knowing one of them will face anti-earmark Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall--have signed on to a bill calling for a one-year earmark moratorium. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is against an earmark moratorium.

Here's one highlight: Obama sought money for the University of Chicago Hospitals. Wife Michelle works for the University of Chicago Hospitals, appointed in spring 2005 as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. She is now on leave from the job to campaign for her husband. Top campaign adviser and friend Valerie Jarrett is the Chair of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board and also Chair of the Executive Committee of that board. She has also been named Vice-Chair of the University's Board of Trustees. Obama taught at the U. of Chicago law school and the Obama's two daughters attend school there.

Also mentioned are the following earmark requests by Sen. Obama for 2006 as given in Lynn Sweet's article:

  • $1.6 Million To The University Of Illinois College Of ACES For The Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative.
  • $2 Million For The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.
  • $3 Million The Future Foods Initiative At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.
  • $2.5 Million For The Illinois Program For Integrated Sustainable Agriculture At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.
  • $3 Million To Support The National Center For Food Safety & Technology At The Illinois Institute Of Technology.
  • $310,000 For The Slocum Watershed Management Project In Lake County.
  • $2,499,400 For The Food Stamp Participation Project Of The Illinois Department Of Human Services.
  • $1.75 Million For The Secure User Network For Food And Agriculture Response And Mobilization (SUN-FARM) For The Illinois Department Of Commerce And Economic Opportunity.
  • $900,000 For The Women's Sports Foundation’s Go Girl Go Chicago Initiative.
  • $550,000 For The John G. Shedd Aquarium’s At-Risk Youth Monitoring Initiative.
  • $350,000 For Guardian Angel Community Services To Support Its Transitional Housing For Women And Children Suffering Domestic Violence Program.
  • $300,000 To Support The A Child Is Missing (ACIM) Program. In 2006, Obama requested $300,000 for the A Child Is Missing Program (ACIM).
  • $1 Million For The Village of Franklin Park To Support Its Law Enforcement Strategic Technology Program.
  • $3 million For The DuPage, Kane & Kendall County Sheriff's Offices To Support The Tri-County In Car Video Camera Project.
  • $62 million For The Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy Project.
  • $1.75 million For The Northern Illinois Technology Triangle.
  • $500,000 For McHenry County’s Integrated Criminal Justice Information System.
  • $450,000 For The South Suburban Association of Chiefs of Police To Support Its Center For Law Enforcement Technology Collaboration.
  • $675,000 For The Metro Chicago Youth For Christ Juvenile Justice Ministry Gang Prevention Program.
  • $500,000 For The Lakeview Museum To support Its Planetarium For Central Illinois Regional Museum.
  • $2 million For The University of Illinois At Chicago Prisoner Reentry, Family And Communities National Resource Center.
  • $750,000 For The Windy City Harvest To Support Its Windy City Harvest Resource Center.
  • $1.9 Million For The Constitutional Rights Foundation of Chicago To Support Its National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program.
  • $3 million For The Museum Of Science and Industry’s Expansion Of Its Center For Human Exploration/Henry Crown Space Center.
  • $500,000 For McHenry County’s Law Enforcement Communication System.
  • $4.3 Million And Helped Secure $1.8 Million For The Air Force ALERT System.
  • $10 Million And Helped Secure $5.85 Million For The Rock Island Arsenal’s Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI).
  • $3 Million And Helped Secure $1.95 Million For The Compact Tactical Laser Program.
  • $7.5 Million And Helped Secure $4.9 Million For The National Center for Advanced Secure Systems Research.
  • $2 Million And Helped Secure $1 Million For HUMVEE Hybrid Electronic Conversion Technology.
  • $5 Million And Helped Secure $1 Million For The Fuel Cells for Mobile Robotics Systems Project At Chicago State University.
  • $8 Million And Helped Secure $1.3 Million For The High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program.
  • $7 million And Helped Secure $6.3 Million For Rock Island Arsenal Industrial Preparedness Items.
  • $5 Million And Received $3.3 Million For The Technology, Research, Education, And Commercialization Center At The University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign.
  • $5.8 Million For the Copper Antimicrobial Research Program. In 2006, Obama requested $5.6 million for the Copper Antimicrobial Research Program.
  • $8 Million For Human Genome Expression Through The University Of Illinois At Chicago.
  • $7.5 Million For Advanced Pathogen Titer Diagnostic The University Of Illinois at Chicago.
  • $4.8 Million For A Light Emitting Diode Healing Program At The University Of Illinois At Chicago.
  • $5.2 Million For A Copper Air Quality Program.
  • $4.2 Million For Advance Technology Research On Fabrication At Remote Sites.
  • $6 Million For Work On The Roof For Building 299 At Rock Island Arsenal.
  • $3 Million For Improvements In Heating And Cooling At Rock Island Arsenal Facility.
  • $784,000 In Funding For The Final Phase Of The Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.
  • $500,000 For Water Distribution Upgrades In The Village Of Oakwood.
  • $1 Million For A Regional Waterways System In The City Of Monmouth.
  • $2 Million For Reconstruction Of A Water Distribution System In The City Of Shawneetown.
  • $1 Million To Support The Bubbly Creek Restoration Project In The City Of Chicago.
  • $750,000 For An Arts And Science “Green Building” At Quincy University.
  • $5 Million For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Demonstration Asian Carp barrier Project.
  • $1 Million To Support The Asian Carp Barrier Operations And Maintenance Funds For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources.
  • $500,000 For Peoria County’s Senachine Creek River Restoration Project.
  • $300,000 For McHenry County’s Groundwater/Stormwater Protection Investigation.
  • $750,000 For A Neuroscience Laboratory At Dominican University.
  • $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago.
  • $1 Million For An Intensive Care Unit Expansion And Renovation Project At St. Mary Medical Center.
  • $2.5 Million For A Science Storms Program At Chicago’s Museum Of Science And Industry.
  • $300,000 For The Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum.
  • $500,000 For The Heartland Water Resource Council (HWRC) For Storm Water Management Assistance For The Turkey Creek Watershed.
  • $6.1 Million For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources’ Upper Des Plaines River Basin Feasibility Study (Levee 37).
  • $300,000 For The Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Expanded Study of Phase II of the Des Plaines River.
  • $2 Million For The Thorek Memorial Hospital Cancer Treatment Center.
  • $1.3 Million For Will County’s Flood Studies Project.
  • $600,000 For The International Arid Lands Consortium’s For Research And Demonstration Projects On Providing Water Resources For Arid Lands.
  • $2 Million For The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to support its National Corn to Ethanol Research Center at SIU-Edwardsville.
  • $4 Million For The Illinois Department of Natural Resources For New Gates At The East End of The Chicago River Lock.
  • $900,000 For Governors State University’s Homeland Security And Disaster Management Center For Excellence In Learning, Research And Outreach.
  • $800,000 For Wireless Communications Technology For The Will County Sheriff’s Office.
  • Northeastern Illinois Sewer Consortium Receive $3.5 million To Support Its Northeastern Illinois Sewer Consortium Project.
  • $2 million For Olympia Fields To Support Its Storm Water Conveyance Improvements.
  • $1 million For The Village Of Park Forest To Support Its Sanitary Sewer Upgrades.
  • $7 million For The Wheaton Sanitary District to support its Water Environment Research Foundation.
  • $120,000 For The Water Environment Research Foundation To Support Its Countywide Wetland Preservation And Restoration Plan.
  • $1,953,331 For Will County To Support Its Ridgewood Water And Sewage Project.
  • $405,000 For The Village Of Olympia Fields To Support Its Water Pumping System Improvement Program.
  • $750,000 For The Lakeview Museum’s Illinois River Interpretive Center.
  • $2 million For Lake County’s Watershed Plan Implementation Project.
  • $1 Million For The Village of Park Forest To Support Its Water Main Distribution System.
  • $500,000 For The University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign To Support Its Midwest Technology Assistance Center For Small Public Water Systems.
  • $700,000 For The Village Of Riverdale’s Illinois Pacesetter Sewer/Water Project.
  • $8 Million For The City Of Chicago’s Drinking Water Security Initiative.
  • $1.5 million For The Illinois State Geological Survey To Support Its Central Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition Project.
  • $1 Million For The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urban Teaching and Leadership Center.
  • $500,000 For Kids Voting USA.
  • $200,000 For The Teen Challenge Faith-Based Drug Abuse Treatment And Prevention Program In Illinois.
  • $3 Million For The Safer Foundation. In 2006, Obama requested $3 million for the Safer Foundation.
  • $500,000 For Goodwill Industries Of Metropolitan Chicago.
  • $335,000 For The Chicago Zoological Society Of The Brookfield Zoo To Support Its Excellence Through Diversity Program.
  • $1 Million For National-Louis University To Support Its Center for City Schools' Secondary Reading Initiative.
  • $500,000 For The Salud Latina Resource Center To Support Its Community Health Programs.
  • $2 million For The Illinois State University Institutes For Mathematics And Science Teachers Program.
  • $2.5 million For Illinois State University’s Chicago Teacher Education Pipeline Programs and Partnerships Program.
  • $500,000 For The Illinois Downstate Assistive Technology Evaluation, Training And Device Loan Program.
  • $1.2 Million For The ACCESS Community Health Network Behavioral Health Care Activities.
  • $200,000 For the Knowledge Is Power Program’s (KIPP) Ascend Charter School in Chicago.
  • $2.2 Million For The Center For Neighborhood Technology’s Information For Communities Project.
  • $2 Million for Chicago Public Schools’ CPS Reading Initiative (CRI).
  • $250,000 For The Chicago Park District’s Obesity Prevention-Affordable Fitness Centers.
  • $1 Million For Alton Memorial Hospital To Support Its Riverbend Stroke Center.
  • $1 million For The Lakeview Museum To support Its K-12 Education And Outreach Program At The Central Illinois Regional Museum.
  • $500,000 For McHenry County’s Job Readiness Program.
  • $300,000 For The Lawson House YMCA’s Targeted Case Management Service For Veterans.
  • $4 million For The Children’s Memorial Medical Center’s Electronic Medical Record Project.
  • $1 million For The Chicago State University (CSU) HIV/AIDS Policy And Research Institute.
  • $1 million For Chicago State University’s (CSU) Establishment Of A School Of Pharmacy.
  • $500,000 For The University Of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Online Science Teacher Certification Program.
  • $250,000 For McHenry County’s Mental Health Court.
  • $450,000 For Swedish American Health System’s Davis Junction Rural Health Center Clinic.
  • $360,000 For Library And Technology Learning Center At Cristo Rey Jesuit High School.
  • $800,000 For A Training And Resource Center Of The Swedish Covenant Hospital.
  • $300,000 For An Extended-Day And Extended Year Academic Program At The Chicago Jesuit Academy.
  • $900,000 For An Early Childhood Professional Development Center At Saint Xavier University.
  • $700,000 For Youth Conservation Corps, Inc. For A GED Program.
  • $1.8 Million For The Illinois Department Of Public Health To Conduct A Men’s Health Pilot Project.
  • $700,000 For Expansion Of The Early Childhood Mental Health Consultant Project By The Illinois Department Of Public Health.
  • $500,000 For The Uhlich Children’s Network To Support Its Adolescent Mental Health Service Support Program.
  • $2.5 Million For The Children’s Hospital Of Illinois’ Replacement Project.
  • $942,400 For Cyber Seniors, Inc.’s Senior Power Program.
  • $5 Million For Northwestern Memorial Hospital’s Prentice Woman’s Hospital.
  • $1 Million For Catholic Charities’ St. Leo Residence For Veterans And VA Clinic And Resources Center.
  • $650,000 For A Real-time Writers And Captioning Program At Sparks College.
  • $5 Million For Loyola University’s Center For Public Service.
  • $500,000 For The Children’s Health Fund’s Chicago Children’s Health Project.
  • $2 Million For The Illinois Primary Health Care Association’s Electronic Health Records Project.
  • $5 Million For The City Colleges Of Chicago To Support Project ALIGN.
  • $6 Million For The Midwest Emergency Department Services’ Rural Emergency Access Safety Net Program.
  • $200,000 For The Guardian Angel Community Service’s Before-And-After School Enrichment Program.
  • $162,000 To The Cristo Rey Jesuit High School For Its Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Work Study Internship Program.
  • $1.95 Million For The Will County Health Department To Support Its Mentally Ill Substance Abuse Programs.
  • $312,202 For Helen Wheeler Center For Community Mental Health’s Child And Family Services Program.
  • $250,000 For The Beecher hall At Illinois College.
  • $1 Million For A Center For Communicative Disorders At Augustana College.
  • $400,000 For The Carr Center Second Floor Renovation Of Seguin Services.
  • $2.5 Million For The Center For Excellence In Health Professionals Education At Governors State University.
  • $200,000 For The Peoria County’s Get The Lead Out Program In Peoria County, Illinois.
  • $200,000 For The City Of Rock Island’s The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center.
  • $200,000 For The Decatur Lakefront Development Project.
  • $200,000 In Funding For The Shawneetown Community Center And Children’s Park.

My thanks to Lynn Sweet!

Having to ask for this information to extract it from a Congresscritter is awful. It should be openly published and available online, without having to force members of Congress to fess up on their porkritude. Of course Sen. Obama could sponsor an open earmarks amendment to publish all earmarks before they are put into the budget. Congress does that, you know, sets their own rules. Maybe make it official via a FOIA system for Congress. That would, however, take a Congresscritter to draft, sponsor and get such a thing through Congress and show leadership.

And a commitment to transparency.

Point number four and the last of the 'At a Glance' items:

End Wasteful No-Bid Contracts
Obama will clean up government contracting and end the abuse of no-bid contracts.

Well, luckily government already passed laws to get contracts to be open source when at all possible using Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) goods. That went down way back in the early 1990's. I know, I was gainfully employed in the federal government then. When I worked my way over to a slot in R&D I found out where the 'no bid contracts' and grants were coming from.

Congress.

You see, Congress can side-step its own laws by putting in a 'must get from...' sort of language in a line item. That is a mandatory sole source guidance from Congress, which is then justification to get a contract from only that source. If that language is left out, however, then the government agency must go through the entire open source procurement arrangement, which has a high overhead but gets the 'best value' for the money (not necessarily the lowest cost, but the best overall value to the government for money spent).

Grants have even less in the way of strings to them and as long as who ever gets it does what they are supposed to do or even try to, that is pretty much it (and yes that is a vast oversimplification). Contracts require drawing up specifications, publishing them, taking bids, reviewing bids, awarding contract, going through any appeals, then you start in the whole contract delivery and acceptance problem... the 'no-bid' contracts are the exception, not the rule these days, and only used for critical war supplies or where Congress directs the government to a sole source. It is a Congressionally Directed Action and has the force of law behind it.

If Sen. Obama wants to stop 'no-bid' contracts, he can START with his fellow Congresscritters and get them to STOP putting in those damned earmarks. What Congress doesn't seem to understand is that in putting the earmark *in* it does not put in the necessary administrative and contractual overhead to run said contracts. That usually comes to 10-15% of the cost of the earmark in labor time and legal tracking of work. So a $1 million earmark will eat up $100,00 to $150,000 of agency budget.... and no one had planned to spend it on the earmark so that gets taken out of the hide of other, needed programs. If you are very lucky and Congress did not justify an earmark well, then some of that money can go to overhead, but that is not often.

Senator Obama has a problem in common with the other Senators left running for President: They are not familiar with how the government actually works and what it costs to get things done. They are familiar with the budget, yes, but not the expenditure process that comes from their laws and budgets. I know that from first-hand experience. So when I hear such lovely talk from a Congresscritter about 'transparency' or 'no-bid' contracts, all I have to say to them is: Hold up a mirror for the problem.

Good government does not start at the expenditure side.

It starts in the budget process.

And that starts with the President putting a budget together, and then Congress throwing that out and making its own.

You have to do some digging to get the last President that *just* got his budget and only that. The problem is not in the Executive, but the Legislative. And *that* could sure use some 'leadership'.

Sphere: Related Content

25 May 2008

Looking at the remaining candidates, such as they are

It is a fascinating election season if you are into depressing scenarios for the US. Having stated that none of these three is worthy of being dog-catcher, we are now in the 'dog-catcher trainee' department of US politics. With Republicans unable to understand that not standing for those things you ran on being important to their own base, they, as a whole, started to wander out into the Leftist wilderness of Congress back in the mid-1990's. The Democrats found that the Leftist wilderness didn't offer any learning opportunities, save to teach Republicans how to put in more earmarks, expand the federal budget, create nannystate legislation and, generally, look to feather their own nests at the expense of the taxpayer. Now we have *two* parties that do that in the US.

One of my long-term views is that there is no 'center' in US politics: the polarization of the two political parties to more strident positions is an effect of the center walking out on US politics. The trends from that shift by not voting are clear and apparent: more legislation to regulate individual behavior, more regulation to proscribe what citizens can and cannot do in their lives, and the shift to the idea that the government regulates the economy in detail and has some role in financial well-being. The center, by being unable to gain a voice in these things via the two party system walked out on it. Today the firm basis of the two parties is the belief in 'activist government' to cure every social and societal ill by the force of government and the law. That becomes State control over society and liberty, not the protector of those things for the greatest free exercise by the individual of them. It is that foundation that the three remaining candidates stand upon. As Jonah Goldberg points out: Fascism is Right Socialism and Communism is Left Socialism and the Center is Socialism.

Note that the ideals of liberal democracy are not present in that formulation.

Sen. John McCain is a case in point: by trying to be 'bi-partisan' he is looking to go between the Left and the Right, while taking dogged stances on military affairs he does not step away from government interventionism for things like Global Warming. His major problem is that this 'center' is the type of center that would be seen in Social Democratic parties in Europe: Socialism on the sliding scale of 'one spoonful at a time'. Social Democratic parties in Europe pre-WWI bemoaned the ideal of International Socialism ever working and signed up for where the population was - in support of Nation States. In Germany it was the SPD that was in power because it stood by that formulation, and finally would be unable to control the outcome of US intervention in WWI and the Left Socialism that appeared to be taking shape in Russia. In that tradition of regulating work hours, regulating industry, supporting military affairs, and using progressive attitudes towards State based control of ever more in life, we see the modern conception of Sen. McCain. He is weak on economic understanding, more than able to put in legislation for endorsement of affirmative action goals, seeking to utilize the power of the State to tell citizens what they do or do not need in local affairs, and, generally, performing a soft-socialist trend by seeking to address the non-problem of Global Warming even for the deep and severe industrial impacts that would have if given fruition. From Social Security to health care, there is the idea that government will always 'find a way' even when its job is to let citizens find that way without government help. These outlooks of wanting to have the government do *more* are the things that the center has walked out on, and the recognition is that his 'base' is on the Statist side of the Republican party and the weakly individualistic side of the Democratic party. It is this same strain that has caused economic decay and hardship in Europe with short work weeks, small families, an unsustainable 'social safety net', lowered standards for health care, and the need to pull in poor workers to do actual work, even if they are from backgrounds radically different to the host society and undermining it.

Sen. Barack Obama - Nothing says Communism like 'hope & change' with banners, slogans and iconic images drawn in the cast of the working man from Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany. His nonexistant record and non-voting record allows Sen. Obama to try and hide his past associations with the hard, anti-American left, organized crime, and a view that the US has lost some standing in the world because we haven't been 'nice' to dictators, thugs and tyrants. His stance is blatantly anti-military, anti-industrial, anti-liberty and unwilling to see any part of life where government shouldn't be involved. If the ideal of the Progressive era was to reshape the American mind via taking over educational institutions and marginalizing vocational schools, then Sen. Obama is the outcome of decades of elitism bent towards producing people who have a disdain for manual labor and the people who do it. If Sen. McCain is a Democratic Socialist, then Sen. Obama is a Communist of the Internationalist/Transnationalist stripe, wanting to work with those who have a disdain for human liberty and to appease them. Any time we hear a word about 'post-partisan' times, we hear of governments enforcing its dictates via military and police means so as to wipe out all opposing views. Pol Pot was certainly 'post-partisan' as was Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro... being 'post-partisan' means squelching all other viewpoints, often with ruthless means, so as to establish a dicatorship or one-party rule in a Nation. His proposed budget programs and disarmament programs are suicidal in a world with huge budget deficits by the government and an unsustainable health care system that gets worse as more people are added to it.

Sen. Hillary Clinton - I have described her outlook before, examining how her personal and professional life interact as a whole. Even without a mental condition underlying her actions, they do conform to an outlook of the world that is manipulative, conniving, disingenuous, and willing to send friends out to 'take one for her' even if the friend doesn't know that is going to happen. Her methods, like that of her husband's, are fixed while their actual outlook is amenable to whatever gets applause and plaudits and ensures that criticism gets undermined by distractions. This is 'triangulation' and started off this election season with Sen. Clinton 'triangulating' to the Left to try and suck out Sen. Obama's support. That was seen as disingenuous, called as such and she started losing primaries as the monied Left interests of Soros and Geffen ensured that Sen. Obama would have time to gain applause while saying not very much. These interests know that they must win, or Sen. Clinton will extract revenge as she has done to other political foes along with her husband Pres. Clinton. Because there is only a general Leftist ideology in Sen. Clinton, she found herself unable to confront the Communist formulations of Sen. Obama, and so moved to the Nationalist and working class formulations deeper in the roots of the old Democratic party. This is becoming a form of Nationalist based Socialism or Right Socialism, and would require only a single 'triangulation' back to supporting Iraq to complete that cycle. Sen. Clinton started out with an amalgam base of some hard Left, some moderate Left and a very few Nationalist Left, plus a whole bunch of skeletons to pull out of closets. Because she was blinded by Leftist views, she could not see nor find the skeletons in Sen. Obama's closets and only when taking up a the more socially conservative track did Sen. Clinton begin to get traction - she has found her Base. This track of Social Conservative/Economic Liberal is one being seen in the Republican party under the Aegis of Gov. Huckabee, and they both revolve in the same demographic trends and regions. While Gov. Huckabee did not find these roots in the Republican party, Sen. Clinton did in the Democratic party. This is highly worrying to both parties as these folks from central New York State down the Appalachians and into the Arkansas, Missouri and northern Mississippi and Alabama represent a formulation of American life generally not being served by the modern world. Because of their Nationalist stance, they move to the military hero, Sen. McCain, giving Sen. Obama a headache across that entire region that has little in common with Big City elitists. Because Sen. Clinton has no honor of keeping positions, however, she also is risking her career and having to come to terms with these people: being anti-war and pro-military is a very hard thing to do, especially when Iraq is turning around, FARC is failing in Colombia (a job her husband started, BTW and yet she takes no credit there), and Mexico is slowly sliding into organized crime based insurgency. What Sen. Clinton is *not* however, is suicidal in her politics: calculating, ruthless, cold, hard... those terms describe it.

Now to the one other thing they all have in common: Senator.

These three represent the cause of social disintegration by government control even when the record is scant, in the case of Sen. Obama, each of these three has the strange belief that government is there to 'help' the citizenry. That is not a formulation from classical roots, but one which comes more from the inculcation of Socialism into western liberal politics and was a slow replacement for Monarchism. Although Monarchist supporting parties were already dying by the mid-19th century, the rise of Progressivism brought back a wider view of State control via a ruling elect or select class. Nobility is replaced by learned individuals and experts, and with government power in hand they will dictate for the society what to do. By the late 20th century, after the era of Progressive politics ran its course in the US, stopping in major steps with the mid-1970's and the end of the Nixon Administration, the two party system had shifted its basis due to the apparent success of large government projects. The decay and downfall of societal projects, particularly housing and ghettoization, as opposed to engineering ones, was apparent in the late 1970's as the Welfare State was turning into a permanent underclass. The last, great upwelling of classical views started in 1980 (in government, although preceded in the early 1960's by Goldwater) and would culminate in the restriction of welfare under a triangulating Leftist President and Republican controlled Congress. The other values of that upwelling were never addressed: smaller government, lest activist government, removing government intrusion from the life of citizens, fiscal responsibility by cutting government first, ensuring the safety of the nation, and upholding equality under the law for all citizens and no breaks for *anyone* based on race, class or wealth.

Those latter got tossed under the bus.

Also note those are not 'tax cuts': it is a formulation of lower taxation by having minimal government necessary to do its work. Fiscal responsibility is not biting off more than you can chew and then asking for a better class of wine to try and wash it down: you spit it out as no matter how good it tastes it just can't be swallowed. That is what the 'center' that has walked out is trying to achieve by 'gridlock' and ever more partisan parties - the immobilization of activist government. None of these three candidates represents that.

On military affairs in the arena of getting Iraq, Afghanistan and Colombia done right, Sen. McCain does well, but do note a triangulation strategy to go after political opponents would do Sen. Clinton well if she aims to keep her base. Sen. Obama fails.

On diplomatic affairs, especially in dealing with the decaying nature of Nation to Nation relations and the slow slide of Europe into Eurabia, none of these three have bought a clue. While Sen. McCain opposes Russia, he has problems getting a staff to weed out Red Mafia types of the highest order, as seen in Davos meeting with Oleg Depripaska, who had given a good payout to Bob Dole for a visa. As it is likely that one of the major sub-groups in the Red Mafia is supplying money and arms to Mexico for their own reasons, confronting Russia will now start in Mexico as the Russian government is decayed to the point where major functions are corrupted by the Red Mafia. If the Red Mafia can use influence in Turkmenistan to put screws to Iran, think of them getting a portion of the Mexican petro game and doing that to the US. Supporting friends and allies and punishing those opposing freedom and liberty is beyond the grasp of these three candidates, it is a loss for all of them.

National Security does not start in Iraq but at home and the border. An understanding of diplomacy, organized crime, economics and US global interest might prevent Mexico from sliding farther into decay. Sen. McCain has now waffled repeatedly on this issue with regards to illegal immigration and the rule of law and that is making our enemies bolder as the Right goes soft on law enforcement. The other two have no problems with not enforcing the law, save for when they want it done to punish only those that threaten them, not the Nation. US economic interests require a long term agenda to encourage private industry to research, develop and deploy new energy technologies and slowly shift the Nation from a liquid fuel based economy. None of them have put that on the agenda and have offered retrograde stances via Global Warming views. Those will empower the oil supplying Nations via cash infusions, and many of those are not all too amenable to democracy or liberty. That direct connection for National Security is not made by any of the three candidates, and all are lethal to US long term survival.

In Economic affairs, each of these three seem to be beholden to relatively antiquated ideas of trade and protectionism. None of made a central point of linking trade to the foundations of democracy and liberty abroad so as to secure ours at home. Increased trade with authoritarian regimes or totalitarian ones may give us economic incentives, but costs humanity the benefit of having more freedom and liberty supported by trade globally. Trading with people under such regimes is not empowering them, but keeping them under such systems via bribery and goods. The failure of trade to garner liberty and freedom in the Middle East (since 1917), China (since the mid-1970's), Yugoslavia (late 1970's) or Mexico (since the mid-1990's) points to a political failure to understand that trade is not a causation of liberty but a creator of it. Trading with unfree peoples does not give them freedom nor the liberty to have full lives out from under the control of officious and dictatorial regimes. This is a leading causal factor for the slow decrease in liberty at home as the US no longer supports free people via trade. As this has been a bi-partisan failure spanning decades, none of the candidates will recognize their failures to address this in a meaningful way.

Domestic Tranquility is not being addressed by any of the three candidates. The divisiveness of this election season is a fallout of a plurality walkout by the Center and this election will most likely mark the turning point of that being a Majority for Presidential and Congressional elections. While Sen. Obama has 'registered' more people to vote for him, that is currently in the 5-6% of those not voting, which is substantial on a party basis, but not substantial on a National basis as it is such a small amount compared to the size of the population uninterested in politics. The demographic concentration of those people in States are those of upper-income whites or the young and college educated, none of which has been influential in elections under the modern primary based systems, and the latter have been 'no-shows' in National elections. What is worrying is the larger inter-party percentages that may not vote from both parties, with that running between 10-30% on the Democratic side and 10-15% on the Republican side and those tend to be mirrored, as a whole, in the 'non-affiliated' voters not directly aligned to parties. A 10% walkout by those that normally vote will shift the entire representative democracy of the US into a near majority non-voting scenario. Any more and the it is a majority of the population not voting. As 'voter outreach' by the parties and the candidates is not bringing these individuals in with substantial numbers, and there are no countervailing indicators of actual enthusiasm for the upcoming election, the US will be moved into a state of Domestic Tranquility put at peril by the two party system and its candidates unwilling to address the broader needs of the Nation in a meaningful way. This is not 'divisive politics', pre se, but the division between the two political parties and the large portion of America who are not voting for them. As the common ground disappeared, the two parties no longer needed to address it and they became polarized. Thus this is not a 50/50 America, but a 30/30/30/10, with the last 10% those that have been disaffected completely, the remaining 30 is the disaffected and walk-outs.

From those things, my vote as an individual being placed along those lines, sees no benefit in any of the three candidates, for all their differences on Iraq. If Sen. McCain was an un-maverick, able to guarantee the gridlock between Republicans and Democrats by holding traditional Republican values, then it would be an easy vote choice to make. As he, instead, adheres the 'third way' of just wanting to get more government and pay for it, the allowance that government should do more is omnipresent with him, and that negates, for me, any positive stance on Iraq as the threats to the Nation are far larger, deeper and longer than Iraq and do not include Global Warming. Getting Iraq 'right' is necessary but not sufficient to long-term stability for the US and Sen. McCain is one step above Sen. Clinton who appears to be on the slow triangulation course to something similar. And as her new base is unconnected to that of Sen. Obama, she can afford to offend the hard Left while ensuring her base is looked after, and their more traditionalist values will include the Truman idea of a Marshal Plan to make sure those citizens of Nations defeated have a chance to stand for themselves. If Sen. Clinton makes that swing before the Democratic convention, by 'triangulating' progress in Iraq with a drawdown but longer-term 'peace-keeping' support (yes, via military means), the threat to Sen. McCain is deep if she can win on that in the convention. It is a steep road for her to do so, but is one aimed at a part of the Republican party that Sen. Obama has a hard time touching after Rev. Wright - Gov. Huckabee followers. For all of Gov. Huckabee's good naturedness on the Wright affair, his followers trend towards traditionalist christian values, not engendered in Sen. Obama's belief system. Sen. Obama, however, due to his strident stances, will have any ability to do that shifting negated by his previous positions, unless he wants a party dissolving under him after getting the nomination.

What Sen. McCain has been unable to do is address the Traditionalist conservatives (the non-Huckabee flip-side of the Social Conservatives) and his key stances against smaller government. That base has spread slowly since Ronald Reagan and feels 'out in the cold', and yet will not see either Sen. Clinton or Obama as viable for their views. These do not, by definition, default to Sen. McCain if Sen. Clinton is not running: they can join the exodus started in 1968 in the Democratic party and further polarize the socialists remaining in the two parties. If Sen. Clinton does run, they may see an opportune time to 'vote the opposition' as it will hold the same views as the one from the Republican party in an attempt to fracture the Republican party and try to shake out the more socialist leaning groups and become a minority party.

That 'swing vote' from the Democratic party, the blue/pink/low-white collar Appalachian to Southern Democratic base that looks to hold the future of the US for this election cycle. Their brethren across the 'bible-belt' into the lower mid-west and then in the inter-mountain areas of the western States are becoming the swing demographic. Mostly because they have families beyond replacement rate and place more value on work than getting a degree. That is becoming the US swing-vote and it is very disturbing to have Sen. Clinton as their temporary representative in this primary season.

What form of socialism do you want this time around?

The Doe-eyed Left, willing to meet with thugs and dictators because they are 'misunderstood', and say 'I'm sorry' to them when our citizens get killed?

The Squishy Center that just can't seem to want to regulate everything immediately, just increase that heat until everything in the pot is mush?

The Crunchy Right still looking to take things over because what we all need is to be managed by bureaucrats?

Because no matter who you vote *for* it is socialism you will get this election.

Decisions, decisions...

Sphere: Related Content

24 May 2008

The nature of the enemy

The following is a whitepaper of The Jacksonian Party.

On the Laws of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius, Book I, Chapter 3 (Source: Constitution.org):

I. THE first and most necessary divisions of war are into one kind called private, another public, and another mixed. Now public war is carried on by the person holding the sovereign power. Private war is that which is carried on by private persons without authority from the state. A mixed war is that which is carried on, on one side by public authority, and on the other by private persons. But private war, from its greater antiquity, is the first subject for inquiry.

The proofs that have been already produced, to shew that to repel violence is not repugnant to natural law, afford a satisfactory reason to justify private war, as far as the law of nature is concerned. But perhaps it may be thought that since public tribunals have been erected, private redress of wrongs is not allowable. An objection which is very just. Yet although public trials and courts of Justice are not institutions of nature, but erected by the invention of men, yet as it is much more conducive to the peace of society for a matter in dispute to be decided by a disinterested person, than by the partiality and prejudice of the party aggrieved, natural justice and reason will dictate the necessity and advantage of every one's submitting to the equitable decisions of public judges. Paulus, the Lawyer, observes that "what can be done by a magistrate with the authority of the state should never be intrusted to individuals; as private redress would give rise to greater disturbance. And "the reason, says King Theodoric, why laws were invented, was to prevent any one from using personal violence, for wherein would peace differ from all the confusion of war, if private disputes were terminated by force?" And the law calls it force for any man to seize what he thinks his due, without seeking a legal remedy.

[..]

IV. Public war, according to the law of nations, is either SOLEMN, that is FORMAL, or LESS SOLEMN, that is INFORMAL. The name of lawful war is commonly given to what is here called formal, in the same sense in which a regular will is opposed to a codicil, or a lawful marriage to the cohabitation of slaves. This opposition by no means implies that it is not allowed to any man, if he pleases, to make a codicil, or to slaves to cohabit in matrimony, but only, that, by the civil law, FORMAL WILLS and SOLEMN MARRIAGES, were attended with peculiar privileges and effects. These observations were the more necessary ; because many, from a misconception of the word just or lawful, think that all wars, to which those epithets do not apply, are condemned as unjust and unlawful. Now to give a war the formality required by the law of nations, two things are necessary. In the first place it must be made on both sides, by the sovereign power of the state, and in the next place it must be accompanied with certain formalities. Both of which are so essential that one is insufficient without the other.

Now a public war, LESS SOLEMN, may be made without those formalities, even against private persons, and by any magistrate whatever. And indeed, considering the thing without respect to the civil law, every magistrate, in case of resistance, seems to have a right to take up arms, to maintain his authority in the execution of his offices; as well as to defend the people committed to his protection. But as a whole state is by war involved in danger, it is an established law in almost all nations that no war can be made but by the authority of the sovereign in each state. There is such a law as this in the last book of Plato ON LAWS. And by the Roman law, to make war, or levy troops without a commission from the Prince was high treason. According to the Cornelian law also, enacted by Lucius Cornelius Sylla, to do so without authority from the people amounted to the same crime. In the code of Justinian there is a constitution, made by Valentinian and Valens, that no one should bear arms without their knowledge and authority. Conformably to this rule, St. Augustin says, that as peace is most agreeable to the natural state of man, it is proper that Princes should have the sole authority to devise and execute the operations of war. Yet this general rule, like all others, in its application must always be limited by equity and discretion.

Here, centuries before our time, is a direct addressing of our problems in our day of the enemy we face. Hugo Grotius quickly dispenses with those who think that because warfare is unjust in its execution, that being the mayhem of the fields of battle and the rampant destruction of life with no court nor magistrate, it therefore must be unjust and unlawful. That is, however, incorrect as, to have a State, the ability to wage war to defend that State is paramount. As we, in lawful times, prefer disputes to be settled by reason and appeal to impartial judges, we find that reason and impartiality cannot be gained between Nations: any Nation or group attempting to render such a decision would have their own futures to consider and that would give immediate bias to even the most isolated and peace loving of peoples.

When we join together to form a State with a National system to interact with other Nations and to perform justice within Nations, we, as private individuals, give up the right of making personal war and settling things by rule of might. Between Nations there can be no hand-off of that responsibility to any other group as the Nation is made for the self-guidance and protection of her people. Putting that Sovereignty entrusted into the Nation into the hands of any other Nation, group of same or individual is putting the opportunity for rank injustice to be done to those in the Nation giving up such power. The lawful way for Nations to interact short of warfare is called Diplomacy, and Diplomacy has a limit to it where the vital interests of the Nation are at stake. Private war, then, is a liberty from the law of nature that we relinquish to a greater good for our Nation and to be protected by the Sovereign government (be it Monarch, Council, Prime Minister or President). While internal laws rest upon the powers relinquished to the State to form a Nation, treaties between Nations are adhered to by each Nation ensuring that other Nations keep to such treaties.

When an individual takes up Private war to execute war against other individuals or Nations and without having any Sovereign authority as a Nation backing them, they are then taking up arms not against just those they attack, but of all Nations. By taking up the law of nature again, the trust between individuals and their State to utilize war in self-defense for all of those in the Nation is put at risk. No individual relinquishes the right to defend themselves from unwarranted attack: no law made may say otherwise as the individual is always at liberty to defend themselves for survival purposes. Even immediate counter-attack to drive off such attackers is fully legitimate for an individual, beyond that, however, the legal processes of the State must intervene to look at the type and strength of original attack and organize defenses beyond that of the individual. From simple law enforcement against common criminal to military mobilization for a threat against the State, those are the just and proper ways to defend society.

In Book II, Chapter 22:

XI. But neither the independence of individuals, nor that of states, is a motive that can at all times justify recourse to arms, as if all persons INDISCRIMINATELY had a natural right to do so. For where liberty is said to be a natural right belonging to all men and states, by that expression is understood a right of nature, antecedent to every human obligation or contract. But in that case, liberty is spoken of in a negative sense, and not by way of contrast to independence, the meaning of which is, that no one is by the law of nature doomed to servitude, though he is not forbidden by that law to enter into such a condition. For in this sense no one can be called free, if nature leaves him not the privilege of chusing his own condition: as Albutius pertinently remarks, "the terms, freedom and servitude are not founded in the principles of nature, but are names subsequently applied to men according to the dispositions of fortune." And Aristotle defines the relations of master and servant to be the result of political and not of natural appointment. Whenever therefore the condition of servitude, either personal or political, subsists, from lawful causes, men should be contented with that state, according to the injunction of the Apostle, "Art thou called, being a servant, let not that be an anxious concern?"

XII. And there is equal injustice in the desire of reducing, by force of arms, any people to a state of servitude, under the pretext of its being the condition for which they are best qualified by nature. It does not follow that, because any one is fitted for a particular condition, another has a right to impose it upon him. For every reasonable creature ought to be left free in the choice of what may be deemed useful or prejudicial to him, provided another has no just right to a controul over him.

The case of children has no connection with the question, as they are necessarily under the discipline of others.

[..]

XVI. As the imperfect obligations of charity, and other virtues of the same kind are not cognizable in a court of justice, so neither can the performance of them be compelled by force of arms. For it is not the moral nature of a duty that can enforce its fulfillment, but there must be some legal right in one of the parties to exact the obligation. For the moral obligation receives an additional weight from such a right. This obligation therefore must be united to the former to give a war the character of a just war. Thus a person who has conferred a favour, has not, strictly speaking, a RIGHT to demand a return, for that would be converting an act of kindness into a contract.

XVII. It is necessary to observe that a war may be just in its origin, and yet the intentions of its authors may become unjust in the course of its prosecution. For some other motive, not unlawful IN ITSELF, may actuate them more powerfully than the original right, for the attainment of which the war was begun. It is laudable, for instance, to maintain national honour; it is laudable to pursue a public or a private interest, and yet those objects may not form the justifiable grounds of the war in question.A war may gradually change its nature and its object from the prosecution of a right to the desire of seconding or supporting the aggrandizement of some other power. But such motives, though blamable, when even connected with a just war, do not render the war ITSELF unjust, nor invalidate its conquests.

In building society we give space for independence of self-decision and to do that requires that we relinquish the liberty of waging war to the Nation. Not all liberty, as Grotius points out, is positive, and the right for individuals to wage war without a given authority of a Nation to back them, is waging a negative liberty so as to remove independence gained by civil society having formed a State. To take up war is not only unlawful, it undermines the basic compacts of why we have civilization: to create a space for civil independence of action without the peril of Private war. From that all Private war, no matter what is brought up as reason for it, is unjust. And as all Nations share in the ideal of creating a civil space for independence by passing off the negative right of waging Private war, then those who wage it become a common enemy Public and Private as they put both at danger.

It is neither good nor right to confuse wars waged under just circumstances that have gone awry do to the actions of the participants and conflate that with Private war which is unjust from its core. The differences between the blamable and accountable ways wars under just pretexts are waged are wholly different than those who wage unjust war from its inception. The act of waging Private war to enforce an individual or group of same's beliefs upon others via the means of warfare is a taking of independence and liberty within civil society by utilizing the negative independence of Private war against them. From that there is no difference between that taking of independence and liberty for mere robbery, as Pirates have always done, or for the very power of the subjugation and continuation of same via the means of terror during Private war. By trying to show that bad actions during just war are the equal to those same actions taken during Private war is profoundly wrong-headed and a betrayal of the civil space and laws necessary to hold the first accountable to their actions while the latter will account having NO law over them save their own whims. Those claiming such equivalence are either ignorant of the need for civilization to have the right to warfare in the following of National needs, or they are deceitful and wishing to plunge civilization itself into ruin by making those who are accountable by law the equal of those waging Private war to enforce their will upon others with no justification at all.

The Nation of a State is not without means to address those making Private war, however, and in Book III, Chapter 2, this comes out clearly:

IV. Another method of obtaining redress for any violation of persons, or property is by having recourse to what, in modern language, are called REPRISALS, which the Saxons and Angles denominated WITHERNAM, and to which the French gave the name of LETTERS OF MARQUE, and those were usually obtained from the crown.

V. It is generally understood that recourse may be had to this method of redress not only against a foreign aggressor, but also against a debtor, if justice cannot be obtained in due time: but in NOTORIOUS cases, which admit of no doubt, this right may be enforced even beyond the strict letter of the law. For even in DOUBTFUL matters, the presumption will always be in favour of judges appointed by public authority. For it is unlikely that they should GREATLY, or WANTONLY exceed their power; especially when, if so inclined, they have not the same means of enforcing their decrees against foreigners, as against their fellow subjects. Indeed even in disputes between subjects of the same country, they cannot annul a just debt. Paulus, the Lawyer, says that a REAL DEBTOR, though discharged, owing to some informality or inability of the law to enforce payment, still remains a debtor according to the law of nature.

And when, in consequence of a judicial sentence, a creditor, under pretext of seizing his own property, had taken from a debtor something which did not belong to him though it was in his possession: upon the discharge of the debt, a doubt arising whether the thing should be restored to the debtor, Scaevola maintained that it certainly ought to be restored.

There is a difference between the two cases. For subjects, AS SUCH, cannot make any violent resistance to the execution of a sentence, which they may not deem satisfactory, nor can they prosecute any right in opposition to the law. FOREIGNERS may use violent means to enforce a right: tho' they are not justified in using such means, while there is any possibility of obtaining redress in a legal, and peaceable manner.

It is on such grounds that reprisals are made upon the persons and property of the subjects, belonging to a power, who refuses to grant redress and reparation for injuries and aggressions. It is a practice not literally enacted by the law of nature, but generally received through custom. It is a practice too of the greatest antiquity: for in the eleventh book of the Iliad, we find Nestor giving an account of the reprisals, which he had made upon the Epeian nation, from whom he took a great number of cattle, as a satisfaction for a prize which his father Nelcus had won at the Elian games; and for debts due to many private subjects of the Pylian kingdom. Out of this booty the king having selected his own due, equitably divided the rest among the other creditors.

When foreigners who either act in a way in which their Sovereign government cannot or will not address, or independently of all governments, the Nation has the ability to issue reprisals against them without having to declare any war. The act of committing Private war is a grave enough breach in and of itself, that authorization of reprisals are allowed without the greater formality of declaring war. Nations may declare such wars, as the Romans did against many uprisings and invasions by tribes or as was done by the Monarchs of England against overseas usurpers or Pirates. The power of a Nation to authorize individuals or companies of citizens to go after such people making Private war is ancient, and fully necessary as the power of a State to protect itself via National means.

Again, to those wishing to make equal Public and Private war:

VII. But on this, as well as other points, we must take care not to confound the natural and fundamental law of nations, with the civil and conventional law of particular states.

By the law of nations all the permanent subjects, both natives and settlers, of an offending state or sovereign are 'liable to suffer reprisals: but the same rule does not bind those, who are passing through a country, or only residing in it for a time. For such reprisals are a kind of pledges, like public burdens, made answerable for the public debts, from which foreigners, being temporary residents, though owing obedience to the laws, are totally exempt.

In the same manner, Ambassadors, but not those sent from an enemy to our enemies, and their property, are exempt from such conditions by the law of nations. By the CIVIL LAW too Of many countries an exception is made in favour of women and children, of men of letters, and those who are travelling for the purposes of trade. But by the LAW OF NATIONS the goods of all are liable to reprisals, as was the case at Athens, respecting the seizure of persons. In many places, by the civil law, the right of making reprisals is obtained of the sovereign, and in others, of the judges.

By the law of nations the property of all captures is devoted to discharge the debt, and defray the expenses incurred, the remainder of which, after due satisfaction obtained, and peace concluded, should be restored. By the civil law the persons interested are summoned to appear, the property is sold by public authority, and the money, accruing from thence, divided among all who are entitled to a share of the same. But these and other points of the same kind are to be learned from civilians, who are conversant in such matters, and particularly from Bartolus, who has written upon reprisals. This subject may be closed with one observation, that will in some measure tend to soften the rigour of this stern, but necessary right, and that observation is, that such as by not discharging a debt, or granting redress. have occasioned reprisals to be made, are bound, in justice and honour, to make good the losses of those, who have thereby suffered.

One of the fundamental differences between Privateers and Pirates, is that Privateers are seeking to garner the debt incurred by those who have harmed the Public peace. Either via treachery or outright Private war, those granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal are given the opportunity to hurt the property of those waging Private war: as they place themselves beyond the law, their property is forfeit to discharge their unlawful costs that they have inflicted. Such Letters are to make a balance in cost between those that harm the Nation and garnering those costs back to defray the pain and suffering inflicted upon the innocent. Pirates are mere freebooters out for themselves, while Privateers are seeking to enforce the discharge of debt by those who wish to be held accountable to NO ONE.

There is a firm and deep distinction between Public and Private war and its activities and the tools the Nation has at hand to protect its State and its people from harm. Even when the reach of the law via issuing notice of payment leading to the capture and arrest of these miscreants cannot get them, their property, goods, funds and even their very persons are not beyond the reach of war implemented in reprisal for their private actions. The Nation cannot engage in Private war, but it may issue Public reprisals via warfare to let all Nations and peoples know what is being done to confront those attacking the Nation, and that any helping them are also putting themselves at risk in doing so as war is a violent and nasty way to discharge debts.

Some time after Grotius, Emmerich de Vattel would work with others to create a full text of Law of Nations, which would become a founding text in understanding how and why Nations do the things they do. In Book III he would look at war along these very same lines:

§ 1. Definition of war.(136)

WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force. We also understand, by this term, the act itself, or the manner of prosecuting our right by force: but it is more conformable to general usage, and more proper in a treatise on the law of war, to understand this term in the sense we have annexed to it.

§ 2. Public war.(136)

Public war is that which takes place between nations or sovereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public power, and by its order. This is the war we are here to consider: — private war, or that which is carried on between private individuals, belongs to the law of nature properly so called.

§ 3. Right of making war.(136)

In treating of the right to security (Book II. Chap. IV.), we have shown that nature gives men a right to employ force, when it is necessary for their defence, and for the preservation of their rights. This principle is generally acknowledged: reason demonstrates it; and nature herself has engraved it on the heart of man. Some fanatics indeed, taking in a literal sense the moderation recommended in the gospel, have adopted the strange fancy of suffering themselves to be massacred or plundered, rather than oppose force to violence. But we need not fear that this error will make any great progress. The generality of mankind will, of themselves, guard against its contagion — happy, if they as well knew how to keep within the just bounds which nature has set to a right that is granted only through necessity! To mark those just bounds, — and, by the rules of justice, equity, and humanity, to moderate the exercise of that harsh, though too often necessary right — is the intention of this third book.

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

[..]

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war

These texts were well known by the founders of the United States and their drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Constitution all reflect these views on warfare. Lawful and Illegitimate war or Formal and Informal war have two entirely different sets of reasoning behind them: one is for the utilization of the Nation to ensure the needs of the State and the other is to meet personal ends via subjugation of others. That is why those who wage wanton and unaccountable Private war get so little benefit of the civilization they have put at peril: they have used negative liberty to erode the civil space created by relinquishing the right of war to the State so that it may be utilized for the common good.

When we look at those that have attacked us as individuals or a Nation without backing by any Sovereign power, we then see a list of individuals and groups going far beyond al Qaeda.

We see the people captured by FARC to render political gains for their own cause. They are the enemy.

We see Hezbollah having killed our Marines and French soldiers in Lebanon, plus staging bombings of our Embassy in Beirut. They are the enemy.

We see HAMAS who have taken Americans hostage in their own fanatical quest for destruction and power. They are the enemy.

The list of these enemies gets longer with each and every group utilizing the weapons of war to kill, capture, ransom, extort, blackmail or just gain pure power for their cause. That includes the IRA, ETA, Japanese Red Army, Tupac Amaru, Shining Path, Abu Sayyaf, PLO, GIA. Many of the worse seek out Islamic causes, but they are not alone and the causes vary by group, but none of them are legitimate as they refuse to operate within the civil arena to air their grievances via lawful means.

They are all traitors to mankind's attempt to build a lawful form of government and regularity of discourse amongst Nations via governments. They put at peril our independence each time they take to warfare to try and expand their power for their own reasons. That is why our hearts cry out for the innocent attacked in Somalia, Darfur, Burma, India, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia, Serbia, Israel, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Philippines. Very few Nations have not felt the lash of those wishing to enforce their will upon peoples by tearing down the independence garnered by granting the right to wage war to Nations so that a peaceful civil space can be opened.

They are all my enemy. I do not want them to be so, but their actions put them in that position. They can stop doing so and submit to civil authority and justice to find legal means to express their dissatisfaction with the world. At any time they can do so and become civilized.

If we fetishize on one of these groups, to the exclusion of others, we miss the erosion of civil society and the advance of the law of nature via negative liberty to freely wage war and be held unaccountable in doing so. Until they do so they have no legitimate grievance, just a raw lust for power to enforce their will upon others for no reason that will help anyone. And often it is those that they claim to defend that end up being killed in their quest for that power, which further makes their acts barbaric.

Sphere: Related Content

22 May 2008

Bipartisanship the opposite of good government

Consider a bit of what Congress is trying to get through when you hear about the splendidness of 'bipartisanship' and how it is such a good thing for America. Really, those folks wanting 'across the aisle' agreement should be very wary of what they are asking for. Lets take a look at what Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) are cooking up there, Upon the Hill (Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition) (h/t: W.C. Varones at Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to pressure from Ranking Member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee appears to be on the verge of diverting funds designated for a housing trust fund for housing for the poorest Americans to pay for Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) new program to refinance homeowners facing foreclosure.

In his bill “The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” Chairman Dodd proposes to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure refinanced mortgages of homeowners who face foreclosure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this new program creates a potential liability for the federal government of $1.7 billion.

Reports are that Senator Shelby will only agree to the new FHA program if it is paid for by non-taxpayer funds. Senator Dodd’s bill also creates a housing trust fund with resources from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to build or preserve rental housing for extremely low and very low income people. Senator Shelby wants those funds to be used to pay for the new FHA program instead.

All well and good, then, right? I mean if you are 'facing a foreclosure' because you made a bad deal on your mortgage, the federal government needs to bail you out. Right? We certainly need another part of government just to 'oversee' those unwise enough to take mortgages beyond their means, right? And if the poor have to be put at risk as they have little to spend on housing, why that is just fine and dandy! Yes, make sure the poor don't have the ability to *rent* while those who *bought* a home under dodgy finances get away scot-free. Good job! Steal from the poor and give to the rich...

Dick Armey and Steve Forbes would like you to give a jingle on this at angryrenter.com and you, as a non-renter, can also support them against the anti-Robin Hoods in the Emirate of Incumbistan.

Then there is the category of 'we want to pander the public's money so fast we forgot to do our work' end of it, as seen by Michelle Malkin looking at the over-riding of the Bush veto on the Agriculture bill. And stealing from her linked article to the AP on this, there is a feeling of da-daist unreality:

The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush’s veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.

Only hours before the House’s 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

Yes, the bipartisan pig trough made it to the President's desk, he vetoed it. Congress, intent on getting the pig trough filled, was set to pay farmers already getting very wealthy off of high food prices even more so that they could be wealthier. Plus extra incentives NOT to plant crops! But, the little, eensy-teensy problem is: they didn't send the entire bill to be signed! Missing 34 pages, Congress now is in the position of trying to pass an incomplete bill...

So the anti-Robin Hood bipartisan coalition shows up and in their hurry to get the taxpayers money to wealthy farm supporters they just forgot a part of the bill. The White House then kindly pointed out that Congress was going to be back at square one and this is how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) office responds:

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shot back.

“Partisan sniping won’t solve this clerical error that even the White House failed to catch,” said Drew Hammill.

Clerical error? The White House is not in the business of catching 'clerical error's in bills sent to it by Congress. Nope, that is solely the job of Congress.

And people call Bush 'stupid'!

Now if anyone needs some help on oil prices and production capacity, lets step through some basics, so we can get to the latest bit of 'bipartisan' views on this. To help us out we can go back to 1999 and the testimony given to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural resources by Steve Layton, President and CEO of Equinox Oil Company, part of the Independent Petroleum Association of America:

Today’s hearing is intended to examine the current state of the petroleum industry. I must say at the outset that I have never seen the domestic petroleum industry facing a more complicated and potentially devastating set of problems than it now does. The industry has faced a low oil price crisis for the past year, but today’s problems are very different and far more threatening than the ones that began the problem.

A year ago, the price crisis was started by a combination of eventsthe collapse of Asian economies, a warmer than normal winter in the northern hemisphere, and ultimately a market share fight between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The events created a surplus of oil in the international market and prices fell. The production most at risk was marginal oil wells in the United States – wells that produce about 20 percent of America’s domestic production, an amount equivalent to our imports from Saudi Arabia. And, I might add the wells from which I make my living.

Now, we have experienced a year of low oil prices – historically low prices that threaten the very heart of U.S. oil production. Domestic oil production is divided into three general areas – the onshore lower 48 states, offshore, and Alaska. The onshore lower 48 states account for about 60 percent of total domestic oil production. The Energy Information Agency has released a recent report that over 60 percent of this onshore lower 48 production comes from independents, a percentage that has increased by ten percent over the past ten years. It reflects an irreversible trend. Major oil companies are leaving the onshore lower 48 states. Particularly since 1986 when the last price crisis occurred, major oil companies have turned their attention away from the onshore lower 48 states shutting in or selling off their production. They have concluded that these wells do not produce the volumes they need to meet the return on capital that they seek. Majors now operate in the United States primarily in the offshore and Alaska, but more and more they are seeking their new production overseas.

Remember, the year is 1999 under the Clinton Administration with Republicans in charge of the Senate. During a period of slack due to the 'Asian Tigers' going bust, plus a warm winter and a race to undermine each other by Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, gas was cheap, oil was cheap and no one was worrying about future supplies, except the Independents. And who was in the catbird's seat for oil prices? Here is a very interesting part and looks at who was undermining the US oil production capability via market manipulation:

In fact, we would submit that Iraq now controls world oil prices. We would submit that the current U.N. sanctions program has failed on two counts. First, it has failed in its primary mission to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. Second, it has handed Saddam Hussein the victory he lost in the Gulf War. He invaded Kuwait to control oil prices; now he does and he is penalizing his enemies.

How quickly people forget, no? Then he lays out exactly why the IPAA believes this:

First, world oil prices are essentially set by the last barrel sold. A year ago, Iraq exported about 700,000 barrels/day. In December 1998, it exported about 2.3 million barrels/day. By March it will have another 500,000 barrels/day of capacity on line. Iraq was the only OPEC country to boost its oil revenue in 1998. As other OPEC countries have reduced production to stabilize oil prices, Iraq has become the swing producer of world oil. The swing producer sets the price.

Second, Saddam’s objectives differ from other oil producers. He wanted higher oil prices when he invaded Kuwaitmoney he needed to build his military forces. Now, he can’t spend money to buy arms. But, he can – by keeping oil prices low – punish his enemies, first by reducing the income to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and others; second, by driving critical U.S. production to be shutdown and plugged forever.

Third, looking purely at demand and productive capacity, today’s surpluses should not drive prices to their historic depths. We estimate that worldwide production capacity currently exceeds demand by about 4 percent.

Now for those who haven't taken a look at oil wells: when you plug a well you can't 'unplug it' to start it back up again. The need for constant pressure and maintenance means that geophysics get to that hole pretty quickly and once its plugged you now have to drill a brand new hole if you want production again. Shutting down wells means that to re-open production requires new capital expenditure. The IPAA was hoping to get some way of keeping production going because of an artificially set low market back in the late 1990's. You didn't hear about that little tidbit recently, did you?

This economic warfare, aided and abetted by US environmental laws and prohibitions on production and drilling, would mean that once the artificially low market was gone, the US would be at a much lower production capacity and there would be economic hell to pay. For those in the 'no blood for oil' camp, this was 'oil profits for tyrants', which is not only no better, but a damned sight worse as it is aiding and abetting economic war under the thin veil of a cease fire. When the prices went low, many of the marginal companies suffered economic problems and the oil and gas industry underwent consolidation.

Then the US Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) was looking at this consolidation as it might lead to 'gouging' of consumers. The Cato Institute looked at this on 24 MAR 2006 which examined the cause of price fluctuations and two GAO reports that had been criticized:

Both studies are problematic. The GAO study has been criticized by the Federal Trade Commission for questionable methodological assumptions and practices. Oxedine and Ward concede that their study is incapable of distinguishing between mergers that create more efficient (albeit higher) prices and mergers that produce market power and correspondingly inefficient prices.

Regardless, even if the studies were methodologically flawless, the effect on consumers (I cent a gallon) is trivial. How then to explain the gibberish on display at the Senate hearing last week?

Only two conclusions are possible. First, the senators on the committee might be unfamiliar with the economic literature pertaining to oil markets and the insights it provides. But many experts have made similar arguments over the last 30years, and the congressional idiocy does not dissipate with time.

This suggests another conclusion: Committee members don't care about economic facts or logic. All they care about is scoring points with swing voters who have a deep-seated religious belief that price increases at the pump are always and forever manifestations of some corporate conspiracy. Pandering to the lowest common intellectual denominator is the name of the political game.

We're not sure which is worse.

Remember, now, this is Republicans complaining about high gasoline prices and not understanding the market. Now, as many of those exact, same Senators are still around as Elder Emirs in Incumbistan, they were also present at the ones on 21 MAY 2008 as seen by John Hinderaker at Powerline:

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

This is not *just* the Democrats who have been negligent on the issue - this has been a bipartisan panderfest for nearly a decade of 'screw them when they are down' and 'bitch when they are up'. Yep, that's America, all right. That legislation didn't get passed *just* by Democrats and there is more than enough blame to go around on this. So if you want the Clowns in Congress to be held accountable: don't re-elect them.

Especially if they have been in there for a decade. There really is no excuse at that length of time *not* to know how things work.

Sphere: Related Content

18 May 2008

Running the numbers: Polarized America

The following is in no way a rigorous examination of the issues brought up by Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal about Polarized America. I am not a statistician nor do I play one on television! That said, graphs often speak for themselves and sometimes the data presented is not all the data necessary to actually catch trends and analyze them, so I will take a highly biased view by bringing in a few other things that need to be pointed out.

From what I have read the general view is that national politics at the federal level has become more polarized with a heavy trend towards 'party line' votes and less 'bipartisanship' and less 'federal activism'. That is a general trend and one that everyone is pretty much aware of: gridlock. Gridlock means that government can't get much done and that at the federal level this has been an overall trend for a few decades. Of course it doesn't take a statistician to figure that out... In point of fact that is why the American people have been electing one party to the Executive and getting highly knife-edge divided in the Legislative, as the role of the federal government is to have checks and balances and 'bipartisanship' destroys that by diluting the power and ability of parties to present a coherent position with meaningful views on the republic. There are times when that is necessary and I will be pointing those out.

All graphs are modified from the originals.

Some of the eras I will be taking a look at are:

WWI - 1914-1918 - Time span chosen for actual war, although US involvement was 1917-18. This is for some of the effects seen overseas and their impact on the US.

Great Depression - 1930-1936 - The reasoning behind this time span is somewhat arbitrary, but based on the analysis I did in Insurance, Assurance and Prosperity. In truth the actual decline in the economy for the US started around 1927, with 1929 being the year of the Stock Market Crash and the final bottoming out in 1933. From 1933-37 are recovery years and the 1938 Recession was after the economy had already recovered from the Great Depression. Thus I consider the 1930-36 the heart of the Great Depression.

WWII - 1941-1945 - The US time in the war, not the entire war with its run-up by Japan starting in the mid-1930's.

Cold War - 1946-1999 - An argument could be made for 1948, but the chilling in post-WWII camaraderie was pretty rapid and problems were already starting to crop up in 1946.

One of the first things always given by the Left for problems in society is disparity of income leading to problems, so the graph of the percentage share of the top 1% and Polarization in the House, in particular, is a good place to start.

MPR_Figure_1_2_A_Eras

Of most interest is the era just prior to the start of the Great Depression where income for the top 1% was grabbing a larger share of wealth, yet polarization in the House was actually on the decline. Indeed, disparity of income, even as the share was declining for the top 1% did not increase polarization in the House until the late 1950's where the share would reach its *lowest* level and polarization would start to increase. If, according to Leftist views, disparity of income is a cause for civil discontent, then that is not reflected in the political polarization in the House of Representatives. Lowered polarization leads lowering in wealth distribution, it does not follow it.

Actually, as the top 1% of earners suffer a steep decline to a point below 9% of wealth does polarization actually increase. Even with the rapid increase in wealth due to the waning years of the Cold War seeing changes in tax policy, the trend is towards continued and increased polarization in the House even as the share of the 1% is still at a level *below* where it was prior to WWII, with the exception of three years. As that top 1% slows in its overall growth, polarity continues to increase unabated.

This is, from a Leftist view, astonishing: if the richest top 1% have their ability to succeed capped, there is increasing polarization. Trying to utilize 'transfer payments' and 'soaking the rich' then become a leading cause for *disharmony* and political polarization. When everyone is seen to be losing the ability to earn income, as in the Great Depression era, polarization wanes and continues to do so through times of 'national unity' during WWII and the first decade or so of the Cold War. When the rich have trouble getting richer, then things start to go awry. Decreasing disparity from a high, then, is only helpful to a limited extent, and if society starts to close of avenues towards wealth, the political class begins to reflect a feeling of discord and the party ideologies diverge from each other.

One of the difficulties with the data I have seen so far, is that they are inter-party (or more correctly Congressionally relative to those members in Congress) divergences. Attempts to measure what actually *is* 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'moderate' is all done in the relative associations and voting done in Congress: there are no absolutes in these numbers. That understanding is necessary, especially as inter-era analysis can be dicey, as the researchers point out. With that said the relative breakout for the House is as follows:

House_party_Means_46-109_Eras

Starting with the Great Depression there was a large scale change in US politics as seen between the two parties. The generally more conservative Republican Party started a slope towards the center of the political spectrum. Similarly the highly liberal Democratic Party shifted from the left to the center during that time. For Democrats that would peak, for the party as a whole, in the early 1950's and for the Republicans in the mid-1970's. Southern Democrats, however, would not shift towards a more liberal stance until the late 1960's particularly following 1967. This is reflected in both Houses of Congress:

House_and_Senate_Polar_46-109_Party_Distance_Eras

When the parties are at low numbers there is a high degree of 'bi-partisan' voting in the two Houses. As their numbers approach 1.0 they become more and more polarized towards absolute party-line votes. Again, the late 1960's would mark the begriming of the end for large cross-over votes and by the mid-1970's the trend towards polarization would be an acknowledged fact. This is the point in time where the Republicans trend back towards their more traditional stance as seen pre-Depression, lagging the Democrats by over a decade. For the Democrats that trend towards their traditional stance only comes with the change in the Southern voter outlook in the late 1960's.

At this point I will pull in my demographic trend analysis from History is not inevitable, to see just what this phenomena on the Democratic side is, as it is normally overlooked:

The above taken from US Census datasets.

Starting in 1964 is a marked decline of voter participation in both Congressional and Presidential elections. These are, of course, national trends, but the shift of the two parties back *towards* their pre-Depression era stances cannot be discounted to this cause. Indeed, this may be one of the hardest driving factors for both parties at this time and explain much else in the datasets. Do note that these are not relative declines, but absolute declines as measured against the voting age population.

The most unremarked upon thing in this analysis, across the board, is how much bi-partisanship their was in the Great Depression to mid-1970's: it is uncharacteristic for the Nation as seen from the Reconstruction era to have that much cross-aisle work happening. Having the two party system drift towards each other is not the norm in US politics and it is only the economic and military pressures seen from the Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War that created this sort of voting pattern. Even worse is that a large and growing part of the population actually stops participating in representative democracy. If there are questions about why the polarization happened the startling conclusion is not the growing ideological gap between the parties, but the center walking out on BOTH OF THEM by not voting. This is not a case of the parties drifting apart and leaving the center behind, it is a case of the center leaving the two parties to drift towards their more traditional venues.

The center, by walking out, causes gridlock and stifles the ability of the federal government to do anything.

If this analysis is correct, it is highly disturbing as a representative democracy cannot last without such a large block voting to give the overall system validity. If, say, 68 million people voted in the last Presidential election at ~58% turnout, that leaves 49 million voting age population that did not exercise their franchise right. A voter registration campaign that brings in 3 million voters and can actually get them to vote, does not significantly change that demographic swing. It may influence an election, but that is far less than 10% of those not voting.

What is more troubling than that, and being witnessed this election season, is the two parties fielding presumptive candidates that are, inherently, starting to cause party faithful to waiver. If candidates in both parties cause a minor drop in their own base participation, say 10%, then the percentage voting drops very close to 50%, just nudging over it by a bit. At 15% it drops just below 50% turnout. At that point representative democracy goes from plurality government to true minority government, representing a sub-part of plurality. Even with minority government status being reached de facto for many years, the absolute shift where true plurality of the voting age assent is given is no longer in hand.

Gridlock is actually not a problem but the solution being given by the political center in the US: it is the only ready means at hand to keep the two parties in mutual check so that they can not run an activist government. The ability to actually be wealthy and not have that pathway to wealth put in danger is a sub-marking point of the larger demographic shift by the center. As government is a user of wealth, not a creator of it, the political center is now saying to both parties that what they created during the Depression to mid-1970's is not what is wanted by them, and they are willing to let the two parties drift hard apart from each other by not participating in representative democracy. We hear much from the two party activists, but the quiet and dead silence from the middle is attempting to marginalize both parties into ineffectual stalemate.

This is not a question of a 'third party' being created as NO PARTY will address the need to remove the caps on wealth generation, which is the federal government. Offering more gifts and bribes to the people is getting fewer and fewer votes overall, and that salient point is missed by both parties. Guaranteeing entitlements gets you a slice of an ever decreasing pie, and fighting over it can keep the two parties from trying to take more of the filling out of the pie. This message is not so much conservative as it is 'anti-activist government', as that political center sees no real great thrill in activism to the Left or Right from government as both tend to cap wealth creation by shifting to even out wealth distribution. In our era of everyone Left and Right touting activism, it is a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around a non-activist political party that will slowly remove the ability of the federal government to be activist.

There isn't one of those in the US, at present. So the people who occupy the political center are forcing their solution on two ever more ideologically separated parties. By doing that they are also telling the two parties that their activist message doesn't mean a good god-damned thing to them. If the political parties are polarized it is an effect from the political center that refuses to have anything to do with them. And as neither party can figure that out, it demonstrates the further bankruptcy of their ideologies as they increase in volume and gridlock.

If true, this analysis posits a highly unstable democracy heading towards true minority voting amenable to ever more polarized messages until a very slim marginal difference in turnout means sweeping victory. Not a bang, not a whimper, just ever more shrill and meaningless arguments... that is how democracy can die, if we are not careful.

I do hope I am wrong, very much so, for I do not like that conclusion.

Sphere: Related Content

Distinctions between Politics and Politicians

Reading P. J. O'Rourke's latest in Cato's Letter, Spring 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2, The Problem is Politics, was not only humorous in the way only P.J. O'Rourke can be humorous, but it brought home a clean and clear distinction between Politics and Politicians. This is something that has been lost in this campaign season and on a pretty willing basis across the board:

But let’s make a distinction between politics and politicians. Because there are a lot of people
who are under a misapprehension that the problem is certain politicians who stink
. They say that if you impeach George Bush, everything will be fine. Or if you nab Ted Kennedy for a DUI, the nation’s problems will be solved. But unfortunately it’s just not that simple.

The problem is not really politicians. The problem is politics. Politicians are chefs—some good, some bad—but politics is road kill. The problem isn’t the cook. The problem is the cookbook. The key ingredient of politics is the idea that all of society’s ills can be cured politically. It’s like a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it. The fruit cocktail is fried. The soup is fried. The salad is fried. So is the ice cream and cake. And your pinot noir is rolled in breadcrumbs and dunked in the deep fat fryer. It is just no way to cook up public policy. Politics is greasy. Politics is slippery. Politics can’t tell the truth.

That is the process of politics, not political tracts written by thinkers and theoreticians. Politics is a process carried out by people and one of the key parts of politics, as a process, is that people are bound to act in ways that is dictated by the process.

Say you have a great chef, using P.J.'s view from above, who works at a 5-star restaurant and has great creativity, can design menus out of thin air, can teach a staff how to prepare it over a short span and introduce new and exciting dishes to bring in customers willing to pay top dollar for that experience. Now, put a sudden downturn in that chef's life and, for whatever reason (and it is very improbable!) the new employment position is McDonald's flipping burgers. That process has no real place for culinary talent and has a strictly controlled and regimented system for producing large quantities of food at a set quality level. In the restaurant the chef is a theoretician, working with what is available to utilize creative skills via his liberty to produce wonderful comestibles. At McD's he is part of a process and no matter how good a chef that is, the position is that of one in a process to output set types of food at a given quality level in a given amount of time.

You don't mind waiting an extra 10 minutes for a grand meal at a 4 star restaurant.

Waiting that period at McDonald's? Customer revolution.

A major distinction between the two parties, and about the only one that is left, is that the Democratic Party sells 4-star menus, and then takes you into McDonald's while pocketing the 4-star money to expand the franchise and sell more glitzy menus and offer the same food while paying the staff at 4-star rates. Republicans usher you in to a very high class establishment tell you they can't offer you 4-star cuisine, hand you the McDonald's menu and you see 4-star prices so that they can expand the franchise, which has a high cost due to all those lovely trimmings which get swapped out as often as the menu used to be changed.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but if your process only outputs a set and relatively low quality of product you find it is hard to sell based on just that quality or quantity alone. On the campaign trail each party will sell what it thinks you will buy: a great menu or a great looking establishment. What you get, however, is a McDonald's hamburger with fries and a shake. By implying quality the process of politics is set up to mislead you into getting the impossible: 4-star cuisine at any price. That is because the process is to turn out large quantities of set quality food to reach a lowest, minimum standard that has some general appeal.

That brings us to the uncomfortable fact that Mr. O'Rourke hands us:

But I don’t blame the politicians for this. Because just think what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. “No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t funding or teachers unions or lack of vouchers or absence of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damned kids.”

Now, that’s just not going to work.

This is the 'Lake Woebegone Effect': where every child is above-average. Every parent wants to *believe* that and if their child *fails* it must be the fault of the *system* and not that of the individuals involved. You want top notch Private School education at Public School? Why? Exactly why and how can EVERYONE get such schooling from a process that is not meant to output such effects? The Democrats want to increase staff pay and the Republicans point to adding bells and whistles.

The problem is, that this is a mass process where the politicians at ALL LEVELS are now part of the process. It used to just be the local and state levels, but the busy bodies and worrywarts from 1958 onwards finally got this 'elevated' to the national level... your local franchise which offered localized menus and servings got changed into McDonald's. And now people have the temerity to complain that the quality went DOWN or, even worse, STAYED THE SAME with a menu they don't like and at HIGHER PRICES? By 'elevating' the problem it was made WORSE and INTRACTIBLE because politicians have no interest in *solving problems* only *offering solutions* and getting more money for government. If education got *solved* an entire part of the federal government would GO AWAY along with all the hanger-on positions, consulting agencies, research departments in companies and universities : all of that would disappear in a puff of smoke for education if the thing was actually *solved*.

By handing off responsibility that parents still have for ensuring a good education for their children to a bureaucracy, they have decided that they are unfit to MAKE THAT DECISION FOR THEMSELVES. You actually can get what you pay for if you go to a private establishment that concentrates on EDUCATION and COST CONTROL, because the immediate feedback of getting paid or not getting paid concentrates the will to educate children. Very much like the hangman's noose, though not as drastic in failure. But you would, actually, get what you paid for and have direct say on what happens if you *don't*. In public establishments, have you seen what you have to go through to get *any* accountability?

There is one way to keep the politicians under wraps in the system, however, and Mr. O'Rourke looks at that earlier on:

I have been covering politics for 38 years. Trust me: we don’t want politics to quit. That’s why we need a Republican president—not because Republicans are good but because we need gridlock. I love gridlock. Gridlock means government can’t do things.

The two most frightening words in Washington are “bipartisan consensus.” Bipartisan consensus is when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.

Bipartisan consensus—like the stimulus package that has been delivered to us courtesy of Congress and the president. A $168 billion stimulus package that is supposed to change the trajectory of a $13 trillion economy.

Now, even somebody who flunked high school physics—and I did—can tell you that the energy of $168 billion is not sufficient to budge $13 trillion worth of inertia. It’s like trying to use Dennis Kucinich to push Hillary Clinton off the Democratic campaign platform.

We could wind up with a Democratic president. We will wind up with a Democratic Congress. Now, I am a Republican. I’m a rotten Republican quite a lot of the time, but a Republican nonetheless. And as a Republican, I’ve got to say that the 2006 midterm elections made me very upset at the Republicans. I mean, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley. The electorate was almost too nauseated to make it to the polls to vote Democratic.

And this is the problem that the Republican nominee-presumptive *has*: his major claim to fame is 'bipartisanship'. As the way we do politics right now, that awful process of delivering us something of low standard when promising and paying for something better, electing a 'bipartisan' Republican is essentially casting a vote for more expanded government with fewer fiscal controls even if the nominee-presumptive promises in a crosses-his-heart-and-hopes-to-die way that he will veto any budget that goes over, by a single penny, what he asks for. We have heard that *before* in 'read my lips, no new taxes', and yet 'bipartisan consensus' got us new taxes and that from a man who had been Ronald Reagan's Vice-President.

A purely partisan political hack as nominee could get tons of votes just by being a purely partisan political hack because there are a lot of folks who do not WANT 'bipartisanship' from the White House. A bit of the bold, brash 'can't satisfy all of the people all of the time so don't even try' sort of deal. Add some hawkishness like 'hey this government beast needs some limb hacking and here are the Departments I want to disband' and 'the wanted dead or alive posters will be distributed right after my inauguration for every terrorist on the planet' and you just might have someone who could win and bring gridlock. Just so long as it didn't have a whiff of 'reaching across the aisle' to 'achieve consensus' with his or her bipartisan buddies.

Would it take so much for a President to run on the platform: No Omnibus spending packages, No extras tacked on beyond what I ask for, All new 'initiatives' come in separate, clearly defined bills one per initiative?

Of course that would take courage, eschewing 'bipartisanship' and actually requiring fiscal responsibility.

Finally, Mr. O'Rourke sums up his article with this:

After all my time covering politics, I know a lot of politicians. They’re intelligent. They’re diligent. They’re talented. I like them. I count them as friends. But when these friends of mine take their intelligence, their diligence, and their talent and they put these into the service of politics, ladies and gentlemen, when they do that, they turn into leeches upon the commonwealth.

They are dogs chasing the cat of freedom. They are cats tormenting the mouse of responsibility. They are mice gnawing on the insulated wiring of individualism. They are going to hell in a hand basket, and they stole that basket from you. They are the ditch carp in the great river of democracy. And this is what one of their friends says.

It is the rare, very rare, fine upstanding individual that can come away from politics with their ethics, integrity and honor intact as politicians. Outside of politics I like and even admire a few of those running, but that cannot and must not blind me to see what they do as politicians. The 'personal bio' only goes far enough to show that you aren't a crook, thief, con-man, mafioso, chiseler, or serial murderer. Yes, *most* of those get weeded out by the political process... well, I can't remember any serial murderers showing up as Congresscritters, but I haven't looked hard, either. A good bio shows where you start off.

Then they volunteer to become the line cook at the McDonald's of government and they promise to expand the menu and add nice soy protein across the board for our own good.

And these days more than a few of the customers are asking: Where's The Beef?

Sphere: Related Content

16 May 2008

Appeasement just sounds so nice

Ah, yes, when the President came out with his view on appeasement (Source: FoxNews) it seemed pretty straightforward as he was honoring the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel (Source: White House):

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

I, somehow, immediately thought of this Zucker Ad:

Hard not to, isn't it? The panel of do-gooders sponsored on a bi-partisan basis. Remember them? The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group of fine foreign policy panjandrums that have the most excellent and waffling James A. Baker III as one of its primaries, who can't seem to figure out if he is even for or against talking to terrorists and their supporters?

Really, I thought that President Bush's view was pretty straightforward, supported by historical facts in previous meeting with dictators, tyrants, and various less savory folks running their own war organizations outside the bounds of any law. Really this goes back to President Jefferson as recounted by Gerard W. Gawalt at the Library of Congress site on Jefferson's papers:

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

One of the sad thing about modern-day Jeffersonians is that they prefer to read his works with an air towards scholarship, rather than his actions with an eye towards statesmanship. The two are not at odds, and Jefferson clearly put forward which side the US would take when threatened by those seeking to be appeased: their demands would never stop and would always increase, so it was better to have war *now* and *cheaper* to do so.

So it comes as a bit of surprise to find just how far those that support liberty and rights have wandered when plain spoken truth is applied (Source: ABC News blog) (h/t: AoSHQ):

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

ABC News' White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.

"(The President) has said similar things before," a White House official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz. "But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it."

And folks like in the ISG Congressionally Mandated CYA group, above. Even more interesting is that Barack Obama's (Source: Allahpundit at Hot Air) doesn't put any pressure or preconditions on talking with Iran and Syria so that 'everything' is on the table as he said in the YouTube debate, just like the Sudetenland was 'open for discussion' with Germany... and then waffles from that on his website. Apparently there is 'nuance' in the air! Perhaps he will only give Lebanon away to appease the tyrants of Iran and Syria. If you are all hope and/or change and you take a tough, principled stand on NO preconditions, then what is it when you shift to something different later?

Are there any principles there at all?

Or will they change in the next few minutes to suit some other group?

And if you are going to 'change', then why not just say you want the EXACT SAME THING the other candidates want and take down the lovely non-difference from your website and say "I'm just like the others in the race"?

Principles guide policy, not the other way around and that is exactly what Sen. Obama is standing for: no principles and 'flexible' policy without them.

You know, it is always cheaper to pay off the bullies and tyrants *now*... and they will always ask for *more* until you finally realize the wisdom of President Jefferson: if the 'military option' is not on the table, then you are just negotiating the sales price of your liberty and those of others. That is not 'saber rattling' but good, cold, hard sense when dealing with those seeking to extort you for everything they want be it cash or national sovereignty. And the US has been far, far, far more tolerant of Iran and Syria than Jefferson was with the Barbary Pirates.

But then, he knew the cost of liberty and freedom which meted out in blood, not cash.

Sphere: Related Content

14 May 2008

The FARC Contacts

This is a follow-up to my recent article on FARC.

The dirty little secret of Private War is that it is supported by a wide array of organizations, groups, criminal syndicates and sympathizers on a global basis. Without these and their unpaid (as well as paid) spokesmen willingly taking up their propaganda and attempting to cast these brazen killers in a 'kinder, gentler' light, they would be seen as the petty tyrants and mobsters that they are. One of the older groups, though by no means as old as the PLO for example, is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC. At the start FARC started up as any other Communist/Leftist terror organization that made the hearts of those western-liberals go pit-a-pat in Marxist glee (Source: translation by Fausta) : "To create a great revolutionary Army with the support of the masses in order to destroy the capitalist system and install socialism."

Terrorism of the late 1960's was not the awful monster it is today, save to those who got to experience some form of 'liberation' via AK-47 or pipebomb first-hand. Through the 1970's FARC remained relatively Marxist and while insular it was nowhere close to being as insular as Shining Path in Peru. As these hodge-podge of organizations lived, however, their disparate goals coalesced along the forms of violence they inflicted and that led to a commonality of means amongst all 'terrorist organizations'. The one common factor across FARC, IRA, ETA, PLO, HAMAS, Shining Path, and, indeed, all terrorist organizations is: violence, gunplay, explosives, kidnapping and funding. Add those to intimidation for local support and no matter what the terrorist organization espouses it comes to practice warfare on people to enforce its will upon them. The West, in general, embroiled in the Cold War, did not want to stir up any minor conflicts that might get a sudden, nuclear tipped nightmare for humanity, and across the board from Europe to the US to Japan and Australia, no one would pay any attention to this problem. Indeed, it would be seen as a way to pull down the Western form of Nation State practiced by both the West and Soviet Union. The USSR would be so unwise as to support those trying to bring this form of state down, however, not realizing that the violence would not stop against the West once Nations began to crumble. Thus one of their clients would be one of the first, and by no means last, to support terrorism of all stripes.

The Terror Infrastructure

Libya

Moahammar Kadaffy (your spelling may vary!) of Libya set up one of the first government based institutions to facilitate that cross pollination in 1982. Going by the name Al Mathaba (or Center), Kadaffy would put it together as an 'Anti-Imperialism Center' while, in fact, entertaining dictators, tyrants and terrorists from around the globe and helping them to interact with each other. The Globalsecurity site has this in its thumbnail sketch of Al Mathaba:

Al Mathaba (meaning center) is the Libyan center for anti-imperialist propaganda which has funded third world guerilla groups. The Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC) - also known as Mathaba - is used by the Libyan Government to support terrorist networks and thus plays an important role in Qadhafi's terrorism strategy. Established in 1982 to support "liberation and revolutionary groups”, the AIC has sponsored a number of stridently anti-Western conferences in Tripoli. At the same time, the AIC's mission is to identify and recruit revolutionaries for ideological and military training in Libya. During their training at AIC camps, individuals are selected for advanced training, including in weapons and explosives, and indoctrination. With representatives in many Libyan embassies worldwide, the AIC runs its own independent clandestine operations and disburses payments to terrorist, insurgent, and subversive groups.

It had better be clandestine with those as its goals! The 30 year anniversary of this butcher's workshop included the following:

Many heads of state were present: Sam Nujoma (Namibia), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Yoweri Kaguta Musaveni (Uganda), Blaise Campraore (Burkina Faso), Alpha Oumar Konare (Mali), Yahya Jammeh (Gambia), Idris Deby (Chad), Abdou Diouf (Senegal), and the President of Guinea Bissao. Progressive political forces, communists and revolutionaries were there as well: the Cuban CP, Shaffik Handal (FMLN, San Salvador), the Guatamalan URNG, Tomas Borge and Daniel Ortega of the FSLN (Nicaragua), Raul Reyes (FARC, Columbia), a personal representative of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Lula, of the Brazilian Labour Party, Gladys Marin, General Secretary of the Chilian CP, Marina Arismendi, General Secretary of the Uruguayan CP. From Europe there was a very varied Italian delegation, with the Refoundation Communist Party in particular, and a Spanish delegation from the United Left (José Cabo) and from OSPAAAL.

FARC is a case in point in this confab, although the actors outside Latin America demonstrate just how far Kadaffy has reached over more than three decades with his terror spreading organization and support. Notice that those from Latin America make up an axis of support of which FARC is not out of place: Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay each sent supporting representatives of their 'progressive' groups to show solidarity and have a lovely anniversary with Kadaffy.

This 'anti-imperialist' outlook would continue on and spawn numerous organizations to support the 'revolutionary' concepts touted by Kadaffy and others. What is interesting is that the organization, by being 'anti-imperialist' would easily support any kind of thug or dictator around, thus ensuring that 'revolutionary' language would be put to the beck and call of tyrants and despots. One such incident was from the Spanish Campaign for Lifting Sanctions on Iraq held on 02-03 MAY 2001:

The Spanish Campaign for Lifting Sanctions on Iraq (SCLSI), which has been working since 1991 in the Spanish State for the end to the genocide against the Iraqi people and of US military intervention against Iraq, in co-operation with the Review Resumen Latinoamericano organised the ANTI-IMPERIALIST SOLIDARITY MEETING OF LATINAMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS IN BAGHDAD on 2 and 3 May, 2001, under the slogans 'For solidarity between peoples', 'Against US interventionism against Third World countries', 'For ending the embargo and the war against Iraq', 'No to the 'Plan Colombia'.

As in previous delegations promoted by our organisation to Iraq, the SCLSI has previewed for the Latin-American delegates several meetings and visits in order to let them know the sanctions impact over the Iraqi people and the regional situation. All the delegates will participate as well in the meeting of BAGHDAD CONFERENCE that will be held next May 5th and 6th.

Delegates, General secretaries, Presidents and MP of 16 political, social, Indians, and peasants organisations from all over the American continent have confirmed their presence.

  • Argentina: Patria Libre Movement. Support of CORREPI and Madres de Plaza de Mayo.
  • Bolivia: Federación de Campesinos del Trópico and Confederación Única de Trabajadores Campesinos. Support of Communist Party.
  • Brasil: Without Land Movement (Movimiento de los Sin Tierra, MST) & Work Party
  • Chile: Communist Party of Chile.
  • Colombia: Communist Party of Colombia. Support of FARC-EP).
  • Cuba: Communist Party of Cuba and OSPAAAL.
  • Ecuador: Popular Front. Support of CONAIE and CMS).
  • El Salvador: National Liberation Front Farabundo Martí (FMLN).
  • Guatemala: Gutemala National Revolutionaty Union (Unión Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, URNG).
  • Honduras: Democratic Unificated Party (Partiido de Unificación Democrática).
  • Perú: Mariateguista Unificated Party (Partido Unificado Mariateguista) and Comunist Party of Perú.
  • Puerto Rico: New Independentist Movement. Support of CPRDV from Vieques.
  • República Dominicana: Revolution Force (Popular, Caamañist and Communist)
  • Venezuela: Fith Republic Movement (Movimiento Quinta República).
  • Here, again, the compendium of 'radical' terror groups and it is interesting that taking up 'solidarity between peoples' means supporting such a genocidal killer as Saddam Hussein. As with the Libyan main movement, this organization features many of the same groups, with the same goal of 'solidarity'. The one interesting thing to be noted is that 'Plan Colombia' is a wide-ranging COIN initiative that goes a bit further than just Colombia, but is centered there due to cocaine and heroin production. As COIN, of necessity, also targets organized crime and connections with other groups, slowly pulling apart one group that is connected to many others is a threat to *all of them*.

    The PLO

    The Heritage Foundation published a backgrounder on 02 AUG 1983 by Victoria Scully on The PLO's Growing Latin American Base, which looked at the establishment of the PLO sympathizer organizations in the region. Some choice excerpts from it (all spelling and punctuation errors in the original):

    Yet another external force is escalating its interference in this Hemisphere--the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO works closely with Nicaragua's radical Sandinista regime and is helping those who are trying to overthrow El Salvador's democratically elected government. At camps in Cuba and the Middle East, the PLO trains cadres of terrorists, which head back to Latin America to undermine established regimes. While the PLO is not the cause of Latin America's most basic problems, it is exploiting them.

    In turn, the PLO increasingly uses its growing Latin American base to reinforce its international terrorist campaign against the United States and Israel FORGING PLO-CUBAN-SOVIET LINKS Since its establishment by the Arab League in 1964, the PLO has grown from an irredentist militia into what has been described as IIa multinational business corporation, with an amalgam of terrorism and diplomacy as its end product.'I1 objective was the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a l'secular democratic state In broader terms, the PLO has been Its original conducting a two-pronged offensive against what it calls "American Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne Leaders and Tactics (New York: Facts The Terrorists: Their Weapons on File, 1982 p. 90 2 imperialism, Western colonialism, and world Zionism.1' One prong is a political campaign against Israel and its allies-the U.S in particular--waged in every international forum since the late 1960s. The second prong is a transnational terrorist network to attack the allies and supporters of Israel and the United States international, regional, and civil conflicts the anti-Jewish and anti-American rubric of its own hostilities. In this, the PLO has found in Latin America particularly fertile ground. Latin American support was decisive when the United Nations sponsored establishment of Israel in 1947 and from 1947 to 1972, Latin American nations provided more than half of the United Nations votes in support of Israel In both cases, the PLO's objective has been to impose upon The PLO's penetration of Latin American nationalist and democratic movements has been gradual It made its international debut, in fact, inrCuba at the 1966 First Conference of the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (OSPAAL). As a result of contacts established there, PLO-Cuban cooperation began on a limited and individual basis In 1968, for instance, Cuban intelligence and military persorinel assisted the PLO in North Africa and Iraq In 1969 PLO and Cuban officers were jointly trained in the Soviet Union.

    The list of PLO contacts from that report is staggering, including:

    • Sandinistas being trained by the PLO and Cuba in Lebanon, Sandinistas receiving direct funding from Libya, Algeria supplying Soviet arms to the Sandinistas;
    • PLO support for the Farabundo Marti including Shafik Handal of the Salvadoran Communist Party meeting regularly with Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine;
    • Anti-Jewish activities sponsored via the PLO through offices in the Brasilian Arab League Office, Vangarde Popular Revolutionera terrorist organization sponsored by the Brazilian Communist Party and PLO with training in Lebanon, VPR working with Fatah and the PFLP, forming Junta de Coordinacion Revolucionaria between VPR and PFLP to sponsor terror organizations in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Uruguay;
    • JCR included Chile's Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria, Argentina's Peoples Revolutionary Army, Bolivia's National Liberation Army, Uruguay's Tupamaros - all having links to PLO and PFLP with training in Cuba and Lebanon;
    • PLO links with the Peronist-Marxist Movimiento Peronista Montonero in Argentina;
    • PLO representative Issam Besseiso in Peru established contacts with the Student Federation, UNIDAD the Peruvian Communist Party, Expreso and El Comercio;
    • PLO worked to establish ties with FARC, PLO/PFLP established ties with M-19;
    • opening PLO offices in Panama with the blessing of Panamanian President Aristedes Royo;
    • working to destabilize Costa Rica via at least 20 terrorist cells supported by PLO and Libya;
    • Mexican offices established PLO contacts with Social Workers Party, Unified Party of Mexico, Revolutionary Workers Party;

    The presence of PLO contacts across Latin America with Cuban, Libyan and Soviet sponsorship cannot be underestimated in the ability of these organizations to contact each other. Even as regimes rose and fell, many of the background connections would continue on, although some few were put to rest in places like El Salvador, others in Colombia, Brazil and Chile would remain over the decades.

    The IRA

    FARC was far more than a passive connection organization, however, and would establish its own ties with organizations like the IRA. At the Center for Defense Information a 05 JUN 2002 paper on FARC-IRA connectivity brings this into the light, examining the types and variety of contacts this cooperation would establish:

    As this indicates, reports that foreign terrorists have been operating within Colombia are neither entirely new nor particularly surprising. Colombian groups such as FARC have long been known to contract military experts and terrorists from overseas, with European terrorist organizations reported to have often brokered such deals. The Red Army Faction is believed to have been especially active in such activities, using mostly Middle Eastern contracted trainers. Former British, Israeli, and U.S. military personnel are also reputed to have been involved in such training in the past. According to Gen. Fernando Tapias, chairman of the Columbian Joint Chiefs of Staff, nationals from Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Venezuela, Israel and Germany have been identified by FARC informants and deserters as carrying out recent training for the Columbian terrorist group.

    Such statements tally with that made in March by the acting commander in chief of U.S. Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Gary D. Speer, who stated that links existed between Latin America and transnational terrorist organizations including the IRA, Hezbullah, Hamas, Islamyya al Gama’at (IG), and the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA). Speer also said that Southern Command had long been monitoring terrorist activities in the region, including such incidents as the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the Jewish-Argentine Cultural Center in Argentina in 1994 (attributed to Hezbullah), the capture of the Japanese ambassador’s residence in Peru by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movements (MRTA) in 1996, and the pattern of narco-terrorism in Colombia generally. However, The IRA training of FARC members represents an alarming development, not least as the Irish group is widely held to be among the most proficient practitioners of terrorism in the world. Moreover, if claims that such training has occurred are believed, it may cost the IRA heavily in terms of the support it has traditionally enjoyed in the United States, and lead to the organization being viewed as having a global reach.

    Allegations of a FARC-IRA connection arose after the arrest of three Irishmen in Bogotá in August 11, 2001. The men, James Monaghan, Martin McCauley, and Neil Connolly, were traveling using false passports, and found to have traces of explosive on their belongings. All three were subsequently charged with training FARC members in the use of explosives. Security sources in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic say the men are IRA members. Monaghan is believed to have designed the IRA homemade mortar. Originally developed with Libyan help in the early 1970s, the primitive Mark I prototype has evolved into the much more sophisticated Mark 18 "barracks buster," named for its effectiveness in targeting security force bases in Northern Ireland. Monaghan’s skill in making this weapon has earned him the nickname "Mortar Monaghan." Similarly, MaCauley and Connolly are reported to be among the IRA’s best explosive experts.

    Connolly is believed to have initiated contact with FARC through the Spanish terrorist group ETA five years ago, and known to be the official representative in Cuba of the Sinn Fein, IRA’s political wing. The appointment was initially denied but later admitted by the party. Sinn Fein’s President Gerry Adams claimed that Connolly was appointed without his knowledge or that of the international department of Sinn Fein, while confirming that "one of our [Sinn Fein’s] senior members asked Niall Connolly to represent the party in Cuba." When asked by Columbian authorities, Monaghan, MaCauley, and Connelly had initially insisted that they were in FARC’s semi-autonomous safe-haven as eco-tourists, but later claimed to be in Columbia to view the peace process and exchange experiences on this and the one in Northern Ireland.

    Adams denied that any training had taken place and refused to attend an April hearing into any FARC-IRA connection, saying he did not want to prejudice the trial of the three captive Irishmen. U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said at the hearing that there had been a "quantum leap in the FARC’s terrorist proficiency on the ground and in urban warfare, which the Columbian authorities believe is attributable to IRA training." This improvement in FARC’s capabilities is apparent from the huge expansion in attacks in the past 18 months that has left 400 Columbian Army and police personnel dead. The attacks saw a shift to economic and urban targets as well as the increased use of car bombs — a development that has caused the death of 10 percent of the country’s bomb disposal experts since January. Columbian forces have also been increasingly targeted by ‘secondary devices’ — explosive devices used to ambush anyone responding to other, more apparent bomb threats. Longer range mobile mortars such as those pioneered by Monaghan have also recently become a new weapon in the FARC arsenal. Such strategy, tactics, and equipment bear remarkable similarities to those used by the IRA, greatly heightening the suspicion that Monaghan, McCauley, and Connolly were in Columbia for reasons other than eco-tourism or an exchange of experience on peace negotiations. Moreover, indications that the IRA retains international links with other terrorist groups do not stop in Columbia.

    FARC, ETA, IRA, Cuba - that is not an axis the left in the US likes to look at, but it is one that gets hundreds killed in Latin America and further as IRA training spreads outwards via the cross-training that happens with other groups like the PLO and Red Factions. The report goes on to link the IRA and PLO via bomb type and training necessary to utilize such weapons effectively:

    Moreover, Sinn Fein has weathered the risk of damaging it levels of support in the United States before, such as when Adams visited Cuba last December. British intelligence claim that the IRA may have earned as much as $2 million for training FARC, perhaps a conservative estimate as the Columbian terrorist group’s annual income from illicit drugs sales is estimated at $1 billion. Such financial incentive may have convinced the IRA that training FARC was worth the risk, especially if reports from Russia’s intelligence services that the Irish group has recently purchased a shipment of the new AN-94 assault rifle prove true. Such armaments do not come cheap, especially if undertaken while decommissioning selected stockpiles of existing weapons. Moreover, the FARC-held region of Columbia offers the IRA an unsurpassed training area to perfect its own weapons and tactics. This is more vital than ever now that the political expediencies of the Northern Ireland peace process effectively put the IRA's historical training areas in the Irish Republic out of bounds. The risk of the Irish authorities discovering that the IRA are engaged in terrorist training while ostensibly observing a ceasefire outweigh the benefits of the organization's engaging in such activities. Using Columbia as a testing ground carries far less risk. It is also possible that the IRA may simply have become overconfident that the support they enjoyed in America was something they could depend on whatever the case may be. Sept. 11 may have changed that forever.

    Even as the IRA found itself having to cope with peace accords, it had assumed a general posture of being ready to start up again. Those last few years before 9/11 allowed the organization to utilize its contact web and cross-train with other organizations even as some of its main funding sources would start to dry up in the US after 9/11. The IRA may fade, but its skills and tactics will live on in other organizations, of which FARC is just one.

    Cuba

    As seen in the PLO section, they could not have made all of the contacts they did make without the help of Cuba. Revolutionary Cuba would be a center of instability for Latin America as Fidel Castro would seek to export revolution and terrorism across the region and into places like the Angolan civil war for the USSR. This has been long standing policy of Cuba since early on as seen in the article Monster by Humberto Fontova in the 15 JUL 2005 FrontPageMag:

    Castro had only been in power two months when he started sending armed guerrillas to attempt the overthrow of neighboring nations. The Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela were the early targets. In fact Castro's very first trip abroad as head of state was to Caracas where on January 25th, 1959 he implored then Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt to join his "master plan against the gringos!" Basically this involved massive loans, financial aid and shipments of free oil to Castro from Venezuela. Betancourt balked and no sooner had Castro returned home empty handed than he was planning subversion in Venezuela, including assassination attempts against Betancourt.

    It took Hugo Chavez to finally enlist with Castro's plan. In 2004 Cuba got 1.3 billion in essentially free oil from Venezuela. By mid 2005, 160,000 barrels of oil were flowing from Venezuela to Cuba daily. This is much more oil than Cuba's refineries can process, because most of this oil is resold to Central American nations by Cuba, who pockets the handsome profit. Here's the second half of the "master plan against the gringo's." that Castro had originally proposed to Romulo Betancourt.

    Castro's subversion, not just of his neighbors, but throughout Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, reached a point where a U.S. defense Department estimates that 42,000 foreign guerrillas and terrorists have received their training in Cuba. Not that Castro's own home-grown terrorists have been exactly idle.

    [..]

    In 1966 Havana hosted the Tri-Continental Conference, a worldwide convention for guerrillas and terrorists; the first of its kind, where Castro vowed to aid any group anywhere who were fighting "colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism."

    Among other initiatives at the Conference, Cuba formed OSPAAAL (Organization of Solidarity with the People from Africa, Asia and Latin America.) and the DLN (National Liberation Directorate.) This later was under the direction of KGB Col. Vadim Kotchergine and set up massive terrorist training camps in western Cuba. These were soon filled with guerrillas and terrorists from Al Fatah, to the Sandinistas, to El Salvador's FMLF, to the Tupamaros to the Weather Underground to the IRA and Spain's ETA. In 1968 Castro sent military instructors into Palestinian bases in Jordan to train Palestinian Fedayeen. In November 1974 Castro personally decorated his brother-in-arms, Yasir Arafat, with Cuba's highest honor, the Bay of Pigs Medal. The Egyptian newspaper Ahar Sa'ah reported in September 13, 1978 that 500 Palestinian fighters were training in Cuba.

    Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the infamous "Carlos The Jackal" known as the world's most notorious terrorist throughout the 1970's received his training in Cuba and lived in Cuba for years. Everyone from America's Black Liberation Army to Puerto Rico's Macheteros, to South Yemen's NLF, to Argentina's Monteneros, to Colombia's ELN , to Namibia's SWAPO, to the Black Panthers, To Western Sahara's Polisaro to the IRA have received training and funding from Castro. "Thanks to Castro" boasted Colombia's FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) commander Tiro-Fijo in a 2001 interview, "we are now a powerful army, not a hit and run band."

    Scholar Walter Laquer sums it up in his work, The Age of Terrorism. "Multinational terrorism reached a first climax in the early 1970s. It involved close co-operation between small terrorist groups in many countries with the Libyans, Algerians, Syrians, North Koreans and Cubans acting as the paymasters and suppliers of weapons and equipment."

    The U.S. State department still lists Cuba prominently among its, "State Sponsors of Terrorism."

    As of mid 2005 Cuba provides haven for 77 fugitives from U.S. law including several on the FBI's most wanted listed. Among these are cop-killers Michael Finney, Charlie Hill and Joanne Chesimard along with Victor Gerena, responsible for a $7 million heist of a Wells Fargo truck in Connecticut in 1983 as a member of the Puerto Rican terrorist group Los Macheteros. All requests for their extradition had been repeatedly ignored or rebuffed.

    By 1976 Castro's intervention abroad became more blatant when he sent tens of thousands of troops to Africa. Most, 50,000, went to fight Jonas Savimbi's UNITA forces in Angola. Thousands more went to prop up the Marxist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia. And others were scattered throughout the continent from Guinea Bissau to Bourkina Fasso to Sierra Leone to Mozambique to Zimbabwe. All told, by 1983, Cuban troops were stationed in 20 sub-Saharan African nations. In 1988 Dr. Aubin Heyndrickx, the senior United Nations consultant on chemical warfare, documented that : "There is no doubt anymore that the Cubans are using nerve gases (Sarin) against the troops of Mr. Jonas Savimbi."

    [..]

    "Together Iran and Cuba can bring America to her knees!" raved Castro to a thunderous ovation at Tehran University in August 2001.

    "Iran is strengthening her economic and political relations with Cuba, and there exist other areas for cooperation." Declared Iranian Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel in a meeting with the visiting Cuban Vice President, Jose Ramon Fernandez, on January 16, 2005.

    For those who don't remember the Cold War or want to forget it, there were points when it appeared that the Cuba sponsorship of terrorism on a global basis seemed to be wagging the Soviet dog: Fidel Castro got involved in nearly any conflict so long as it met his less than stringent guidelines and the USSR could do little to stop him. Even today, as seen by the testimony of Nancy Menges, Luis Fleischman and Nicole Ferrand submitted to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 05 MAR 2008, Raul Castro has evidenced little in the way of external change even as his brother Fidel is ailing. That lifeline provided by Hugo Chavez is about the only thing keeping Cuba's regime afloat these days. That and any income they garner through terrorist training.

    FARC was one of many groups to Castro, as it was to the IRA, PLO and Libya: as long as it was 'anti-imperialist' or 'marxist' it got a free pass in the world of leftist terrorism and continues to get support from the left end of the spectrum even after it has turned into little more than a mafia organization with slogans of glamour.

    And it is that narcotics part that fuels FARC, according to the House International Relations Committee (Source: WND 07 MAY 2002 article by Toby Westerman), to the tune of $2 million.

    A day.

    In 2002.

    And that is most likely on the conservative/low-side, as $1 billion annually comes out to a bit more than that, about $2.7 million/day.

    Tri-Border Area of South America

    The TBA is one of the most problematical of areas in South America as it is generally regarded as lawless and ungovernable between Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. The TBA has seen activity all through the 1970's and early 1980's, but by the late 1980's the regime of Carlos Menem in Argentina would change the amount of activity and type of it. This would be due to the interest by Syria in supporting the Menem regime to get long range missile technology and a nuclear power plant from Argentina (Source: Limits to Governability, Corruption and Transnational Terrorism by Carlos Escude and Beatriz Gurevich in ESTUDIOS INTERDISCIPLINARIOS DE AMERICA, LATINA Y EL CARIBE, VOLUMEN 14 - No.2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2003) , and their agent would be a man well used to dealing with such things: Monzer al-Kassar. Known as a dealer in illegal arms, Monzer al-Kassar's family has been involved of the Bekaa Valley heroin trade and with the Assad family which has nominal control over the Bekaa valley drug trad via Rifat Assad. That as seen by Anthony LoBaido in a WND piece in 30 JUL 2000 traveling through the Baalbeck valley, Monzer al-Kassar serves as an interface between the drug syndicates run by Syria and multiple operations, including ones linked to the US DEA. The Bekaa is central to the Hezbollah training operations not only for itself but for diverse terrorist organizations like the Japanese Red Army, Aum Shinrikyo, PKK and Ganesh. This points to not only tolerance but open acceptance of non-Islamic terrorist organizations on a global scale. Additionally al-Kassar is a distant cousin to Carlos Menem, so family and power ties, along with contacts made during the Iran/Contra arms deals served to give al-Kassar a ready entree into S. America (Source: translated open letter to Dr. Kirchner by Christian Sanz and Fernando Paolella). An Insight on the News article by Ydidya Atlas on 30 AUG 1993 documents that al-Kassar was already well established with multiple terrorist organizations:

    The Schumet report notes that three-quarters of the 40,000 Syrian military, intelligence and security personnel in Lebanon are stationed in the Bekaa Valley. Their "peacekeeping" duties appear to include extortion of protection payments from drug growers and processors, collecting bribes at Syrian army roadblocks and ports, and providing transportation of drugs on army trucks, helicopters and even naval vessels to dealers who pay off top Syrian officials.

    Most U.S. officials still deny knowledge of any involvement by Syria in the drug trade and appear hesitant to act on solid evidence of such involvement. The matter of Monser al-Kassar is a case in point. The subcommittee report relates that the Kassar family has been affiliated with the Assad regime since the Syrian dictator took power in 1970. Moreover, the Kassars "control one of the world's largest arms and narcotics networks.... [They) provide governments with access to arms and equipment through irregular channels, [which] allows them to do business with high-level government officials who wish to deal off-the-record' with terrorists or other politically-sensitive groups."

    Monser al-Kassar seems to be untouchable, even though he is "one of the most-watched individuals by the DEA and CIA" and was linked in a 1987 State Department report to the Palestine Liberation Army, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-General Command, Nayef Hawatmeh's Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Front's Abu Abbas (who organized the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro), to name just a few.

    Kassar, listed among the DEA's most-wanted criminals, was arrested at the Madrid airport on June 4, 1992, and charged with involvement in international terrorism, illegal possession of weapons and falsification of documents.

    In the mid-1980s, Kassar was involved in shipping arms to the Nicaraguan Contras and to Iran on behalf of independent elements in the National Security Council, then headed by Adm. John Poindexter. During the congressional Iran-Contra hearings, Poindexter explained his dealings with Kassar by saying, "When you're buying arms on the world market ... you often have to deal with people you might not want to go to dinner with."

    [..]

    Western intelligence sources estimate that Syria's combined direct and indirect income from drug dealing is as much as $1 billion, or 10 percent of Syria's annual gross domestic product. This figure includes only government income, and doesn't include what could be billions raked in privately by Syria's ruling elite.

    [..]

    So, taking advantage of American policy illusions similar to those during the Brezhnev era, Syria continues to sponsor and control international terrorist groups operating from Syria and Syrian-controlled Lebanon. These include a variety of Palestinian organizations, from Abu Musa's Fatah Revolutionary Movement to Jibril's PFLP-GC; Lebanese factions; the Kurdish separatist group PKK, or Kurdish Workers Party; the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia; the separatist Basque Land and Liberty, or ETA; and others.

    (ETA terrorist experts were dispatched by Syria from the Talbaya and al-Marj camps in the Bekaa Valley to South America to teach terrorist tactics as part of the agreements Syria made with the drug cartel. This came after a meeting in Larnaca, Cyprus, in 1988 between senior Syrian military and intelligence figures and Pablo Escobar of the Medellin drug cartel. Western intelligence agents filmed Escobar meeting with an employee of Assad's nephew on a hotel veranda.)

    Monzer al-Kassar, then, in Argentina was establishing far more than just commercial contacts with the Menem regime: he was also making connections between the Syrian narcotics syndicates and the Medellin (and later Cali) drug cartels to start exchanging heroin for cocaine for market diversification in Europe. In a MAY 2002 Library of Congress report A Global Overview of Narcotics Funded Terrorist and Other Extremist Groups examined the role of Monzer al-Kassar in the Israeli Embassy and AMIA Jewish Cultural Center bombings in Argentina:

    In the first half of the 1990s, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the Triborder Region carried out two major terrorist operations against the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. Islamic terrorists operating out of the Triborder Region leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires with a powerful bomb on March 17, 1992, killing 29 people and wounding 252. The bombing was allegedly carried out by Hizballah and coordinated by terrorist mastermind Imad Mughanniyah (hereafter, Mugniyah) (alias ‘Hajji’), the official in charge of Hizballah foreign operations. Using false Brazilian documents (in the name of Muce Sagy), a Syrian arms trafficker named Monzer Al Kassar was in Foz do Iguaçu to deliver explosives to the group headed by Lebanese Imad Mugniyah.41 (In 1985 Monzer Al Kassar had pretended to be a Rio de Janeiro resident selling arms to Iranian militias on the island of Cyprus.)

    On July 18, 1994, a car-bomb exploded at a Jewish cultural center, the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA), in Buenos Aires, demolishing the seven-story building and killing 84 and wounding 300 people. Mugniyah’s Islamic Jihad, one of the armed branches of the pro-Iranian Lebanese Hizballah party, is also accused of having perpetrated the attack against the AMIA. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility shortly after the attack. The Buenos Aires police gathered clues indicating that the explosives or detonators used in the 1994 AMIA bombing were taken from Foz do Iguaçu. Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency held a Hizballah cell responsible for both attacks, saying they were orchestrated by Mugniyah, in cooperation with the Iranian intelligence service (see also Venezuela). The Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires formally accused Mugniyah of providing the explosives used in the AMIA bombing. According to alleged U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources cited by

    Insight on the News magazine, Mugniyah was involved in the planning of the AMIA attack and may have parachuted into Argentina at the last minute to activate sleeper networks and handle logistics for the operation, subsequently escaping with the help of an Iranian diplomatic passport.

    Looking at a report by Alessia De Caro from Online Gnosis of JAN 2006 some of the ties between Syria, Hezbollah, Argentina and the attacks can be seen and the long term fallout for S. America examined:

    In both the attacks of Buenos Aires, the targets of Hizbollah were Israel and the Jewish community in Argentina ( circa 300.000 people), the second, in order of importance on the American continent, after that of the United States. In the case of the attack on AMIA, the investigations officially led also to Iran, allied to the Party of God, which, according to analyses by specialists in the field, had wanted to take revenge against Argentina for their unconditional adherence to North American politics.

    Other unofficial clues lead, instead, to Syria, another of Hizbollah's allies, country of origin of the then president of Argentina, Menem and of the Yoma, relatives of his wife, all very close to the family of the Syrian President, and of the known trafficker, Monzer al-Kassar. If this is the right track, besides the first Hizbollah motive of revenge, we have to consider another line of reasoning, i.e. a possible vendetta against President Menem for his failed commitment to deliver to Syria and other Middle East countries, nuclear and missile technology, in exchange for 'under the counter' funds for the electoral campaign.

    In addition, such funds seem to come not only from the Syrian government, but also from Egypt and from the Libya of Quaddhafi. The only certain information is that the authors of the Buenos Aires attacks passed through the Triple Frontier, where a numerous Islamic community of Lebanese immigrants, connected with Hizbollah, has been residing for very many years.

    The Triple frontier, zone of the borders of three countries, (Paraguay Brazil and Argentina) is the kingdom of illegality. The destination of tourists making for the Falls of the Iguazú River, is situated in a zone surrounded by forests and hosts illicit traffic of every possible denomination. The three main towns, Foz do Iguazú for Brazil, Ciudad del Este for Paraguay and Puerto Iguazú for Argentina are linked by a system of bridges. In Ciudad del Est, anything can be smuggled, from electric appliances to stolen cars, from stereos to computers.

    [..]

    Although the Party of God is strenuously employed in Lebanon in the organization of agricultural formation courses, in an attempt to face the re-conversion of the hashish and poppy plantations, prohibited by the Lebanese State, in 1992, Hizbollah has never concerned itself with the illegal ways in which its members have procured the funds to sustain the organization. On the contrary, the drug trafficking profits, which arrive from Latin America, have always been used to solve the social problems of the Lebanese people, in order to win consensus in the country.

    Affiliates and cells of Hizbollah are also active in Colombia and Venezuela; the weak governments of these areas and the loose and often uncontrolled borders, have favoured such a phenomenon.

    Furthermore, the diffused narcoterrorism in that region is due to the liaison between Hizbollah and the local opposition terrorist groups such as, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

    In the wake of the Hizbollah-Columbian example, links with the 'Sendero Luminoso', in Peru, have also been created.

    The anti-American ideology, common to these organizations and, above all, the interest in smuggling and other illegal activities to accumulate funds have, substantially, united these different groups.

    The level of cooperation between Hizbollah and these groups is still not clear even though it is important to note that in January of 2004, on the occasion of an exchange of prisoners between the Israeli authorities and Hizbollah, Ali Biro was freed: he was a Hizbollah militant and one of the most renowned Middle East drug traffickers connected with FARC.

    With regard to the implications of Hizbollah in drug trafficking, one of the most recent arrests in this field, was made by the Paraguayan police in May, 2003. The man arrested was Hassan Dayub, while he was trying to send to Syria, an electric pianola, filled with cocaine. Dayub is a relative of the already mentioned Assad Barakat.

    [..]

    In Latin America, Hizbollah could supply ever increasing logistic and financial support, not only to Al Qaeda, but also to local groups and extend the terrorist targets from the national interests to western and American interests within and outside of South America.

    Furthermore, the question of financing could become increasingly difficult to extricate: now that Hizbollah is a majority party in Lebanon, many people – and not only the Arabs – would see nothing wrong in financing a party that has done and does so much good "for the needy people of Lebanon". It will always be more difficult to discern which financing is legal and which is not.

    This hypothesis is not advanced haphazardly. With the support of Iran, Hizbollah could start, through local groups, if it hasn't already, to set up in Latin America, the same strategy used in Lebanon to gain popular consensus, by providing for the citizens those things that a weak government has not been able to provide. There are numerous people in Latin America who describe Hizbollah as a "provider of welfare to the needy citizens and defender of the Lebanese rights against Israeli aggression".

    Realizing the danger and in an attempt to stem the swelling consensus for the Party of God, the Spanish Government, in the wake of what had been done in France, closed down, at the end of June this year, the Hizbollah television channel al-Manar, which was transmitted to Latin America. The satellite TV company, Hispasat, through which Al Manar was transmitted is, in fact, controlled by the Spanish Government.

    The previous government in Colombia, in an attempt to open a series of negotiations with FARC, had ceded to them the formal control of a strip of territory, permitting, in addition, foreign governments to furnish economic assistance to the area in question. Iran, the principle financier of Hizbollah was included in the list of foreign countries permitted to operate in the FARC controlled area and, therefore, it naturally supported the Hizbollah organization.

    In the Summer of 2001, the Colombian magistracy determined a scenario of international terrorist link-ups, among which was not only a stable cooperation between FARC, ETA, IRA and a foreign legion of more than 200 terrorists of 18 different nationalities, but also Hizbollah.

    At a summit meeting at Cartagena de Indias in Columbia, in October 2003, the news of a regular alliance between FARC and Al Qaeda was announced by Gordon Thomas, Irish expert of terrorism and the secret services.

    Thomas spoke again on the theme, in the Columbian weekly, El Espectador, referring to the possible cooperation between Islamic extremist groups and local groups, and after the Madrid massacre of the 11th March, 2004, he accused Al Qaeda. According to Thomas, the ETA did not have the capacity to realize attacks of this nature, unless they had been helped, organized and financed by the Bin Laden organization.

    Moreover, arms supplies continue to arrive in the Latin American continent. The US are very worried by the news of the signing, in March of this year in Caracas, of about 20 cooperation treaties between Iran and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regime, together with an agreement, ratified with Russia at the beginning of April, regarding the supply of 100 thousand Kalashnikov AK-47.

    In addition, there is ever increasing talk about dormant cells of Islamic terrorist groups in other Latin American countries like, for example, the Venezuelan Island, Margarita, at Trinidad and Tobago.

    Over the last months, in Haiti, members of an Islamic group, which appears to have ties with Al Qaeda, have provided instruction in the use of arms and explosives to a pro-Aristide gang, at the same time trying to convert the gang members to Islam.

    In the Dominican Republic, two radical groups seeking technical and financial support, seem to have established contacts with Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda appears to have had ties in the country of Nicaragua for some time, and it is believed that it is now pushing groups to undertake terrorist attacks against the government.

    According to what the German newspaper, "Der Spiegel" published in June of this year, in the south of Mexico, a veritable conversion to Islam activity is underway, conducted by many Moslems of "doubtful origins", who have carried out an activity of proselytism and have already recruited hundreds of Maya natives.

    This brings up the importance of not only the FARC controlled area of Colombia, but the ability of multiple terrorist organizations to operate out of the TBA. The connections to FARC, being the dominant S. American terrorist organization, becomes an operational necessity not only so as not to cross them, but to actually get in on the narcotics and other illegal trades going on in the region (such as the emerald gangs). Not only was the PLO active in the early to mid 1980's, but so was the Syrian agent al-Kassar in his contacts with Menem and that would extend into the early 1990's as he introduced more active cells of Hezbollah into the region. These connections were firmed up in the Limits of Governability article above, to establish an official Menem cover-up with regards to al-Kassar and, in particular, his agents at the International Airport and his contacts in the Argentinean military and armaments companies. In an article on Politics, Arms and the drugs trade at SudNord News, the Menem-Pinochet connection would be examined and the necessity to remove those traces so as not to implicate the Menem regime in the expansion of Hezbollah in the region. This would also implicate Citibank of New York and Republica Bank in money laundering operations surrounding the events of 1992 and 1994. A later report at the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Vol. 2 No. 3 would also indicate the direct linkages between al-Kassar and the bombings, as being reported on in 2000.

    FARC operating in this environment garners international connections to Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the extended narcotics and money laundering networks of the Syrians to support far-flung operations. Additionally the experience available from the al-Kassar family gives FARC the ability to cultivate and refine opium, thus creating an indigenous supply system for their own narcotics network.

    Hezbollah

    The Iranian support for the export of Hezbollah operations and training areas has multiple venues, most are relatively indirect but there is one direct venue that Iran utilizes on the commercial side: meat packing. Iran tends to ship out entire meat packing organizations wherever it is standing up Hezbollah operations and that has given pause to some governments when such a thing is proposed. In this case it is Colombia that started to realize something was going awry, as seen in this RFE/RL 1999 report at the Globalsecurity document archive:

    IRANIANS OUT OF COLOMBIA. The Iranian embassy in Bogota announced on 22 December that Tehran has suspended construction of a meat-packing plant and slaughterhouse in Colombia's Demilitarized Zone, according to Spain's official EFE press agency. The embassy explained what is behind this decision: "incorrect interpretations of some authorities of the Government of Colombia" which "have created conditions in which there could not be any guarantees for the security of the investment." The Iranian Embassy would not be more specific about these "incorrect interpretations."

    Colombian Defense Minister Luis Fernando Ramirez had expressed concern at the end of November that Iranian military advisers were part of the group installing the slaughterhouse, and these Iranians were somehow connected with the leftist and anti-U.S. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which controls the DMZ. The Iranians' refusal to permit inspection of their personal effects had raised suspicions among Colombian authorities, AFP reported on 27 November. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi had dismissed Ramirez's comments, IRNA reported on 30 November.

    [..]

    Visbal also wondered why there was such a rush to conclude an agreement, when other negotiations had lasted for two years. According to Ambassador Hussein Sheikh Zein-ed-Din, that area was chosen because Iran wants to contribute to the Colombian peace process.

    Iranian interest in that immediate region may be linked with the narcotics trade and the FARC. The FARC has extensive ties to narcotics traffickers, "principally through the provision of armed protection for coca and poppy cultivation and narcotics production facilities, as well as through attacks on government narcotics eradication efforts," according to the U.S. State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism." There also may a connection between the FARC and Hizballah groups that allegedly operate in the region between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay.

    The timing of the Iranian announcement that it is withdrawing from the Colombian meat-packing project is suspicious. On 22 December, the same day that Iran said it was pulling out of the project, security officials in Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina were visiting people they believe are linked with Hizballah and Hamas. The authorities suspected that terrorist acts were planned in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; Foz de Yguazu, Brazil; and Puerto Yguazu, Argentina; according to Asuncion's ABC Color. Among the people the authorities visited was a suspected member of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. (Bill Samii)

    That is the TBA for those locations, so having Iranians visiting folks there when pulling out of a commercial project linked to FARC is not what one would call 'auspicious'. It was in this same time period that Colombia was closing in on Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel. Steven Monblatt writing for the OAS ezine in Vol. IV, No.2 - FEB/MAR 2004 on Terrorism and Drugs in the Americas, examines the fall of the Medellin Drug Cartel and the rise of FARC to encompass the entire drug operation from farming to distribution. From that he looks at the Hezbollah based drug operations as they have been seen in S. America:

    Hezbollah’s drug connections are also not widely discussed, and probably not well known. Officials in several countries have documented complicated trade patterns involving illicit shipments of coca paste through the Tri-border region to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, the center of Hezbollah’s influence. For example, in May 2003 Paraguayan police arrested Hassan Dayoub while he was preparing to ship an electric piano containing more than five pounds of cocaine to Syria.

    A brief aside: Dayoub is a relative of Assad Barakat, a well known Hezbollah fund-raiser, currently in jail in Paraguay for tax evasion. It is important to note that Paraguay does not yet have a law outlawing terrorist fund-raising. When Paraguayan police raided Barakat’s electronics store in Ciudad del Este, they seized a pile of documents, including a letter from Hezbollah acknowledging receipt of $3,535,149 from him in 2000. In later raids, the police found a letter to Barakat from Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, thanking him for contributions to a project helping the children of Hezbollah men killed fighting Israel. Police claimed they found dozens of receipts for donations to what “appeared” to be Hezbollah’s military wing. Carlos Altenburger, head of the Paraguayan police’s anti-terrorist unit, told reporters: “We believe he has sent some $50 million to Hezbollah since 1995.” Other officials have said Barakat traveled at least once a year to Lebanon, where he met Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah officials, and hosted Hezbollah visitors in the tri-border area.

    Finally, in January of this year, Israeli authorities negotiated a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah. One of the freed Hezbollah militants was Ali Biro, one of biggest drug dealers in the mid-east, who is alleged to maintain ties with the FARC. Which completes the drug/terrorism circle. The former Government of Colombia, in its attempt to bring the FARC to negotiations, ceded to the FARC formal control of a wide swath of territory, and allowed foreign governments to provide economic assistance to the region. Iran – Hezbollah’s principal financial supporter – was included in the mix of foreign entities operating in FARC-controlled areas and supporting the FARC movement. Today, Colombia exports not only cocaine but heroin from opium poppies, and poppies are not indigenous to South America, though they are found widely throughout the Middle East.

    This starts to close up the operational parts of FARC and Hezbollah, particularly on the shipping and distribution side of things via the release of Ali Biro. Hezbollah's operation, itself, while nowhere near the size of FARC, is significant in the amount of funding that is *extra* that can be sent back to Lebanon, beyond the narcotics themselves. On the other side of the equation the Free Lebanon site takes a look at the incoming drug traffic from South America circa the mid-1980's when the Cartels were the main source of narcotics and FARC worked:

    With its multiple international ramifications from Lebanon to Switzerland passing through Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy, and the United States, the Lebanese connection encompasses a large number of drug networks throughout the world, such as the Colombian cocaine mafia. The South-Americans, particularly Colombia, Bolivia, and Brazil, are also implicated in the Lebanese drug traffic. One of the simplest methods is the use of embassies located in Damascus. The Lebanese drug is dispatched to Damascus, delivered to highly qualified people in the concerned country's embassy and dispatched to that country by diplomatic mail.

    Some Lebanese implicated in the Lebanese connection the brothers Jean and Barghev Magharian, were arrested in Switzerland July 7, 1987. The two Lebanese were staying at Hotel Nova in Zurich and were known as moneychangers. The working permit of both had expired in 1985. Moreover, on November 27, 1986, three suitcases containing some 3 million dollars were discovered at the Los Angeles airport. The American investigators established that this money came from the Colombian drug traffic and was destined for the Magharian brothers. The DEA and the FBI had discovered that considerable sums of money had been transferred several times from the United States to Zurich for the two brothers. The sums dispatched amounted to one billion dollars. Part of this money formed the object of Bank transactions, while several hundreds of millions of Swiss francs were dispatched clandestinely from Turkey via Bulgaria. From Sofia, these funds reached Switzerland by airplane. It was likewise established that 30 million dollars from the sale of Colombian cocaine wound up in the hands of the Magharian brothers via California. The accrued narco-dollars were then placed into numerous bank accounts, especially in Geneva and in Tessin. The investigation brought out as well that enormous sums of money originating in Bulgaria or arriving directly from Lebanon were destined for societies located in Switzerland. On August 30, 1987, the Italian navy seized, near the coast of Bari, an old armed cargo ship carrying a Lebanese flag, the "Boustany One". On board, they discovered an anti-tank rocket launcher, a Soviet RPG, an American missile, 2kgs of heroin and 15kgs of hashish. The Italian police arrested 32 people. Among them: the directors of an import-export company, an intermediary of Canadian origin and two Italian mafiosi.

    The weapons were destined for a terrorist network operating in Europe that financed its activities thanks to the drug traffic. The boat, whose proprietor was a Greek ship-owner, could fly a Lebanese flag under the name of "Boustany One", but also an Honduras flag under the name of "Good Luck". When leaving Italy, the ship transported in its hold to Iran via Syria, anti-personal mines destined officially for Spain or Nigeria. The mines were fabricated by a company in Brescia, La Valsella Meccanoteonica, whose co-owner with FIAT was Count Ferdinando Borletti, one of the most well-known Italian industrialist.

    There are times when the simplicity of how such goods get out of close scrutiny is really flooring: just have a ship dual registered and what is illegal under one flag becomes legal under another! Still, this serves as a recognition of early contacts made in Colombia soon after the arrival of al-Kassar with Menem during the run-up to the Presidential elections in Argentina. Most sources have placed his trips to Syria in this timeframe, and al-Kassar had already made in-roads via Iran/Contra to the region, plus his utilization of a false Brazilian identity indicates some knowledge of the region.

    Hugo Chavez

    Beyond FARC there are the Hezbollah ties to the other backer of FARC: Hugo Chavez. In a Venezuela Today article of 02 SEP 2006 by Gustavo Coronel (Google Cache, will disappear), the connections between Chavez and Hezbollah are examined as he helps Hezbollah to establish a new group on the border with Colombia:

    On the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, a territory shared with Colombia, the members of the tribe of the Wayuu walk across political boundaries without restrain. They were there before Venezuela and Colombia existed and they think of themselves as a nation. Recently a disturbing group has appeared, as alien visitors, in their desert landscape: Hezbollah. The Islamic fanatics of Hezbollah are rapidly infiltrating the tribe of the Wayuu. They are indoctrinating the members of this tribe, to convert them into Islamic fanatics in charge of disseminating the terrorist message that has already created chaos, death and misery in the Middle East. The Hezbollah group invading Venezuela is doing its work openly in the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula. They are disseminating, via Internet, a strategy "to change Venezuela," including:

    • Total destruction "of the sex industry" (whatever that means),

    • Attacking the upper classes, "who are the most corrupt," all white-collar criminals and continuing the cleaning downwards,

    • Attacking corruption in government (not such a bad idea) and in the masses, both civilians and military,

    • Attacking false idols and satanic cults, as defined by them.

    The logo adorning the main page and document is an AK-47 rifle. The propaganda appearing on the Web presence of the Venezuelan subsidiary of Hezbollah talks about installing the kingdom of God in Venezuela by imposing a military-theocratic type of government, an explosive mixture similar to what already exists in Iran. It claims: "The brief enjoyment of life on earth is selfish. The other life is better for those who follow Allah." Where have we heard this before? In the leaflets that encourage the suicide missions of children and teenagers in Palestine.

    Is the Venezuelan Hezbollah for real or is just the product of pranksters with a macabre sense of humor? Available photographs suggest they are for real. This ghoulish presence in Venezuelan territory certainly deserves an immediate investigation and decisive action but the problem is that Chávez is supporting Hezbollah in the Middle East and will most probably support their criminal work in Venezuela. Would the U.N. or the OAS take note?

    There is a difference between home-grown terror groups in Colombia, like the ELN, showing up, and ones started by outside organizations finding their way into the country. The indigenous start-ups would pose a threat, but understandable from a national perspective, but an external one would need to have some kind of understanding so as not to cause friction, so the presence of a new Hezbollah franchise and getting no response from FARC indicates that high-level agreement is in place.

    Hugo Chavez is also cited as giving direct aid to FARC in The Jamestown Foundation Eurasia Daily Monitor report of 17 FEB 2005:

    There can be no doubt of Chavez's support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) or the blind eye he has turned to terrorists who seek to use Venezuela as a transit point or as a sanctuary. Indeed, he has given them Venezuelan passports so that they can travel freely around the world. Chavez also is a protege of Fidel Castro and talks regularly of organizing a Latin American counter-bloc to Washington, which he accuses, quite fantastically, of seeking to invade Venezuela.

    Chavez turned to Moscow for 40 Mi-35 helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles. Other reports state that Chavez wants to buy 50 MiG-29s, anti-tank weapons, and air defense weapons as well. While Venezuela's arsenals may be obsolete, purchases of this magnitude, plus a reputed desire to buy $5 billion in weapons from Russia, China, Ukraine, and planes from Brazil by 2010, suggest that Chavez is prey to a megalomania borne of enormous oil revenues and a desire to emulate his mentor Castro. While he certainly has grounds to fear U.S. policy, he and everyone else knows that no invasion is even remotely in the cards. Moreover, there is probably no way Venezuela could even begin to maintain -- or even operate -- this arsenal.

    Therefore both Washington and Bogota have good reason to fear that these weapons will be given to the FARC or to other terrorists operating in South America, notably Bolivia. The arms purchase is all part of Chavez's plan to create a populist or neo-Castroite counter-bloc to Washington. Such a bloc would seek to destabilize the pro-American government in Colombia and use FARC as a preferred method of doing so, no doubt with Castro's blessing and support. Indeed, Venezuela has virtually subcontracted its intelligence and domestic security forces to Cuba.

    Russia's motives are clear. Moscow aspires to dominate the Latin American arms market, register its anger with Washington, and show that it is a power to be reckoned with even if it directly supports terrorists. Nor would this be the first time that Russian-made weapons might end up with the FARC. It has never been explained how a Kilo-class submarine wound up in Colombia in 2000.

    I am pretty sure that Russian submarines just don't navigate themselves to foreign ports. As the USSR went through front-nations, such as Algeria in the 1980's, so, too, does it use reliable intermediaries today, such as Belarus. An an article in Democratic Belarus from 12 MAY 2008 shows the type of deal that Chavez was trying to work for FARC:

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez allegedly tried to arm Colombian rebels with help from Belarus, the El Pais newspaper reported Saturday, citing documents from the computer of a slain rebel leader.

    The Spanish daily quoted a February 8 e-mail from Ivan Marquez, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), saying Chavez had considered with Belarussian authorities the possibility of providing weapons to FARC.

    The e-mail was alleged to have been found in the seized computer of FARC second-in-command Raul Reyes, who was killed in March, El Pais said.

    The partially coded message mentioned someone identified only as "friend of Belarus," who El Pais identified as Victor Sheiman, secretary of the Belarus Security Council and a close associate of Alexander Lukashenko, the hardline president of the former Soviet republic.

    El Pais added that other possible arms sources for FARC, particularly ground-to-air missiles, were mentioned in computer messages, including contacts with "Australian traffickers".

    FARC Unravelling

    What is fascinating about this is that Monzer al-Kassar was caught in a sting operation last year by the US and Spain via having their agents appear to be coming from FARC. On 08 JUN 2007 the DEA put out a press release looking at the operation:

    DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy and Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced today the arrest of Monzer al Kassar, a/k/a “Abu Munawar,” a/k/a “El Taous,” an international arms dealer charged with conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) -- a designated foreign terrorist organization -- to be used to kill Americans in Colombia.

    Kassar, along with co-defendants Tareq Mousa al Ghazi and Luis Felipe Moreno-Godoy were arrested yesterday as they prepared to finalize the multimillion-dollar transaction to pay for the weapons. Kassar was arrested on the U.S. charges by Spanish authorities in Madrid; simultaneously Ghazi and Moreno-Godoy were arrested in Romania.

    [..]

    Between February 2006 and May 2007, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars worth of weapons + - including thousands of machine guns, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs), and surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs). During a series of recorded telephone calls, emails, and in-person meetings, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources (CS) working with the DEA, who represented that they were acquiring these weapons for the FARC, with the specific understanding that the weapons were to be used to attack United States helicopters in Colombia.

    During their consensually recorded meetings, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy provided the CSs with, among other things: (1) a schematic of the vessel to be used to transport the weapons; (2) specifications for the SAMs they agreed to sell to the FARC; and (3) bank accounts in Spain and Lebanon that were ultimately used to conceal more than $400,000 from DEA undercover accounts that the CSs represented, and Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy believed, were FARC drug proceeds for the weapons deal. During their meetings with the CSs, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy reviewed Nicaraguan end-user certificates that were used to make the weapons deal appear legitimate. Kassar also promised to provide the FARC with ton-quantities of C4 explosives, as well as expert trainers from Lebanon to teach the FARC how to effectively use C4 and improvised explosive devices (commonly referred to as "IEDs"). In addition, Kassar offered to send a thousand men to fight with the FARC against United States military officers in Colombia.

    Part of Counter-Insurgency operations is to penetrate insurgent networks and utilize them to further erode the support of the insurgents. This is normally done in a direct fashion, against the insurgents themselves, but going after their direct supporters is also a good way to erode operational capability and morale of insurgents. In this case a relatively high level operative was either compromised or identified via other means and reasonable substitute put in his place. One doesn't gain entry to such organizations as al-Kassar's without some positive validation from known sources as the organized crime and terrorist networks are inherently trust-based. For the US and Spain to operate such a high level sting operation requires just such a compromise of the trust network between FARC and one of its suppliers.

    Another FARC arms supplier, Victor Bout, went down in a similar operation in Thailand, as reported by Polonia Today on 20 MAR 2008:

    "Officially, Bout fell into a trap arranged by American special services. But, in fact, he had been ‘pointed for a shot’ in Thailand by the FSB (the Russian Security Service). At the same time, FSB agents were hurriedly liquidating his base in Bulgaria." [From another source, AIA: "The old ties have come into the limelight this week for another reason: Russian arms trader Victor Bout, who supposedly had excellent contacts to the Soviet and later to the Russian secret service, had delivered a load of weapons worth several hundred million dollars to Bulgaria just before he was arrested on March 6."] "According to the official version, Bout, looked for in the whole world, fell into the hands of the Thai special services and was arrested with his accomplice, Andrew Smulian, when he tried to strike a deal to sell weapons to the Colombian FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia]. But there is also another, closer to the truth version of Major Bout’s giveaway. Somebody in the Kremlin has decided to wind up a protective umbrella over the most wanted international criminals. Mogilevich and Bout, used before in many actions, became useless ballast to the new ‘tsarevich’— Medvedev [Putin’s successor]."

    [..]

    Later on, Bout fled to Moscow because the FBI, the Interpol and many Western secret services were hunting him everywhere. Why would he allow himself take a great risk and go to Thailand to make a deal with the (alleged) Colombian FARC guerillas?

    The answer could be found in a most recent report, published by Bruce Falconer on March 18, 2008, and entitled "Victor Bout’s Last Deal": "The decision to use the FARC to target Bout’s operation was not without precedent. In 2006, the same DEA unit nabbed Syrian arms dealer Monzer al-Kassar, the so-called ‘Prince of Marbella,’ at Madrid’s international airport after ensnaring him in a bogus multimillion-dollar deal to supply weapons and explosives to the FARC. Al-Kassar remains in a Spanish jail, awaiting extradition to the United States. The sting that put him there was almost identical to the one that would later snag Bout. How could the Russian, renowned for the care he took in ensuring his own security, have fallen for the same trick? In Bout’s case, another factor may have come into play, namely that the FARC really was trying to acquire the types of weapons and equipment he was known to provide."

    But even if Bout had some good reasons to sell Bulgarian IGLA missiles and other weapons to the FARC, "immediately available" at his stores in Burgas and Plovdiv, why his Russian intelligence protectors (and business partners) did not avert him from a possible trap in Bangkok? The only logical answer is the following: his high Kremlin protectors wanted to "dump" him. And they really did that with the help of the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

    Again, the DEA is at least actively utilizing its knowledge base even if the motivator was forces in Moscow needing to have Bout taken out of circulation. Either way you cut it, Bout had either grown lazy or over-confident and was picked up by a *second* sting operation to get the exact, same type of weapons that al-Kassar was supposed to get.

    Today FARC is at the pointed end of Plan Colombia, which is a COIN operation between the US and Colombia, along with other S. American countries, to slowly shut down FARC's capabilities and dissolve its operational base out from under it. In many ways this is near classical COIN on the '8-10 year half-life' as FARC (unlike al Qaeda or JaM in Iraq) is horrifically well financed and supported by multiple external organizations. That said having Raul Reyes go down in a way that yielded up significant operational data to law enforcement is a hard blow to take, along with the ability of the DEA to utilize some form of knowledge base to undermine FARC supporters overseas. With al-Kassar and Bout taken out, however, the ability to use whatever information they have on FARC will probably diminish as other suppliers look to get direct assurances from FARC leadership on any deals. That does, of course, leave them exposed if those communication channels are compromised...

    I will wrap this portion of the FARC Connections at that. There is much more material to present on FARC's influence outside of Colombia, but this covers the major external supporters from early on in FARC's history to the present.

    Sphere: Related Content

    13 May 2008

    Free Land: Olaf's landings

    From the Greenland of Eric who had been Red and now Three Lands, given to the peoples there and Lief given head status for his family that remained, Olaf who we call Navigator ensured that Eric's family was provisioned before getting from Lief those things that Eric had ordered for Olaf. Lief understood that new lands require the starting seed and animals, and would not deny Eric his wealth after given portion of it to prosper for the family.

    With that Olaf went to Iceland and met with the villages there to haggle and wheedle and bargain and start the tale of Free Land in old lands, where man and family were welcome so long as each did their share to support them all. The discord amongst the families that caused Eric to leave his second home was still beneath the surface of the stormy seas, and there was discontent that brewed to reflect the far-off problems of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The story of a land free of those troubled and troublesome Kings brought some interest, as well as the tales of forest grown straight, tall and deep.

    From his first trade post Olaf sought those who had brought the Iceland horses, along with other cattle, to be assured, and no small part of Eric's wealth went to same. More puzzling were the other things that Olaf bought from empty barrels to full forge hearth: truly the needs of Free Land were apparent and the spending by Olaf bespoke of that and yet of assurances of future, too. Yet, in each, the story of Eric who had been Red and now of Three Lands spoke truly - he had taken stand against all intimidation and started anew for well and true.

    To Eire went Olaf next, on minor trades and story telling, giving his crews time ashore to ensure that lesser needs would be seen to later in the voyage. Olaf said he would not Race the Spring and would let Things pass if need be to make the certain route that he wanted in full. As with Iceland it was three landfalls in the land of Eire and Celts, who lived uneasily seeing the eastern Vikings bringing troubles west. With Olaf they knew the Navigator had set a course by determination in his eye, even though he would tell none what that was.

    On to England and those lands being harried by Sweyn Forkbeard searching for conquest of them, although he had yet to begin in earnest. These English had no over love of Vikings, even when some towns had even prospered from Viking trade and many had descended from them. Still Olaf went northways after first landfall in western Dalriada and then to Alba or Scotland as it would be called and then down from north to make trade at York, and the bustling town welcomed this well known traveler, navigator and trader. While that be England proper, the Viking heritage was strong and the stories spread of the Free Land and Eric and the natives who were not intimidating but skilled huntsmen one and all. As all knew a full Frankish Knight could fall easy prey in hunter's woods to those with bare knife and short bow.

    There it was that Olaf spent time with Uhtred, Earl of York in Northumbria. That was the time when the Danes and allies made war with Ethelred II of Own Counsel, who waged poor defense and impoverished his people paying Danegeld even then. Uhtred was not a happy man seeing Thored's daughter married to one so incapable as Ethelred, who could not pick nor choose nor defend, but only impoverish and complain. With the power of King Sweyn on the rise as was that by Olaf Tryggvason and Thorkell the Tall, Uhtred looked at his prosperous city and enclave threatened at every turn by fighting, ransom and taxes for Danegeld.

    It was then that the proposition came to ensure Uhtred's line, family and those willing to risk uncertain building with certain conflict. There would be no ease, of that there could be certainty, by the trail given by Olaf was certain and had ending that was good and free of this conflict. Uhtred understood that no one was to be impressed, no man given to obeisance to any credo save hearth, home and community. He had heard the first tales of Eric's leaving and now his success and need for support would come from that place called York. Such decision did not seem over much when made, but it would change Kingdoms long after it was sealed.

    From there it was to Sweyn Forkbeard in Denmark and first of the three leaders of that time. The Thing had ended but many of the royal supporters of Sweyn had stayed on with him to cast their gleaming eye westward to England and plan yet another series of harrying raids. It was at that conclave that Olaf came to be heard by Sweyn in his Great Hall with those royal followers that the decision of the Two Packages would be given. Two large sacks were placed in front of Sweyn for all to see.

    Sweyn had asked - 'Is this tribute from the Red Handed one?'

    Olaf gave reply - 'No King Sweyn, this is from Eric Three Land and casting fates with the Norns.'

    Taken aback Sweyn narrowed eyes - 'Threat, then? From one so far away?'

    Olaf smiled - 'No King, fates are held in here: yours, mine, Kingdoms. From that I give you direct from Eric of Three Lands.'

    Sweyn cocked his head to look at the sacks - 'Fates, you say? Two sacks hold such fates to be decided?'

    'Has it never been that way, King Sweyn? Where the course of decisions made early on direct what you do for years and years onwards and even beyond your life?'

    The royals around him nodded and smiled, as did King Sweyn, for had his own rebellious youth and decisions then not have him now looking outwards to England?

    'Hard truth has he learned this one once Red now of Three Lands. Cast me Viking fates, Olaf, so that those here will know what is to be decided.'

    Olaf opened the first sack, and from it tumbled short planks of wood, pelt of strange animal, small cask of salted fish, and lump of bog iron.

    'Here, King Sweyn, is the lumber of ships, the huntsmen's trappings, the fisherman's life and the means to protect them.'

    'Most are unworked, are they not? Of no use to me.'

    'You are true, King Sweyn, yet Three Lands is far, far longer to go than England or Iceland or Greenland, twice that trek to Greenland gets you there.'

    King Sweyn furrowed his brow, then light behind the eyes took hold. 'You have been to York, have you not?'

    'I have, King Sweyn, and talked with Uhtred there. Although these were not presented to him as Earl, he understands his duty to his people in giving route out from bloodshed.'

    A murmur from the royals there around King Sweyn Forkbeard, and slanting glances to them and slight nods.

    'And you have been to Alba now Scotland and Dalriada, too?'

    'Oh, yes, King Sweyn, and three ports in Eire ways and three ports in Iceland before that. Those Picts and Celts of Gaelic ways and Scots all see what is coming under Ethelred Own Counsel who makes poor counsel unto himself.'

    The murmurs stirred, heads now nodding, for what was being offered in this was plain to them all, and bespoke of doom to Ethelred.

    'What is in the second sack, Olaf, for it is clear that fates are here, indeed.'

    'That is the opposite sack which you had best open to understand, King Sweyn.'

    Impulsive, King Sweyn stood and took knife to sack and found tied skin beneath it.

    'What's this?'

    'From Erik who you once called Red, now of Three Lands. Made for you if you decide against the first sack, but yours to keep in the days to come no matter what the decision is.'

    Carefully King Sweyn opened the the thick tied skin and it opened out to contents to be way of: the skin itself was worked Bear Skin into Shirt, within that fur contents was a banner of white with dead raven stabbed through affixed to it.

    'Ah, yes, I should have realized, Olaf. Bear Shirt, Raven Banner, Knife.'

    'Eric said to me and now I give to you: If you come with sword best wear the shirt to Free Land, but they are handy in other lands just the same; the Bear Shirt community is welcome in community if they recognize it.'

    'I am to be plagued by Erics, obviously,' King Sweyn said as he lifted the Bear Shirt,' yet this one speaks like King, is that his claim?'

    'No, King Sweyn, Free Land wants no King, has no King, seeks no King and will be taxed by no King.'

    King Sweyn shuddered and lowered the Bear Shirt to look at Olaf, 'Then what does Free Land seek?'

    'Vikings in community no matter what their name, what their following, what their religion. All that earn their own way for themselves under Thing, as there will be nothing higher in Free Land. Never will it be a threat unless threatened, but it will be a boon to all that come with trade and community in mind. That is the Way of Viking, and fighting only when King deems or trade is spurned and fought, isn't it, King Sweyn?'

    Smiling and lifting the shirt once more, 'Plagued by Erics, I am. But more true he cannot speak, that Eric of Three Lands. What do you think Ethelred would make of it and the banner?'

    Olaf laughed and deeply as did many royals who saw the light dawning, 'I am sure that you can leave York to escape by for those seeking to not answer that question, save Ethelred who really must face it some day. He will have no refuge there nor in Scotland once Alba nor in the Pictish islands nor in Eire way, nor in Iceland nor in Greenland and only as common man in Free Land, without pretenses.'

    King Sweyn chuckled, and turned the shirt to wear it, 'Good fit, though I cannot say I fight for that, but many a Viking who do will understand,' and deep laughter and nodding went through the hall and the cry went up.

    'To Sweyn Forkbeard, King of Denmark!'

    From there the meeting went to revelry, from which Olaf took part but scantly, to show community and then left early to see to his ships and men. The dawn light saw those ships going on to deliver fates onwards and the mist blowing from the water spoke of the breath of Jörmungandr and the ever changing sea. Onwards went Olaf, as King Sweyn plotted what he had already started and now saw to it to find the best way to trap a King who had no escape. To Norway and Olaf Tryggvason who was seeking ways to establish himself and desperately looking to appease King Sweyn.

    Olaf's plight was dear and it was his driving of new religion that had reached as far out as Greenland which had triggered Eric to move to Free Land. In rejecting the primacy of Danish throne, he brought threat to Denmark, and had angered Eiríkr Hákonarson, previously from Northumbria, and forced into Swedish exile because of Olaf Tryggvason's rise. Olaf I of Norway knew full well that Eric and Sweyn plotted against him, as well as getting others to join their cause, and his own work to try and secure Northumbria had not gone as he had expected.

    As the Thing had long passed in Norway, too, so did Olaf of Free Land meet with King Olaf of Norway in his Great Hall audience. He, too, would get fates to decide on that mid-spring morning from across the sea by a man he barely knew. Olaf the Navigator placed down the sacks, and this time opened the second one first.

    'King Olaf, for bringing strife to Eric of Three Lands who was once the Red he sends you this greeting, the Bear Shirt, the Knife and Raven Banner. He has said to me and now I say to you for him: You have given strife in my home and former colony, you have brought ill-wind to me, you have not brought dignity to your beliefs that you impress upon others in any way you can; if you look westward to Free Land, best you come with these as those outlooks will get no hearing without them.'

    'Eric the Red sends me that? How dare he?'

    Olaf, Navigator, said plainly to those few in the hall, 'He dares because you have, King Olaf, and have not done well by your actions nor your words. Your blindness leads you to these things, who profess for the Prince of Peace, so know that Peace is gained by hard work and not by any other means. You do not do the hard work, and so you now must come in other means than Peace to profess those beliefs. That, too, is directly from Eric, although I have made it civil.'

    Those words were stunning to King Olaf, 'I do no hard work? I fight to secure my Kingdom!'

    'King Olaf, I have come directly from King Sweyn and left delivering two packages to him that I do to you. From those messages delivered I heard my own ears acclaim for King Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark. I have heard in my travels of your work to marry his sister, and can say that Eric of Norway and King Sweyn of Denmark have no love of you nor see legitimacy in your marrying Sweyn's sister. You are in dire peril that has brought you this sack from he who was once Red and now of Three Lands.'

    'You come directly from King Sweyn? To do his bidding?'

    'I do no King's bidding any more, King Olaf, Free Land has no King, wants no King, seeks no King and will be ruled only by the Thing. I placed my lot with Eric and am now of Three Land and represent him for this year of this Thing in Free Land. I seek safety for my new home land and community, King Olaf of Norway.'

    'You bring threats from the Bloody Handed One!'

    'No, King Olaf, I bring his reply to what you have done and sought to do. To Eric and some few of us, you have ignored the wisdom of the Danish way to let each choose for hmself, as even Sweyn, son of the Bluetooth, has done. In zeal you have lost wisdom and gained enemies. In placing good sense ahead of good works, you find a smaller circle around you that is less safe day on day. I do not bring threats, I bring consequences, King Olaf and warning not to try this any more in the Free Land.'

    'These are not my fates to decide! They are that of the One above All.'

    'As you say, King Olaf, as you say. Would you perhaps be interested in the other sack to open?'

    King Olaf sat forward and stared at Olaf, 'More threats, Navigator?'

    Olaf of Free Land smiled, 'Only you can decide that, King Olaf, but I will say that King Sweyn understood it and took it to heart.'

    Swiftly King Olaf stepped and opened the sack of wood and pelt, cask and lump of bog iron. 'No tribute?!'

    Olaf of Free Land chuckled, 'Nor any with King Sweyn, Olaf. Here is the lumber of ships, the huntsmen's trappings, the fisherman's life and the means to protect them. They are hard work to make to their proper ends, King Olaf. This is the way of Free Land: hard work to make peace and impress upon no one your beliefs. It is, as Eric has said, the way of wisdom, if you can see it, King Olaf.'

    'It is an insult!'

    Olaf the Navigator shrugged, 'Only to those who do not see the work to be done, King Olaf. We will help any that are willing to do that work. Those that do not should be with the first bundle and understand their end.'

    King Olaf furrowed his brow, 'I can take it that there will be no help for me from Free Land, then?' he said with snideness.

    'That is true, King Olaf, nor in any place upon my path from there to you.'

    King Olaf in his great hall heard silence and squinted hard eyes at the Navigator. 'Not Greenland, then, and of course not Denmark...'

    'Nor Eire way, Olaf. Nor Picts. Nor Scots in Alba now Scotland. Nor Northumbria. You are stuck with the one who takes his own counsel only, and that unwisely as you have guessed.'

    King Olaf closed his eyes and whispered, 'All against me?'

    'No, Olaf, they are not for you. You will not get help along that way as you are. This path you take is that of Peril, King Olaf, that is the message Erik of Three Lands gives to me to give to you. Stop your ways, amend your views, make peace without marriage *first* and those paths become open to you.'

    King Olaf's face hardened, 'I will not give up the task the Lord gave me, Olaf Navigator. It must be done.'

    Olaf of Three Lands closed his eyes and then opened them slowly, 'King Olaf of Norway, follow the way of the Danes and you will have other opening. Show the goodness of the second bundle and you will have your way without finding the first handed to you. I can no more plainly say it than that. Eric of Three Lands is only a threat because your ways made him so to you, if you choose other ways the threat will end and you can *still* have your say as King. That is wisdom as Eric sees it and as I see it, King Olaf.'

    'You are wrong! My people will be saved by me!'

    Olaf the Navigator slowly shook his head, 'You speak your own doom, King Olaf of Norway'.

    'So be it! I am Viking!'

    Pursing his lips, the Navigator said, 'It is as you say, though there are many that are saying that trading in souls is not the work of Kings.'

    'You accuse me...???'

    'No, King Olaf, your works speak for you.'

    Near screaming, King Olaf said, 'But I do the work of good!'

    'And have gotten the sack of Bear Shirt first while King Sweyn go the sack of wood and hard work first. That is the difference between you and him.'

    King Olaf sat back. 'What? It is not that simple...?'

    'I will take my leave of you, King Olaf. To answer that last, look to your retinue, your royal followers. When I left King Sweyn they were proclaiming him King of Denmark as he understood the bundles. Why are yours not doing the same with you after the exact, same bundles?'

    'Leave... leave I say, I will marry Sweyn's sister and that will be the end of it.'

    'My thanks, King Olaf. You are always welcome in Free Land if you are willing to do hard work and give each man his leave.'

    With that Olaf the Navigator left, knowing that he had now given one man a hard but good future and another a hard and bad one. To the third would be Olof of Sweden and Eric of Norway, who had taken refuge there to return to his native land.

    They were both in the Swedish Hall amongst the Oaks that were now free of their past. Into that Great Hall came Olaf Navigator and a cheer went up!

    'Hail Olaf of Free Land! Hail Eric of Free Land!'

    Olaf stopped at the entrance dumbfounded. 'What?' he said near silently.

    The flagons raised by nobles amongst their kin and children, this was not the scene he was expecting nor anything like it. Eric had warned him to be prepared, but nothing prepared him for this.

    King Olof raised his voice, 'Come Olaf of Free Land, Navigator of renowned, I hear my fates are to be cast by two sacks as has been done with Sweyn and Olaf of Norway, poor wretch he. Come! I fear no fates as I have made them well.'

    Olaf of Free Land hoisted his sacks anew and strode firmly into the bustling hall, 'I expected the Thing to be over when I arrived!'

    'Never,' said Olof King of Sweden, 'King Sweyn's swiftest boats were sent, one to follow you one directly to me, and once the first arrived I asked the Lawgiver to extend the Thing and he was happy to, Our Elder of Stockholm was! And the second boat,well, that was cause for celebration although they gave us only scant hours to prepare as your ship is fast and well run and damned light these days.'

    'I had expected to want to get it over and done with after delivering the sacks to you, King Olof. As Eric had explained this was going to touch off something brewing here amongst three Kings and Eric of Norway would be in the fray.'

    Then King Olof motioned over to the other man, who stood, 'This is Eric of Norway, hopefully with the way things are running, soon to be King, although that battle has yet to be fought, but it will be fought soon, very soon, weeks if not days.'

    'Hail to you, Olaf of Free Land and well met! Let me set your bundles down before the King of Sweden so we can have a proper casting of fates by them, shall we?' Eric of Norway strode forward to take the bundles by one hand and shake the Navigators with other. 'Ah, fates so weighty to you, are they not, Olaf?'

    'Far too true and half again and again, Eric of Norway. Eric in Free Lands told me that after the lightness of handing Lief his heirlooms and what went with them that this would be something I would not enjoy over much. I believe that he misled me somewhat!'

    'Aye, and more than somewhat, I wager,' said the King, watching the sacks placed before him whilst a chair and flagon were brought to the Navigator, 'Sit, really I do beg of you, no real formality save for the Lawgiver to oversee this and our families to watch. You have no fears in my Lands, Olaf of Free Land, and any who have had problems with the Law here are absolved of such from Free Land now and forever. New problems we can deal with as they arrive, but the past is over now.'

    Olaf the Navigator drank deeply. 'Good mead! I've missed that, the real honey mead aged and all, just the new stuff along with ales and such its been for years. And to you, King Olof of Sweden and to the Lawgiver of this Thing from Stockholm, my indebtedness to you and all who have had problems in past with you in Free Land, you have lifted a burden from them.'

    As Eric sat down, 'Fair is fair, really, you have shifted one that we can now lift from ourselves. Olaf of Norway really is a bit headstrong and is forcing the issue of marriage. Really, we thought that nothing would change his plodding stupidity to get his ass hoisted out of Norway to do something. Yet, Lo! Olaf of Free Land representing Eric of Three Lands has done so!' The laughter in the hall was deep and effusive, as the problem had been vexing for some time.

    The monarch rose to look at the table with the two sacks on it, 'Ah, now we come to the delightful fates! Eric had sent you, Navigator, on a mission and the actual simplicity of it has been something that I am actually fascinated in. Eric and you, had this pretty well planned out, did you not? These two fates, as you so-call them, can be presented in many ways and yet their very basic parts are what they represent. I would wager that it was you, fine Navigator, who really needed to decide the flesh upon the bones for these simple things.'

    Olaf nodded, 'I did at that King of the Swedes, for I could not be sure what the reception in each land would be to this. There is, however, unrest that Eric had remarked at before leaving for Three Lands more and I had known how deep it was across the Islands and Northlands. Even for the strange differences across these lands we have same outlook towards ourselves, which is why for all Vikings do we are remembered for ferocity and forgotten in trade-depth. In little Greenland with no real trade to speak of, Eric saw an end and no beginning, so many things came to make him move anew.'

    'So true, that is,' said Eric of Norway, 'looking even at our homelands and even the forests of England, I know that we will soon not easily hold coasts without the strength of trading further inland. That is why Jorvik, now York, is so important, and why Olaf throwing me over in my line so deadly. We will have a hard time to recover from his works as we lose trade and ferocity for it.'

    King Olof looked between the two and smiled, 'Which brings me back to the decision. Which one were you to present to me, Olaf Navigator of Free Land? Was it the trade or the strife for me to see first and be swayed by? That is a most clever trick, by-the-by, and wish I had thought of similar at other times!'

    The Navigator, indulging in short repast took a moment to answer, then smiled and looked up, 'Me to decide? But that Eric of Three Lands told me to leave up to you! He said you would know the answer at no prodding from me. No need to offer England to Sweyn, just leaving York aside in his alliance which he was already planning, I added little save to put a cork on the Self Counsel King, that would give a refuge to exhausted folk unable to pay Danegeld. Nor the simple part of letting King Olaf of Norway know that a now distant Lawgiver of Free Land had held him to account for the troubles he causes across all these lands. And if there was some urge to action he had decided upon but not enacted, well, he had already decided it, hadn't he? So no, Swede King, that is not for me to present simple things to you as you already know them.'

    'Well said, Navigator! For me then, let me heft each sack.' he lifted one, then the other, then back to the first, 'Ah, this one it is the riches of Kings and people, the foundation of which I would be bereft of all other things and my people impoverished. I would be unwise to pass that up, would I not, Lawgiver?'

    'Your Majesty, that is so, and your people hard pressed to support you if you did.'

    With a deft twist the sack of lumber, ore, fish cask and pelt opened.

    'Ah! Hard work it is, then! That is to be the lot of myself and family and my land, hard work to support ourselves, but with distant lands to help by what they can give us.' King Olof smiled and bowed his head and shook it, giving a deep sigh, 'Will no one save me from rich tedium?' Laughter deep and long rippled through the hall, for Swedes know that of hard work comes good families and deep ties to them no matter where they roam.

    'But you have given me two sacks, Navigator! Let me hold this one up again.' With that, he did so and furrowed his brow and closed one eye to gaze at it. 'This is what I must do to protect that hard work. I do not get that chore alone, either, do I, Lawgiver?'

    'No, Your Majesty, that is not yours alone as your people support you to protect them and their means of livelihood.'

    Again the twist of the sack and the Bear Shirt, Raven Banner and Knife fell out. 'As King it is not my place for the Bear Shirt, so that must be for the Lawgiver to hand out. Come Lawgiver, your task is to find those who want this to protect their homes.'

    Stepping forward the Lawgiver took the Bear Shirt from his King, 'Thank you, Your Majesty, I can find the ready defenders who will wear this.'

    'So good of you, Lawgiver. Now the Knife, well, I have many of course, but it is the tool and weapon both and also belongs to you, Lawgiver, to find for our people.'

    'Thank you, Your Majesty, I can find those in trade who need of it and who will raise it to defend themselves when need comes.'

    'The Raven Banner, that is for me, I am afraid. We do not use it here but understand it deeply. That must go with the Banners in the Hall here, for ready use if needs be, but kept safe for only those most pressing times. I will have it put up on the far end of the Hall from me, so that it reminds me to choose wisely so it is never taken down for use.'

    A cheer arose from the Hall and the hails to the King were heard over and over.

    'Now, Olaf Navigator, I bid you and your men welcome to my Lands and to stay in my home. Unfortunately Eric and I will have a long campaign season with King Sweyn as we have Norway to rescue, York to secure and Ethelred to harry. I suggest at least a three or four day stay before heading back towards Free Land, and I will think you will find some few merchants and others wanting your guidance to lead them there, too. It seems a life in new land with King's Pardon and Lawgiver's Amnesty is quite enticing to those who have caused some problems here. Far better to let that off in hard work than trouble to their home and kin.'

    Olaf nodded and smiled, 'As you say, King Olof of Swedenland, as you say. There will be a stop or two along the way, but nothing that Vikings cannot handle. A week and I will be gone.'

    And so ends Olaf's landings, amongst many lands troubled by problems near and far.

    Sphere: Related Content

    11 May 2008

    From FARC to Venezuela to...

    With the initial confirmation that the information on the computer captured by Colombia in its fight against FARC are legitimate, and INTERPOL has yet to weigh in on the data, there is one part that stands out in the Wall Street Journal report of 09 MAY 2008 by Jose de Cordoba and Jay Solomon:

    One email, apparently sent by a FARC commander known as "Timochenko" to the guerrillas' ruling body in March 2007, describes meetings with Venezuelan naval-intelligence officers who offer the FARC assistance in getting "rockets." The Venezuelans also offer to help a FARC guerrilla travel to the Middle East to learn how to use the rockets.

    Colombian military analysts believe the reference is to shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, a weapon that the guerrillas desperately need if they hope to blunt Colombia's recent gains. "The FARC realizes that its military problem is air power," says Gen. Oscar Naranjo, who heads the country's national police.

    This is one of those times where all that previous work on organized crime, international arms sales and such comes in handy! Looking up for one of the first hits on FARC and the Middle East we come to one of the very interconnected individuals in this realm: Monzer al-Kassar! This from the Kesher Talk archives of 22 MAR 2002 looking at an overseas assassination(unfortunately the UPI link is dead):

    Lebanese multimillionaire's death stirs controversy: Michael Youssef Nassar, 39, a Lebanese multimillionaire, died earlier this week in Sao Paulo in a gangland-style slaying. Police are stymied not by a lack of suspects, but rather, that there are so many. While there is some speculation that Nassar was silenced by the Israelis because of his involvement with the Lebanese Christian militia's massacres in the Palestinian Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in 1982, a report on the Lebanese Foundation for Peace Web site claims that Nassar and his wife were killed by Hezbollah. Nassar's fiscal dealings were sufficiently convoluted that he was under investigation by the intelligence services of the United States, Britain, France and Israel at the time of his death. His shady dealings during his six years in Brazil attracted the attention of the local authorities, impressed by his 300 percent profits on his real estate holdings. Nassar enriched himself enormously in the aftermath of the end of the Lebanese civil war, when he and his business partner Syrian Monzer al Kassar supplied surplus Falangist weaponry to eager clients ranging from Colombia's FARC rebels to the Taliban. Fleeing Lebanon in fear of his life, Nassar first went to Romania, where he got involved in cigarette smuggling. Brazilian investigators are seeking leads among the country's 7 million Lebanese immigrants, but are making little headway, where the average immigrant admires Nassar's ability to compile a $200 million fortune in his brief 39-year life. (United Press International: UPI hears ...)

    From one man's death comes many connections, but with Hezbollah looking to take him out, and all his crossing of international problems there is one man who gets very connected then and now, and that is Monzer al-Kassar. And with the involvement of al-Kassar a Hezbollah rub-out comes distinctly possible as it could be 'just business' to sell out Nassar by al-Kassar as he has close ties to Hezbollah. That is due to the city of Baalbeck in the Bekaa Valley as described in this WorldNetDaily report of 30 JUL 2000 by Anthony LoBaido:

    Some of these soldiers will maintain the Syrian radar net that dots the landscape. Others will serve as overlords to the various heroin-cultivating outposts in the region. Still others will serve as advisers at a multitude of terrorist training camps quartering bad boys from the four corners of the Earth.

    From Armenia, Palestine, Japan, North Korea, Turkey and India they have come -- disaffected paramilitary groups ready to take up arms for what they perceive to be right and just.

    [..]

    Posters and pictures of Hizbollah leaders Ayatollah Khomeini and Hassan Nasrallah -- and even a museum display under the temple ruins of Hizbollah's military adventures -- are a paramount feature of Baalbeck. (WorldNetDaily also found several posters featuring photos of Michael Jackson and Madonna. The posters call for their summary execution for "moral crimes" against humanity and offer a $10 million reward paid in gold bullion). The town serves as the headquarters of Hizbollah or "The Party of God," the Syria- and Iran-backed terror group that has pestered Israel mercilessly since the party's inception in the early 1980s.

    In a page out of Alan Greenspan's worst nightmare, Shiite Muslims, with the help of Iranian special intelligence agents, are frantically printing "Supernotes" -- U.S. hundred-dollar bills that rival North Korea's for their counterfeiting excellence. German marks are also counterfeited in the Bekaa.

    Syria's role in the Bekaa goes back to January 6, 1976. Ironically, Syria had joined up with Lebanon's Christian Phalange against the Palestinians and other Muslims in Lebanon's internecine conflict. Abu Nidal and his terrorist friends then started attacking Syrian positions in response to Syria's siding with the Christians. In short order, Syrian troops and their brutal secret police destroyed Lebanon's elected government of Michel Aoun and implemented a campaign of media censorship and police-state tactics.

    Countless millions of dollars are siphoned off from Lebanon and into Syria on an annual basis. Lebanon cannot export any goods into Syria, while on the other hand, Syria can unload an unregulated amount of goods onto the Lebanese market.

    A harvest of opium

    Larry Martines, a professor and terrorism expert who works with the U.S. government, told WorldNetDaily: "The Bekaa Valley is home to a great deal of heroin cultivation. It is controlled by the Syrian military. If they, even for one second, think that you are a DEA agent, you will simply disappear."

    The Bekaa Valley is fertile and well designed for the cultivation of opium poppies. Rifat Assad, the brother of recently deceased Syrian President Hafez Assad, was well known as the head honcho who ran the Syrian drug operation in the Bekaa. The 30,000 Syrian troops he dispatched to the Bekaa are a testament to the monetary importance of heroin as a cash crop.

    According to the Mossad intelligence officer interviewed by WorldNetDaily in Zahlah, "The CIA has made a secret deal to protect the Syrian drug pipeline. This was done vis-à-vis promises that the Syrians (led by El-Khassar) would help to get American hostages released from captivity in Lebanon. One agreement, as everyone now knows, involved 'CIA One.' They protected the Syrian-Bekaa drug flow from Lebanon through the airport in Frankfurt, Germany, and into the United States. The DEA was also involved, mainly for purposes of plausible deniability.

    "I remember when the Defense Intelligence Agency group working out of Beirut led by Maj. Charlie McKee had a devil of a time trying to track and rescue the U.S. hostages being held in Lebanon. We kept trying to explain to him why he wasn't getting the cooperation he needed from the other U.S. agencies. But in the end, everyone found out about 'CIA One.' Talk about your dances with wolves."

    [..]

    The number of terror groups receiving training in the Bekaa is stupefying. For example, there's the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. It is a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group formed in 1975. The group's goal is to force the government of Turkey to publicly admit its guilt for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians killed back in 1915. The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia wants monetary compensation as well as their own homeland. The group's leader, Hagop Hagopian, was assassinated in Greece in 1998.

    The Japanese Red Army is also operating in the Bekaa, led by Fusako Shigenobu. The Red Army wants to overthrow the Japanese government and monarchy. Chemists and agricultural high-tech experts from Japan's Om Shin Ri Kyo cult are also sporadically posted in the Bekaa. Their expertise and elite scientific training are highly prized by groups wanting to gain skills in biological and biochemical warfare.

    Perhaps the best-armed and most well-trained group in the Bekaa Valley is the Kurdish Workers Party. They want to set up a Marxist state in southeast Turkey where a large population of Kurds reside.

    The new kids on the block in the Bekaa are from India. Their new anti-Christian terror cult of Ganesh -- a common Hindu god -- is central to the new "Hindu Awakening" of the 1990s. These soldiers and anti-Christian terrorists are known as the "Munnani." They hail from the New Age capital of Madras and are seeking to get hold of an atomic bomb, according to intelligence and terrorism experts.

    Having contacts with FARC in that cross-pollinating atmosphere that is 'training for payment' regardless of affiliation, makes them a 'natural' especially as al-Kassar would come calling in Argentina in the late 1980's. This connection would show up to finally catch Monzer al-Kassar in 2007, as Chris Thompson from Consulado General Central Colombia New York would report on 24 JUL 2007:

    On February 6, two representatives from the infamous Colombian left-wing paramilitary and drug-trafficking group FARC arrived at a palatial Renaissance estate in Marbella, Spain. While their compadres squatted in the jungle, the two soaked up the Mediterranean opulence of the place, noticing the pool shaped like a four-leaf clover and the mastiffs that patrolled the grounds each night. Their host, a 62-year-old Syrian named Monzer al-Kassar, a/k/a the "Prince of Marbella," has been known to entertain visitors with lamb and dolmas beneath murals of turbaned African servants. But they hadn't come for the cuisine. They were there to talk about killing Americans.

    For 30 years, Monzer al-Kassar has been linked to some of history's most notorious international arms deals and terrorist atrocities. He has been accused of aiding in the attempted assassination of an Israeli spy; supplying the weapons used in the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro luxury liner; and seeding the Somali and Bosnian civil wars with countless AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. Swiss and Spanish officials have repeatedly tried to prosecute him for murder and money laundering, and a small group of private investigators, in conjunction with the United Nations and such groups as Human Rights Watch, have worked to expose his international network of offshore companies, crooked port officials, and Eastern European arms manufacturers. Each time, Kassar beat the rap and returned to his hacienda on the Spanish coast.

    At this point Monzer al-Kassar is *still* in Spain with Syria threatening Spain and the US if we don't let him go. Once these FARC representatives told Kassar what they needed, he got to work:

    Kassar allegedly promised that "his fight was also with the United States," and got on the phone to secure a few price quotes from contacts in Romania and Yugoslavia. For the cost of up to $8 million, Kassar said, he'd even throw in a small army of mercenaries and train the FARC in how to build improvised explosive devices.

    Needless to say this was a 'sting' operation, but his ability to outwit the Spanish legal system and keep himself in Spain, amongst his many contacts, means that his organization is still hard at work. The interesting thing to notice is that beyond the weapons wanted, assault rifles, Dragunov sniper rifles, RPGs and lots of ammo, al-Kassar had quick contacts in the terror community to add in IED training for *free*. That sort of thing normally, one would expect, does not come cheaply, and yet he can guarantee it 'on the spot' and that they would be part of the package deal. That report then goes on to detail much of the major arms deals of al-Kassar, including the North/Secord/Hakim one in Iran/Contra (even though he would claim "I'm not that cheap"! Heh.) and his ability to deliver arms to places under embargo like Somalia. This would include the Israeli Embassy bombing and AMIA Jewish Cultural Center bombings in Argentina which would link Hezbollah to the western hemisphere as seen in this look at the Tri-Border Area of South America by Lt. Col. Philip K. Abbott in the SEP-OCT 2004 issue of Military Review [footnote citations removed]:

    Argentine officials believe Hezbollah is active in the TBA. They attribute the detonation of a car bomb outside Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires on 17 March 1992 to Hezbollah extremists. Officials also maintain that with Iran's assistance, Hezbollah carried out a car-bomb attack on the main building of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires on 18 July 1994 in protest of the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement that year.

    In May 2003, Argentine prosecutors linked Ciudad del Este and Foz do Iguacu to the AMIA bombing and issued arrest warrants for two Lebanese citizens in Ciudad del Este. An Iranian intelligence officer who defected to Germany told Argentine prosecutors that Imad Mugniyah was the principal suspect in the Buenos Aires bombings. U.S. officials consider Mugniyah the mastermind of the 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, which suggests he has direct ties to Hezbollah and Iran. Argentine Jews (and many non-Jews) reportedly feel former Argentine President Carlos Saul Menem, of Syrian ancestry, accepted a bribe to conceal Iran's role in the bombings. Although we cannot confirm the growing radicalization of Islamic communities in the TBA, we must take the possibility into account and closely monitor the situation.

    Al-Qaeda is a network of terrorist groups scattered all over the world with a presence in practically every country. Are Osama bin-Laden's operatives also present in the TBA? Local and international media have written about al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups setting up training camps in the TBA and even having secret summit meetings in the area, although intelligence and law-enforcement officials have not corroborated these reports. The governments of the three TBA countries say terrorism is not a problem in the region and emphasize that they have never detected terrorist activity or cells there. In December 2002, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and the United States agreed that "no concrete, detailed tactical information . . . support[s] the theory that there are terrorist sleeper cells or al-Qaeda operatives in the TBA."

    Even so, U.S. and regional officials worry that illegal activity and commerce in the area fund terrorist groups, primarily Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah relies extensively on Islamic money through the common Arab community practice of remitting funds to relatives in the Middle East. In addition, with the complicity of corrupt local officials, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) paid Brazilian and Paraguayan organized criminal groups to obtain weapons and equipment in exchange for cocaine.

    [..]

    The TBA's exact role in attracting terrorist groups is not entirely clear, but Ciudad del Este's Arab and Muslim community has raised funds through money laundering, illicit drug and weapons trafficking, smuggling, and piracy, with some of the funds reportedly going to Hezbollah and Hamas to support terrorist acts against Israel. The FARC also reportedly maintains a fundraising presence in the TBA. This extensive terrorist financial network also stretches to Margarita Island, Panama, and the Caribbean.

    The TBA's dangerous combination of vast ungoverned areas, poverty, illicit activity, disenfranchised groups, ill-equipped law-enforcement agencies and militaries, and fragile democracies is an open invitation to terrorists and their supporters. Undeterred criminal activity, economic inequality, and the rise of disenfranchised groups with the potential to collaborate with terrorists present a daunting challenge.

    Terrorism today is transnational and decentralized. International support of a multidimensional counterterrorism strategy is necessary to defeat it. Colombia's less-than-successful counternarcotics strategy demonstrates that unilateral action does not necessarily eradicate or eliminate drug trafficking. The same is true of terrorism. Unilateral action in Afghanistan has not eliminated the global terrorist threat. Without multilateral, cooperative deterrence, terrorist organizations will simply migrate across porous borders to less scrutinized areas. As long as terrorism does not directly affect them, nations in the TBA will place economic considerations ahead of security concerns, seek economic prosperity, and remain reluctant to tighten border controls or place new restrictions on commerce and transportation.

    One does not need active terrorist cells to have a terrorist presence in an area: funding and logistics are just as important to terrorist activities as they are to normal military organizations or business activities. Looking at a report by Alessia De Caro from Online Gnosis of JAN 2006 we get this view of what had happened in transnational terrorism in and around Colombia:

    Although the Party of God is strenuously employed in Lebanon in the organization of agricultural formation courses, in an attempt to face the re-conversion of the hashish and poppy plantations, prohibited by the Lebanese State, in 1992, Hizbollah has never concerned itself with the illegal ways in which its members have procured the funds to sustain the organization. On the contrary, the drug trafficking profits, which arrive from Latin America, have always been used to solve the social problems of the Lebanese people, in order to win consensus in the country.

    Affiliates and cells of Hizbollah are also active in Colombia and Venezuela; the weak governments of these areas and the loose and often uncontrolled borders, have favoured such a phenomenon.

    Furthermore, the diffused narcoterrorism in that region is due to the liaison between Hizbollah and the local opposition terrorist groups such as, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

    In the wake of the Hizbollah-Columbian example, links with the 'Sendero Luminoso', in Peru, have also been created.

    The anti-American ideology, common to these organizations and, above all, the interest in smuggling and other illegal activities to accumulate funds have, substantially, united these different groups.

    The level of cooperation between Hizbollah and these groups is still not clear even though it is important to note that in January of 2004, on the occasion of an exchange of prisoners between the Israeli authorities and Hizbollah, Ali Biro was freed: he was a Hizbollah militant and one of the most renowned Middle East drug traffickers connected with FARC.

    With regard to the implications of Hizbollah in drug trafficking, one of the most recent arrests in this field, was made by the Paraguayan police in May, 2003. The man arrested was Hassan Dayub, while he was trying to send to Syria, an electric pianola, filled with cocaine. Dayub is a relative of the already mentioned Assad Barakat.

    [..]

    In Latin America, Hizbollah could supply ever increasing logistic and financial support, not only to Al Qaeda, but also to local groups and extend the terrorist targets from the national interests to western and American interests within and outside of South America.

    Furthermore, the question of financing could become increasingly difficult to extricate: now that Hizbollah is a majority party in Lebanon, many people – and not only the Arabs – would see nothing wrong in financing a party that has done and does so much good "for the needy people of Lebanon". It will always be more difficult to discern which financing is legal and which is not.

    This hypothesis is not advanced haphazardly. With the support of Iran, Hizbollah could start, through local groups, if it hasn't already, to set up in Latin America, the same strategy used in Lebanon to gain popular consensus, by providing for the citizens those things that a weak government has not been able to provide. There are numerous people in Latin America who describe Hizbollah as a "provider of welfare to the needy citizens and defender of the Lebanese rights against Israeli aggression".

    Realizing the danger and in an attempt to stem the swelling consensus for the Party of God, the Spanish Government, in the wake of what had been done in France, closed down, at the end of June this year, the Hizbollah television channel al-Manar, which was transmitted to Latin America. The satellite TV company, Hispasat, through which Al Manar was transmitted is, in fact, controlled by the Spanish Government.

    The previous government in Colombia, in an attempt to open a series of negotiations with FARC, had ceded to them the formal control of a strip of territory, permitting, in addition, foreign governments to furnish economic assistance to the area in question. Iran, the principle financier of Hizbollah was included in the list of foreign countries permitted to operate in the FARC controlled area and, therefore, it naturally supported the Hizbollah organization.

    In the Summer of 2001, the Colombian magistracy determined a scenario of international terrorist link-ups, among which was not only a stable cooperation between FARC, ETA, IRA and a foreign legion of more than 200 terrorists of 18 different nationalities, but also Hizbollah.

    At a summit meeting at Cartagena de Indias in Columbia, in October 2003, the news of a regular alliance between FARC and Al Qaeda was announced by Gordon Thomas, Irish expert of terrorism and the secret services.

    Thomas spoke again on the theme, in the Columbian weekly, El Espectador, referring to the possible cooperation between Islamic extremist groups and local groups, and after the Madrid massacre of the 11th March, 2004, he accused Al Qaeda. According to Thomas, the ETA did not have the capacity to realize attacks of this nature, unless they had been helped, organized and financed by the Bin Laden organization.

    Moreover, arms supplies continue to arrive in the Latin American continent. The US are very worried by the news of the signing, in March of this year in Caracas, of about 20 cooperation treaties between Iran and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regime, together with an agreement, ratified with Russia at the beginning of April, regarding the supply of 100 thousand Kalashnikov AK-47.

    In addition, there is ever increasing talk about dormant cells of Islamic terrorist groups in other Latin American countries like, for example, the Venezuelan Island, Margarita, at Trinidad and Tobago.

    Over the last months, in Haiti, members of an Islamic group, which appears to have ties with Al Qaeda, have provided instruction in the use of arms and explosives to a pro-Aristide gang, at the same time trying to convert the gang members to Islam.

    In the Dominican Republic, two radical groups seeking technical and financial support, seem to have established contacts with Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda appears to have had ties in the country of Nicaragua for some time, and it is believed that it is now pushing groups to undertake terrorist attacks against the government.

    According to what the German newspaper, "Der Spiegel" published in June of this year, in the south of Mexico, a veritable conversion to Islam activity is underway, conducted by many Moslems of "doubtful origins", who have carried out an activity of proselytism and have already recruited hundreds of Maya natives.

    So when you hear about FARC rebels contacting Venezuelan Naval personnel to get them weapons, like SAMs, that is not only *not* a laughing matter but something that may only be extraordinary in the type of weapons involved. The contacts between Hugo Chavez and multiple groups in South America is fleshed out by Jose Noguera at Center for Security Policy on 23 MAR 2008, and concentrates on FARC and ELN, here picking p the trail after failed revolutionary groups in Venezuela failed to get anywhere:

    The overwhelming defeat suffered by the guerrilla groups made them rethink their strategy. They decided the best way to achieve their goals was to infiltrate the armed forces. In 1970, their first contact was established between former Lieutenant William Izarra and Douglas Bravo. Then in 1971, Hugo Chavez entered the Military School and immediately established contacts with the PRV through his brother, Adam, and began organizing the clandestine Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement (MBR) to recruit other military personnel for the revolution. The failed coup that Hugo Chavez led in 1992 was organized in cooperation with the clandestine organizations MBR, PRV, Red Flag and the Socialist League.

    Adam not only introduced his brother, Hugo, to Marxism but also provided him with the necessary contacts to the Venezuelan guerrillas as well as to their Colombian counterparts, with whom their Venezuelan mates had had a long-standing relationship. The first contact between Hugo Chavez and the Colombian guerrillas was made through two members of the Colombian Army, Majors German Cadena Montenegro and Mario Alberto Galeano, who collaborated with the now dissolved guerrilla group M-19 since they were in the Colombian military school. Those contacts and activities did not represent a major threat until the 1992 coup changed the political situation in Venezuela, and the difficult economic situation made Venezuelans look for unconventional alternatives that made Chavez popular.

    When Hugo Chavez left prison in 1994, he visited Colombia, where Majors Cadena and Galeano, by that time already retired, received him. Chavez then stayed in Colombia for six months, adopting the nickname of Commander Centeno, while establishing contacts with the Colombian Marxist narco-guerrilla group, the National Liberation Army (ELN). At this time Chavez proposed to the ELN that they organize a joint Colombian-Venezuelan guerrilla force in order to fight a "true independence war." That same year, Chavez established contacts with the other major Colombian guerrilla group, the FARC. This contact was made by Ramon Rodriguez Chacin. It is now well-documented that the FARC gave money to Chavez when he was in jail, and most likely, in 1998, during his first electoral campaign.

    From Colombia, Chavez traveled to Cuba where he established contacts with Fidel Castro. Later, in 1999 when Chavez began his first presidential term, the retired Colombian Majors Cadena and Galeano join his Bolivarian Movement 2000 with the mission of winning adherents within the Colombian Armed Forces, as a means of destabilizing democracy inside Colombia. Since then, Chavez has repeatedly tried to establish direct contacts with the Colombian Armed Forces and did so again by talking directly with the chief of the Colombian Armed Forces, General Mario Montoya, against the wishes of the President of Colombia. That is why President Uribe decided to remove Chavez as a mediator in trying to free some of the hostages from the Colombian guerrillas. Once fired, Chavez became so mad that he insulted President Uribe, and stated that Venezuela does not have borders with Colombia but with the FARC's territory.

    Yet, recent events indicate that the exact position of the FARC's second in command was detected from a direct phone call from Chavez to Raul Reyes, and among the documents found was one listing a 300 million dollar "donation" that Chavez gave to the Colombian guerrillas. Currently, the FARC operates freely in Venezuela in seven different areas and receives protection from the government. Chavez's closest collaborators are his brother, Adam, his minister of Interior, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, Jose Vicente Rangel (former presidential candidate of the communist party), Jorge Rodriguez (Socialist League), Minister of Energy Rafael Ramirez (PRV), Minister of Propaganda William Izarra (PRV) and the foreign Affairs Minister, Nicola s Maduro (Socialist League). Now the former Venezuelan guerrillas, the long standing close friends of their Colombian counterparts, are the individuals who now govern Venezuela.

    Chavez's close ties to ELN, FARC, PRV and their radical socialist and communist sympathizers and associates in terrorism, has made Venezuela into a country being openly run by terrorists under the Chavez regime. The backing to them, including trying to destabilize other nations, like Colombia via FARC, puts Chavez on a path closer to that of Castro's sending of communist revolutionaries to foster new regimes than anything else. Even more important, however, is the backing by Hugo Chavez of Hezbollah, as seen in this CNSNEWS article by Patrick Goodenough on 07 AUG 2006:

    Critics of Israel have found a new champion in Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez, who in recent days has recalled his country's envoy from Israel and compared the Jewish state's military campaign in Lebanon to the actions of Nazi Germany.

    After describing the Israeli operation against Hizballah as a "fascist outrage" during his recent visit to Iran, Chavez told the Arabic television network al-Jazeera in an interview broadcast on Friday that the attacks constituted "genocide."

    "The Israeli offensive against the Palestinians and Lebanon is an aggression that we feel targets us also," he said. "It is an unjustified aggression that is being carried out in the style of Hitler, in a fascist fashion."

    [..]

    The remarks follow his decision Thursday to withdraw chief of mission Hector Quintero from Caracas' embassy in Tel Aviv, in protest.

    Hizballah, which triggered the conflict with a July 12 cross-border raid in which Israeli soldiers were killed and abducted, welcomed Chavez's move.

    The vice-chairman of Hizballah's political council, Mahmoud Komati, called it an example for "revolutionaries."
    In an interview with Telesur -- the television network based in and funded by Venezuela, and set up by Chavez as a Latin American equivalent of al-Jazeera -- Komati lauded Chavez for a "brave decision" and noted that even Arab governments had not taken the step.

    The envoy's withdrawal also has drawn strong support from other quarters.

    Jordan's Islamist political party praised Chavez, while condemning the Jordanian and Egyptian governments for not severing diplomatic relations with Israel. The two Arab countries are the only ones to have concluded peace treaties and established full diplomatic ties with Israel.

    The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has spearheaded calls for Arab governments to cut ties with Israel and to allow citizens to travel to the warzone to fight against Israel.

    Meanwhile, an Illinois-based, pro-Venezuelan Internet site VHeadlines.com, said Sunday it was being "inundated with emails from the Arab world thanking President Chavez for having the moral conviction [to have recalled the envoy]."

    And in London, left-wing lawmaker George Galloway told an anti-Israeli protest rally that Chavez was a "real leader of the Arab people." (He also named other "real leaders of the Arab people," including Hizballah's Hassan Nasrallah and ailing Cuban President Fidel Castro.)

    Hugo Chavez, then, is not only giving verbal support to Hezbollah, but also creating a lovely television network for them in Venezuela! Chavez is also taking a further hand than that according to a Venezuela Today article by Gustavo Coronel of 02 SEP 2006 (Via Google cache, so it may not be there much longer) Chávez joins the terrorists: his path to martyrdom:

    On the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, a territory shared with Colombia, the members of the tribe of the Wayuu walk across political boundaries without restrain. They were there before Venezuela and Colombia existed and they think of themselves as a nation. Recently a disturbing group has appeared, as alien visitors, in their desert landscape: Hezbollah. The Islamic fanatics of Hezbollah are rapidly infiltrating the tribe of the Wayuu. They are indoctrinating the members of this tribe, to convert them into Islamic fanatics in charge of disseminating the terrorist message that has already created chaos, death and misery in the Middle East. The Hezbollah group invading Venezuela is doing its work openly in the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula.

    And that is accompanied by this image so that folks know where this is happening:

    guajira2

    Gustavo Coronel then looks at the three Chavez strategies:

    The three Chávez strategies

    In order to do this he is conducting a three-pronged strategy: (1), one, rather orthodox, which consists in buying weapons, some US$5 billion worth, from Russia, Spain and Belarus: multi-role fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships, assault rifles and more from Russia corvettes and patrol boats from Spain; and Russian anti-aircraft missile systems from Belarus in order to dissuade U.S. military action. (2), an oil-oriented strategy, basically designed to threaten the U.S. with less petroleum supplies. He is scaling down and selling Citgo's assets in the U.S. at low prices, in order to protect himself from the freezing of oil assets in the U.S. He is trying to enlist China as a replacement client for the U.S. by promising that country, quite unrealistically, 500,000 barrels of oil per day within the next five years. The Chinese know that this is an empty promise but they will try to get as much oil as they can out of Chávez, for as long as he lasts, while laughing secretly about his flamboyant behavior. As a follow up to this strategy he is also talking to Iran about pushing for higher prices within Opec and encouraging, through promises of money, relatively minor international oil players like the dictator of Chad, the Bolivian president Evo Morales and the Ecuadorian government to become more aggressive against the mostly U.S. foreign multinationals. The visit of Chávez to Angola should be seen as an obvious move to attack U.S. vulnerability on oil imports. Angola produces over one million barrels of oil per day of excellent quality and almost 600,000 barrels per day are exported to the U.S. Any restrictions on this supply, if combined with restrictions of Venezuelan oil supplies, would have a dramatic impact on the U.S. economy, especially when reinforced by other actions such as the recent move against the U.S. petroleum companies by the dictator of Chad.

    The strategies mentioned above are, of course, very damaging to the Venezuelan people but, while particularly harmful to U.S. national interest, they do not pose an immediate large-scale threat of all-out violence in the hemisphere. There is a third strategy being pursued by Chávez that could become the most dangerous in this respect. It has to do with the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea or Iran and other weapons from Syria. Chávez and his deputies have visited Iran numerous times during the last seven years. He has explicitly formed a political alliance with Ahmadinejad. During his last visit he asked for God to "send bolts of lighting ... upon the monsters," ending this request by saying: "Inshallah," (ojalá in Spanish, God willing in English).

    Of course, in Chávez's mind these bolts would be missiles or, even worse, nuclear bombs. The National Council of Resistance of Iran has said that Iran will be able to start constructing nuclear bombs by next year, in installations located to the Northeast of Tehran. A report by Rowan Scarborough in The Washington Times (August 31, 2006) says that the U.S. military estimates that an Iranian nuclear bomb is still five years away but, he adds, it would be dangerous to believe that there is plenty of time to act. In the case of Iraq, he says, it was found that the Hussein regime was much closer to producing nuclear weapons than the U.S. had estimated and the same could be true in the case of Iran. Nuclear weapons are essential for the consolidation of an Islamic empire, claims the National Council of Resistance of Iran, asking for immediate action against the regime of Ahmadinejad.

    Note that the operational equipment suppliers for conventional weapons are Spain, Russia and Belarus. This work to bolster himself and expand the reach of Hezbollah is going into disturbing regions beyond the Wayuu tribe, as seen by Massimo Introvigne at Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni (CESNUR) on 24 MAR 2007, looking first at Teodoro Rafael Darnott (Commander Teodoro) with the Wayuu:

    WIth the blessing of President Chávez, and with the methods of an old guerrlla leader, Comnader Teodoro has proclaimed Catholic missionaries "personae non gratae" over a vast tribal area (for the Protestant missionaries it's even worse: Chavez calls them agents of American imperialism), while proclaiming the Shi'ite iranian missionaries very very welcome. Estimates vary as to the result of this experiment - converts according to Teodoro and Iran come to several thousand, while anthropologists and journalists who have penetrated the area say they are fewer than a thousand - howver a whole tribe, the Wayuu, has accepted the good news from Teheran.

    The press of the Venezuelan regime has started printing strange photographs of veiled Indio women, but also of hooded militants practicing with their kalashnikovs and even their bomb-belts: not in Lebanon but in Venezuela. The experiment is turning out rather well, so much so that the Iranians and Chavez have launched two more, which are already on their feet: Hezbollah Chiapas, in the areas under the control of Subcommander Marcos, and Hezbollah El Salvador. Also new are Hezbollah Chile and Hezbollah Columbia. Considering how fond our President of the House of Representatives, Fausto Bertinotti, is of Chávez and of Subcommander Marcos, all we need wait for now is for a Hezbollah Montecitorio (ie, the Italian Parliament).

    The Real Danger

    But these are not necessarily harmles groups. On Oct 23rd 2006 the police arrested a university student in Caracas, one José Miguel Rojas Espinosa, who was about to detonate two bombs, one against the American Embassy and another against the Israeli Embassy. After planting the first bomb, Rojas got scared and dropped the second one outside a school, which led the police to seeking the first one and foiling the attack. Hezbollah Venezuela laid claim to the failed attack and defines Rojas on its website as “the first mujaheddin to be an example of dignity and strength in the cause of Allah, the first prisoner of war in Venezuela of the Revolutionary Islamic Movement”. Strangely enough, the Chávez Administration has taken no steps against Commander Teodoro and Hezbollah Venezuela, and has played down the planned attacks calling them “demonstrations”.

    Commander Teodoro is not finicky when it comes to recluting enemies of the US and Israel. So together with the Koran and with the proclamations of Khamenei, his group reprints and spreads around texts by the late Peron-style Argentinian social scientist Norberto Rafael Ceresole, a Holocaust-denier , hovering between neo- Nazi tendencies and the little sedevacante schisms which consider the latest Popes illegitimate since they are too "progressive" and "favorable to Jews". Ceresole is also always suspected of being in contact with the perpetrators of the attack on the building of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires in 1994 (something that, however, the police has never been able to prove).

    The numbers, for the moment, are against Commander Teodoro. Not only do the deep roots of Catholicism make it difficult for Iranian propaganda to produce a number of Latin American Muslims beyond a ratio of zero point something, but so does the spectacular growth of Protestantism.

    Latin America is not about to convert to Islam and Chavez's initiatives keep swaying between reality, fantasy and a propaganda that often borders on the ridiculous.

    But all it takes to plant bombs are a few terrorists, and Shi'ite Indios also constitute a mafia-style warning by Chavez to the Catholic Church. If it continues to oppose the regime, in tribal zones Iranian missionaries are ready to replace the Catholic ones.

    Mossimo Introvigne is pointing at something that should be obvious: the difference between terrorist groups (of any stripe) and organized crime groups is faint at the best of times. Mafia organizations have a strong ability to continue existing even when openly opposed by governments at all levels (local, state/provincial, national), and our own history, not to speak of Italy's, is proof of that. While the actual backing organizations for the late 19th century Chicago criminal organizations are gone, their descendents and imitators are still in Chicago and heavily swaying politics and city government to their own ends. Similar has been seen in Italy, Japan, Taiwan, China, India, Pakistan and even Iran which still, to this day, rails against narcotics flowing into Iran via drug traffickers not under their control.

    Hugo Chavez by utilizing the Hezbollah 'brand name' and 'first cause' to radicalism is little different than Castro using Marxist/Leninist ideology or China exporting Maoist teaching to places like Peru or Nepal. While the organizations spawned from those 'first cause' associations may have little or nothing to do with their progenitors, they continue on in hybrid form by mixing how they get their funds (via criminal activity) and their ideology, no matter *what* that may be. While the direct 'first cause' Hezbollah in Lebanon has strong ideology, their South American and Southern European counterparts have strongly drifted into the criminal areas, so that the resultant groups, while still espousing and supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, have little in appearance to that originating group. Chavez, by pushing that first, strong appeal to get recruits to violence, is also creating an organized crime organization that is directly married to it. Why not? The ORIGINAL Hezbollah depends on the Kassar family control of the Bekaa opium production capabilities, overseen by the Syrian government.

    This brings up a disturbing long-term possibility, although a faint one at best: that Iran (if it fails through internal collapse or external push) now has a reliable 'back-up' for running the Hezbollah operation in Hugo Chavez. Even if he is far from perfect, his ability to adapt to Shia support of the Iranian variety to push his own ends indicates that the actual teachings do get promulgated. Hezbollah would take a very hard hit, of course, as Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, do not have the resources to run the high-octane Lebanon operation as it still stands: the industrial infrastructure for things like missile production is missing in Venezuela. That said, Chavez is a direct link for acquiring the end-products from other nations (Spain, Russia, China, North Korea, Belarus) so as to ensure some long-term lethal capability remains even absent Iran. And getting his organizational operation into fronting the Bekaa drug trade is an extremely lucrative proposition for the long term, going into the billions if not tens of billions of dollars in profit annually as he would be eliminating a number of 'middlemen' in the distribution chain currently taken up by smaller mafia outfits in Albania, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and places like Algeria.

    A closer equivalent to what is happening, although purely on a secular side, is Syria: where a strong family rules via authoritarian means and supports multiple terror organizations (Hezbollah, HAMAS, PKK, GIA) while seeking to get stronger industrial backing for conventional weapons and WMDs. Syria, itself, acts as a form of 'Grand Mafia Boss' over the smaller families with longer-term ties to organized crime, and utilizes that network due to the actual paucity of natural resources and production capability, to seek similar ends to protect itself. By going after the asymmetrical chem/bio/nuclear weapons, Syria need not field a modern or even very capable military to continue being a threat in the region. By facilitating terrorism and organized crime and taking a profit from that trade (either via a form of 'taxation' or kickbacks) is able to continue on while providing to the minimal needs of its population.

    That design template, when shorn of its Alawite basis and Ba'athist supporters, is the rough outline for a future Venezuela under Chavez: ruled in an authoritarian fashion, where state-supported religious views are allowed and others that are attacked go uncondemned, where terrorists can come and go with relative safety to conduct business and training, while the regime utilizes a declining infrastructure and petroleum industry to allow expansion of terrorism and the narcotics trade, which it will take some funds 'off the top' for providing these services. Then things look less Marxist Revolutionary and more along the lines of 'Don Chavez', ruthless mafioso out for personal power and entrenching his organization on a regional basis. And once such a mafia starts, it will be very, very hard to uproot even once Chavez is no longer on the scene as the organization will continue on.

    And as Colombia can attest to: it is very, very hard to get rid of extremists touting an ideology that act like mafia.

    FARC has been like that for 40 years and is *still* around.

    Sphere: Related Content

    10 May 2008

    Our forgotten Seven States

    Well I am glad that someone has come to recognize the extra States of the Union!



    America has long been lax in welcoming the following States:

    1) State of Tension - Brought in during President Kennedy's confrontation with the USSR to bolster our spirits!

    2) State of Poverty - Brought in by LBJ's social programs so as to put more than just the poor folks in perpetual debt and the whole federal government would join them in that.

    3) State of Deception - Richard Nixon was able to bring in his ancient homeland, along with the province of Dirty Tricks, so as to give them glamor after long centuries of disrepute.

    4) State of Confusion - Gerald R. Ford welcomed this poor land in during his short term as President and it has been a continual presence in our social scene ever since.

    5) State of Decay - Jimmy Carter had worked steadfastly to bring this land into the Union and gave deep speeches about its people and the malaise they suffered under.

    6) State of Denial - One of the more recent States that Bill Clinton's daughter pointed out to us, and it was realized that not only was it *not* a River in Egypt, but that it could be annexed!

    7) State of Chaos - Little did we know that there was actually a homeland for this, but George W. Bush ensured that it would no longer be an unguided land and welcomed it to our Union a few short years ago.

    These lovely Entropic States are now seeking further entry for other lands that have given us so much in life: Despair, Degeneration, Incapacity, Remorse, Reverence, Fugue, as well as other lands even further afield.

    Some day the rest of America will come to recognize these States and give them true honor on our flag. Until then they remain the 'forgotten States' that few want to visit or acknowledge.

    UPDATE: If it is, as DRJ at Patterico's reasons out, 60 States, then those other three have slipped under the radar! Just *which* States were ushered in with no one looking?

    Sphere: Related Content

    09 May 2008

    Same old hope and change

    When reading about Sen. Obama's 'hope and change' message with regards to foreign policy, one comes across the distinct impression that his views are not all that out of line with the policies that previous Presidents have promulgated to ill ends. Consider his view on what is necessary to 'stabilize' Iraq, as seen from an NPR interview of 13 OCT 2007:

    But the most important thing that we have to do is initiate the kind of diplomacy that is going to stabilize the situation. And there, Sen. Clinton and I do appear to have a difference, although it's hard to tell. I suggested that we should talk to our enemies and not just our friends, including Iran, including Syria. I got in an argument with Sen. Clinton back in the summer about this, because she suggested that that approach of negotiating without preconditions could be used for propaganda purposes and would be naive.

    That is not a new view nor one of great profundity, as it pre-supposes that we have actually stopped talking with Iran and Syria. Sen. Obama becomes naive when he puts forth that we have stopped doing so. On the Syrian front you would, indeed, co-sponsor a bill with Sen. Frist (S.RES.534 passed by voice unanimous consent on18 JUL 2006 [Thomas link may be temporary]) entitled: A resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. In the text of that bill that YOU Sen. Obama co-sponsored WITH a Republican it is affirmed the following:

    Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 (adopted March 19, 1978) by completely withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified by the United Nations Security Council and affirmed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on June 16, 2000, when he said, `Israel has withdrawn from [Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425.';

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (adopted September 2, 2004) calls for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces and the dismantlement of all independent militias in Lebanon;

    Whereas despite Resolution 1559, the terrorist organization Hezbollah remains active in Lebanon and has amassed thousands of rockets aimed at northern Israel;

    Whereas the Government of Lebanon, which includes representatives of Hezbollah, has done little to dismantle Hezbollah forces or to exert its authority and control throughout all geographic regions of Lebanon;

    Whereas Hezbollah receives financial, military, and political support from Syria and Iran;

    Whereas the United States has enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note) and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), that call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations;

    You, yourself, back telling our enemies to stop funding terrorism, and, as President, you would be bound to enforce the Sanctions asked for by Congress. And President Bush *affirms* that he abides by and supports these actions by Congress and will carry them out (White House 07 MAY 2008). The National Security Advisor Steve Hadley took questions regarding the Syrian nuclear reactor and the US response, and got this question ( 06 AUG 2006 ):

    Q Steve, is the administration now going to talk to Iran and Syria to make this point, and try to have some back-and-forth with them? As you know, many of your critics say you haven't been talking to your enemies, who actually hold the key to this.

    MR. HADLEY: Well, in some sense, you know, every time someone like me gets up and talks and says what they've just said, we've sent a message to Syria and Iran. I mean, it's not as if they don't hear what has been said.

    Secondly, in terms of both of these countries, there are a number of countries that are sending the same message. That's really been an approach we have had both with respect to Syria and Iran, to try and get the international community and as many countries as we can sending the same message to Syria and Iran.

    In terms of Iran, as you know, we are very anxious to enter into a discussion with Iran on their nuclear program. And we have proposed to do so if they will simply do what the international community, what the Europeans, who have been handling the diplomacy with them have called for, what the IAEA Board of Governors have called for, which is to suspend their nuclear enrichment programs.

    So we would like very much to be entering into a discussion with Iran on that issue and potentially other issues. But they've got to take a step to show that they are willing to come into compliance with the international community.

    Sen. Obama, are you favoring a 'unilateralist' approach or 'cowboy' diplomacy where 'America goes it alone'? Because that is the *exact same* set of charges put against the current Administration with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq, and considering all the allies that we have supporting us in BOTH endeavors, that really is a slight to those who 'look up to the US'. Why are *you* willing to turn your back on the 'international community'?

    But don't you worry, those 'Iranian Moderate Clerics' will surely come to your aid just like they did with President Clinton!

    Now it is time for the retro-rewind!

    The then newly elected President Khatami, on 14 DEC 1997, told us that he would, indeed, seek better relations with the US (via GlobalSecurity.org VOA archives):

    PRESIDENT KHATAMI TOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE SUNDAY IN TEHERAN HE WANTS TO HAVE A TALK SOON WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT HE DID NOT SAY WHAT FORM THAT DIALOGUE WOULD TAKE. HE IMPLIED SUCH A DIALOGUE WOULD INCLUDE THE U-S GOVERNMENT, THOUGH HE ACCUSED U-S POLITICIANS OF HAVING FALLEN BEHIND THE TIMES. HE SAID IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORLD THAT HAS BECOME MULTI-POLAR, THE UNITED STATES STILL IMAGINES IT IS THE SOLE POWER AND IT MUST IMPOSE ITS POWER ON THE WORLD AT ANY COST. MR. KHATAMI IS A MODERATE SHITTE MUSLIM WHO WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT LAST MAY. SINCE THEN HE HAS SOFTENED RELATIONS WITH OTHER ARAB NATIONS, INCLUDING PRO-WESTERN SAUDI ARABIA.

    Why a man after your own heart,no? Just the sort of man you want to support, isn't it? Unfortunately he didn't really seem to understand what was going on as he continued just a bit further in his press conference:

    HE TOLD REPORTERS (SUNDAY) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER WITH THE LANGUAGE OF FORCE, WE SHOULD LEARN TO SPEAK WITH THE LANGUAGE OF REASON.

    MR. KHATAMI ALSO DISMISSED EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH PEACE WITH ISRAEL, WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS -- RACIST AND EXPANSIONIST. HE SAID ARAB COUNTRIES THAT HAD TRIED POLITICAL DIALOGUE WITH ISRAEL HAD GAINED NOTHING.

    THE UNITED STATES SEVERED TIES WITH IRAN IN 1979 AFTER ISLAMIC MILITANTS STORMED THE U-S EMBASSY IN TEHERAN AND TOOK 52 AMERICANS HOSTAGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. THE UNITED STATES HAS TRIED TO OSTRACIZE IRAN AND HAS CALLED IT A TOP SPONSOR OF TERRORISM.

    Say, would you say, Sen. Obama, that Egypt and Jordan, having made *peace* with Israel have gained nothing? Remember, now, that Khatami was a 'moderate' and President Clinton would try dropping some minor trade sanctions to see if they were reciprocated and Iran would start to recognize its duties not to destabilize other Nations. Doesn't look like they got the message, did they? Taking a look at the press briefing by James P. Rubin at the State Dept on 03 DEC 1999 (via GlobalSecurity.org document cache), we get to see what sort of response the US got and how the US utilizes its various channels to keep in contact with the Iranian regime:

    US aim is to have official dialogue about issues of concern, including support for terrorism. US has not received hoped-for responses, on terrorism cooperation or on visas for Iranians to come to the US.

    [..]

    QUESTION: On the subject of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, could you tell us about the attempts by the United States to get Iranian support and help in uncovering who blew up Khobar Towers?

    MR. RUBIN: Let me say in that regard, I think it should be understood that our objective here with Iran to have a dialogue is not have a dialogue for dialogue's sake; it's to have a dialogue so that we can engage in a process by which Iranian policies of concern would change, including our concern about Iranian support for terrorist organizations and those who are enemies of the peace process.

    We have made clear that the policies changing is the objective. We have not received in our dialogue through - let me rewind that tape. We have had contacts, diplomatic contact, messages, to Iran. There is no secret about that. We don't have the kind of direct dialogue that we have been seeking in order to change those policies of concern.

    We have not received from Iran, the government of Iran, the kind of responses that we have been hoping for on a wide range of issues, including on the cooperation we seek in investigating acts of terrorism. That is unfortunate and, generally speaking, the Iranian Government's response to our efforts in that area and also our efforts to try to make it easier for visas to be provided to Iranian Americans or Iranians who want to come to America, we've sought visits that would facilitate that process that many people in Iran want, which is to have an ability to come to the United States.

    So on those two issues, cooperation on terrorism and making it easier for visas to be provided for Iranians visiting the United States, the Iranian Government's response has tended to be hide-bound and unimaginative.

    So that is the state of play. We still believe that it is in our interest to have a dialogue in which our concerns, primarily terrorism and active opposition to the Middle East peace process can be pursued, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding if there is an impression that we're seeking a dialogue for dialogue's sake.

    A few points for the good Sen. Obama to ponder: does he want 'dialogue for the sake of dialogue'? That *is* what that 'hope and change' view has as its basis with a 'fresh face' showing up to hold dialogue with Iran. Even the CLINTONS understood that was not productive with the regime in Tehran. They utilized something known as 'back channel discussions' to remain in contact with the regime via other means. Also note that the Clinton Administration was doing both the 'high' end approach on 'hardball' with terrorist issues and the 'softball' approach with regards to getting Iranian individuals visas to come and visit the US. Both of them *failed*. And who failed them? Was it the Clinton Administration for lack of seeking 'dialogue'?

    No.

    It was in the hands of Iran and they spoke very nicely of opening up 'dialogue' but the pre-condition of condemning Israel and getting the US to stop supporting Israel meant that it was *not* an offer made on 'reason'.

    Now, about that 'stability in the Middle East' part that Sen. Obama seeks to achieve with Iran, during that exact, same press conference the Clinton Administration gave its view on just that topic... again, this is 1999:

    QUESTION: Just to go back to Iran for a moment, it seems that you've often described the potential US relationship with Iran in sort of addressing the negatives - support for terrorism, opposition to the Middle East peace process - and I wonder if you have any thought about what value, what positive value, the US might have in relations with Iran?

    MR. RUBIN: We believe Iran is an important country. It is located in a very important area. Our two peoples have a long and friendly history prior to the most recent developments in the late '70s and throughout the '80s, and we believe that Iran is located in a part of the world that's important to us.

    We believe that the people of Iran would benefit from increasing interaction with the people of the United States. We believe the people of the United States would benefit from the interaction of the long and proud culture of Persia and Iran, and there is much to be gained on both sides, but we do have problems. Those problems are real. Some of them have even increased recently, and I've spoken to that.

    So pending a decision by the government of Iran to move to address those issues in a direct dialogue, we believe it's appropriate to facilitate and promote a dialogue of the peoples of the United States and Iran in an analogous way to that proposed by President Khatami of a dialogue of civilizations. We welcome that. We support that. We want that to go forward. We think it brings great benefit to both of our peoples.

    We think a relationship that could overcome major problems if we could get Iran to stop supporting the opponents of the Middle East peace process, we think that it would make the Middle East a much more stable place, and that would be good for everybody. We think that if we could make progress on stopping Iran's support for those groups that engage in terrorist activities, that would make the world a safer place, and that would be very important.

    Beyond that, the potential for a more normal relationship was put out there and put forward by Secretary Albright in a speech in New York - I think it was a year and a half ago - but it's very hard to discuss the fruits of that normal relationship at a time when we can't even get Iran to see the wisdom in talking about the problems that we think exist.

    Yes, even the Clinton Administration couldn't get Khatami or Iran to see the light of 'reason'. They, instead, put forward the 'cultural' approach and were rebuffed on that, too. Apparently no one has ignored the Iranian People, save their very own government, which is the problem there. Considering that Sen. Obama should *know* all of this, then why is it that he puts such stock on 'dialogue' when one partner refuses to show up in the *least* ways? Also, there wasn't a US presence in Iraq, then, so the destabilizing of the Middle East by the Iranian regime pre-dates that by quite a lot.

    Now it is time for the retro-rewind by going back to the *previous* Administration, that of Bush-41 and getting his view on Iran from a 25 MAY 1990 interview excerpt (via GlobalSecurity.org archives) he did with French television:

    Q: What would you fear most today, Mr. President, communism or the growing of Muslim fundamentalism?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't thought about that in terms of priorities. Communism is on the wane, it's on the way out. In our hemisphere, there's only one left, and that's Castro. And I don't know what he believes because he -- but he darn sure can't be excited about the way things are going for good, old communists; going down the drain. And so -- and I think when you see people have a free choice, nobody's speaking up, hey, I want to have a communist government. It just isn't happening. And so I don't fear communism at all.

    I don't like that ideology and so I worry about that. But in terms of Muslim fundamentalism, the real extremes there, I am concerned about that. We lived through a terrible time in Iran. We still have difficulties there. But I'm hopeful some day we can have better relations. Because I think Mr. Rafsanjani is showing a sense of reasonableness in some areas that perhaps his predecessor didn't feel he could show, or didn't feel like showing.

    So I worry about this problem.

    Yes, Rafsanjani would be yet another 'moderate' in Iran that would lead to NO changes in its stance. But President Bush did have 'hope and change' on his mind, make no mistake about it! But that hope about change would prove very short lived as a press release of 19 JUL 1990 by Congressmen would show (Source: GlobalSecurity.org archives):

    Washington, D.C. -- Congressman Mervyn M. Dymally, (D- Compton, CA) announced that he and 161 of his colleagues have written to the president of Iran's National Council of Resistance, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, extending their "profound sympathies" to him about the assassination of his brother, Dr. Kazem Rajavi, noting that they share his view that "decisiveness is required to confront Tehran's medieval dictatorship."

    The 162 Representatives cited the Tehran-sponsored terrorist assassination on April 24, 1990, of Dr. Kazem Rajavi, whom they called "a great advocate of human rights, who had dedicated his life to the establishment of democracy in his homeland." The Congressmen expressed their support for the democratic resistance in Iran saying, "We ask you, as the Leader of the Iranian Resistance, to assure your countrymen that we support their peaceful and democratic aims."

    The letter signed by 100 Democrats and 62 Republicans, says that "Dr. Rajavi's assassination is but-more proof of Tehran's continuing insistence to use terrorism as the principal and indispensable pillar of its foreign policy," and emphasizes that the Representatives share Mr. Rajavi's view that "any negligence or flexibility vis-a-vis the crimes of this regime only encourages it to export terrorism."

    "One year after the death of Khomeini, the Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani has proven that he is as immoderate as Khomeini, by continuing the repressive and terrorist policies of his mentor," said Congressman Dymally.

    "The internal oppression also has continued despite the visit to Tehran by the United Nations' Special Representative," Reynaldo Galindo Pohl stated the letter. Congressman Dymally described Galindo Pohl's report, as "whitewash and a disgrace for the United Nations" and considered it "a green light" to the Iran regime to carry out such crimes as the one in Geneva.

    On June 22, 1990, the Swiss Police issued a report saying that Iranian government agencies had directly planned and carried out the murder of Dr. Kazem Rajavi. The report stated that the assassination team carried Iranian government service passports -- "all issued on the same date" -- and flew between Tehran and Geneva on Iran Air.

    Tehran felt that reaching out and assassinating supporters overseas was a good idea, and Dr. Rajavi was neither the first nor the last to be killed for the regime's goals. And do note the 'helpfulness' of the 'international community', here! Apparently use of terrorism to destabilize the region and enforce its clerical view extends far beyond the borders of Iran, Sen. Obama. The 'hope & change' has been seen many times before in Iran and we have yet to see a damned thing result from hoped for change. Instead we get assassinations, attacks on sovereign States and destabilization with a goal of spreading Iranian influence and power.

    The Clinton Administration tried to use *that* to its advantage, believe it or not! The place that it tried that was Bosnia, and I took a pretty long, hard look at that failed policy awhile back. From that lets take a look at a DEMOCRAT who criticized it when Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) asked the State Dept. for its views and got them in a letter from Barbara Larkin, Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs dated 20 MAY 1996, which he had put into the Congressional Record: June 11, 1996 (Extensions), DOCID:cr11jn96-22, THIRD-COUNTRY ARMS DELIVERIES TO BOSNIA AND CROATIA, an excerpt follows:

    The political and military dynamic in Bosnia changed in March 1994. In that month, as a result of active U.S. mediation by our Special Envoy, Ambassador Charles Redman, the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and the Bosnian Croat community signed agreements ending their military conflict and setting up a bi-communal Federation between Bonsia's Muslims and ethnic Croats. The newly born Federation immediately received strong U.S. diplomatic support, and deservedly so; its founding principles reflected pluralistic Western values and the cease-fire it engendered helped free up government forces to defend their country against the Serbs and, over time, altered the military balance.

    When President Tudjman of Croatia approached Ambassador Galbraith in Zagreb in April 1994 to elicit U.S. views on allowing third-country arms shipments to Bosnia via Croatia, we determined that a negative response could have led to the collapse of the Federation and a new deterioration of the Bosnian Government's military position. Instead, we decided that the best course was neither to object to nor approve of arms transfers to Bosnia through Croatia. This was consistent with our practice in the preceding months not to take active steps to prevent third-country arms shipments. At the same time, we did not believe it would have been appropriate to endorse actions contrary to UN Security Council resolutions. Thus we told Ambassador Galbraith to state that he had "no instructions" on the matter.

    Our decision eventually bore fruit. By sustaining the Federation and eroding the Serbs' military advantage, it paved the way for the American diplomacy, backed by NATO air power, that produced the peace agreement at Dayton. Our decision allowed us both to observe our legal obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 713 and to promote the achievement of peace.

    How did the Administration assess the implications of such a policy change on international adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 713 and U.S. efforts to get friends and allies to stop trade, economic dealings, and investment ties with Iran?

    Iran's entry into the Bosnian conflict occurred long before the April 1994 decision. Iranian efforts to gain influence in Bosnia date back to the 1980s. They gained momentum in 1991-92, in the early stages of the war, when the international community proved unable to confront Serb aggression. During this period, despite the UN arms embargo, Iran established itself as Bosnia's principal arms supplier and dispatched hundreds of Revolutionary Guard and other personnel to assist in training Bosnian Government forces. Iranian military aid was part of a multi-pronged campaign of support that also included intelligence cooperation along with economic and humanitarian assistance. We have no evidence that Iran's presence in Bosnia increased significantly after April 1994. It is also worth noting that, through the Dayton Accords and subsequent diplomacy, we have reduced Iranian military influence in Bosnia to its lowest levels in years.

    The April 1994 decision had no discernable impact on U.S. efforts to gain international support for the use of economic pressure to alter Iran's objectionable behavior, including its support for terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 1994, our Allies had generally been unresponsive to our requests that they not provide Iran with economic benefits such as new official credits and loan guarantees. In the past year, however, following the President's decision to impose a trade and investment embargo against Iran, most European countries have substantially reduced the pace and volume of economic activity with Iran. We continue to urge European governments to join our efforts to pressure Iran economically. Based on our ongoing consultations, including the April 19 meeting in Rome of the U.S.-EU-Canada Working Group on Iran, we have concluded that the April 1994 decision has not significantly affected our Iran diplomacy.

    Did the United States have discussions regarding these deliveries only with the Croatian and Bosnian authorities, or did the United States also have discussions directly with third countries supplying or financing these arms deliveries?

    The United States had no communications with Iran regarding arms for Bosnia, nor are we aware of any occasion on which U.S. officials, in any discussions with other countries, requested them to transfer arms to Bosnia or Croatia.

    What countries besides Iran were involved in the financing and delivery of arms to Bosnia? Were Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt involved?

    We have provided classified documents which address this question to the Senate Intelligence Committee and we will provide these same materials to appropriate Congressional committees that request them.

    If there was a change of policy, why was there a change of policy, and who was informed of it? Was Congress informed, were Allies informed, and were all appropriate officials of the United States informed about a change in policy that affected stated, public policy? If not, why not?

    In order to succeed, the thrust of our diplomatic activity both before and after April 1994--adhering to our obligations under UN resolutions, maintaining the cohesion of the Western Alliance, while not taking action to prevent the Bosnians from receiving weapons--required great discretion. That is why the Administration kept the April 1994 discussions with the Croatian government closely held within its own ranks.

    It should be noted, however, that the Congressional leadership and relevant committees were made aware of the existence of Iranian arms shipments both from Administration-provided intelligence briefings and press reports. Furthermore, the U.S. decision not to object to such shipments was not inconsistent with the will of Congress as expressed in a June 1994 vote in the House of Representatives to lift the arms embargo unilaterally. In October 1994, the full Congress voted to cut off funds for U.S. enforcement of the arms embargo. No exception for Iranian arms was contained in the legislation, nor was any such exception proposed during the debate.

    There you have a lovely 'change' in reading of Congressional language in the 'hope' things would work out well. Don't mind the civil war that followed. Mind you the 'hope' was that if we gave Iran some free-play in Bosnia it would 'change' its attitude towards the US and give us some 'Arab street cred'. It did neither of those things. So we now have the following Administrations looking to 'hope & change' and not getting it: Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43).

    It's retro-rewind time!

    Now, as Sen. Obama put President Reagan up as a modicum of how a leader for 'hope & change' can act, lets take a look at HIM with regards to Iran. And if you are a Democrat you will try to play this up while playing down Clinton, but that no longer washes... what we are seeing is something else that I talked about, which is 'Realism in Foreign Policy' and how that made the world a worse place, not a better one. Part of the insanity that went on during the Reagan Administration involved the putative 'personal outreach' to Khomeini by Reagan, himself. What did he do? He sent Khomeini a CAKE! (Source: The story behind Reagan's dealings with the mullahs by George J. Church, Time Magazine, 17 NOV 1986) This was part of a much larger initiative that would become Iran/Contra and Arms for Hostages:

    The tale sounded really too bizarre to be believed. The U.S. conniving at arms shipments to Iran? Sending a secret mission to palaver with the mullahs? Trying to keep the whole thing from Congress and most of the U.S. Government? And all over Iran, of all places! The country that held Americans hostage for 444 days beginning in 1979, the land whose fanatical leader, Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, has never ceased to denounce America as the "Great Satan," the state widely suspected to this very day of fomenting terrorist attacks against Americans.

    Yet there is no question that it happened. Initially in the perhaps illusory hope of gaining influence with a post-Khomeini government in Iran, but eventually also as an inducement for Iranian help in winning freedom for U.S. hostages held by Muslim zealots in Lebanon, the Reagan Administration approved clandestine shipments of military equipment -- ammunition, spare parts for tanks and jet fighters -- to Iran through Israel.

    As long as the deep secret was kept -- even from most of the U.S. intelligence community -- the maneuver in one sense worked. Iran apparently leaned on Lebanese terrorists to set free three American hostages, the latest of whom, David Jacobsen, flew home to the U.S. last week for a Rose Garden meeting with Ronald Reagan. But once the broad outlines of the incredible story became known, the consequences were dire. The Administration appeared to have violated at least the spirit, and possibly the letter, of a long succession of U.S. laws that are intended to stop any arms transfers, direct ( or indirect, to Iran. Washington looked to be sabotaging its own efforts to organize a worldwide embargo against arms sales to Iran, and hypocritically flouting its incessant admonitions to friends and allies not to negotiate with terrorists for the release of their captives.

    Now isn't that right up the 'hope & change' alley?

    The entire 'neat idea' brain fart by North/Hakim/Secord would put one of the most dangerous representatives of one of the oldest drug dealing families from Syria right in the laps of the 'emerging market' for illegal narcotics and terrorism in South America: Monzer al-Kassar. To refresh the memories of those who are willing to forget this problem during the Reagan Administration, let me pull up a bit from Chapter 8 of the Walsh Report on Iran/Contra:

    Phases V-VII of the Contra Arms Sales (March-June 1986)

    Between February 27 and May 23, 1986, the Enterprise paid Defex Portugal about $860,000 for contra weapons. Weapons were delivered to Central America in March, April and May in three shipments. CSF books show profit distributions between April and June, numbered Phases V through VII, totaling $550,471. In addition, there was an unnumbered distribution of $37,277 on June 20, 1986, resulting from the Phase VII shipment.
    The Undelivered Shipment and Distribution (July-September 1986)

    In July 1986, the Enterprise paid Defex (Portugal) $2.6 million and $500,000 to another dealer, Monzer Al Kassar, for contra weapons. In late July, a shipment of arms left Portugal for Central America aboard the recently acquired Enterprise freighter, the Erria.8 According to Thomas Parlow, the Erria's Danish shipping agent, the freighter was carrying arms picked up in Poland and Portugal.9

    8 Clines, Hakim and William Haskell, an associate of North, traveled to Copenhagen in April 1986 to purchase for approximately $320,000 the Erria, which the Enterprise had leased a year earlier for a weapons shipment to the contras. The ship was purchased by the Enterprise in the name of Dolmy Business Inc., a Panamanian shell company. Thomas Parlow became the Erria's Danish shipping agent. According to Parlow, Hakim would telephone Parlow to direct movement of the ship, and Parlow would communicate those directions to the ship's captain. (Parlow, FBI 302, 3/5/87, pp. 2-3.)

    9 Ibid., p. 3.

    As the Erria was nearing Bermuda, Parlow, acting on instructions from Hakim, ordered it to slow its speed and await further instructions. Clines then directed the ship to work its way slowly back to Portugal.10 When it arrived in Portugal it could not obtain permission to enter the port. In this mid- to late-August 1986 period, Secord ordered Clines to try to sell the cargo or dump it at sea, according to Parlow. The vessel headed for Spain, where it remained anchored for two weeks.

    10 The ship apparently was ordered back to Europe because it was to be used in an impending U.S.-Israeli venture involving Iran.

    As the Erria made its circuitous journey, the CIA through a series of commercial entities arranged to buy the weapons aboard. According to CIA officials, they did not learn the identity of either the owner of the ship or its cargo until January 1987, when a newspaper article named the Secord-Hakim Enterprise as the owner of the ship and the weapons.

    The CIA paid $2.1 million for the arms shipment, including shipping and handling costs.11 According to the private arms dealer who bought the arms for the CIA, he paid $1.6 million for the weapons. Of that, the Enterprise received $1.2 million, and the remainder went to Parlow or Defex, who worked together to re-sell the weapons.

    Yes, the money amounts aren't all that much in the arms business, but the *contacts* necessary to swing that entire shipment and keep contacts open with Iran puts Monzer al-Kassar in close proximity to the up and coming Carlos Menem and they would become intertwined in ways that we still cannot figure out, save for the trail of corpses behind them. That man would not only show up in Iran/Contra, but in the *other* big story coming up during that era and be cited as a player in the BCCI report:

    4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

    5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

    6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

    Yes, within the Top 5 of 'things that really need to be done' from that report! And do note his already existing ties to terrorist organizations elsewhere. The grand part of this is that Monzer al-Kassar is a SYRIAN. Beautiful, is it not? 'Hope & Change' applied to BOTH Iran and Syria via the Iran/Contra scandal? You can't get much more 'hope & change'-ful than trying to negotiate arms shipments for hostage releases via organized crime that supports narcotics trafficking and terrorism on a global scale. You could probably find out how Saddam felt about that, being that there was the Iran-Iraq war going on at the time, from your friend and cousin Saddam Hussein, Nadhmi Auchi. Really with Auchi's connections in organized crime, money laundering and terrorism, you can start a whole new style of 'hope & change' and bypass some of the intermediaries that would plague the Reagan Administration: might as well start out with corruption at the top, no?

    And none of this *dealing* would help when the US went in to try and 'stabilize' a small part of the Middle East known as Lebanon. Sen. Obama has, apparently, forgotten that the last time the US made a big, bold and limited venture with the French to help put a lid on things and get Iran and Syria to the 'stabilization' concept, we would end up with our Beirut Embassy being bombed, our Marine Barracks being bombed along with the French camp, and then, after we had skedaddled leaving American blood in Lebanon, our Embassy was bombed *again* in a 'stay out and we mean it' sort of affair. It was their lovely child called Hezbollah under the guidance of Imad Mugniyah who accomplished that, and would later team up with al-Kassar in Argentina for some slaughter there, too. Thank heavens that beast is finally dead, not that we did anything to get him, mind you.

    Speaking of which, the reason al-Kassar was going to Argentina, beyond opening up a heroin for cocaine swap between criminal enterprises, and flooding Europe with cocaine, was to get advanced missile technology and a nuclear reactor from Menem. Took a bit of nudging from the US to nix that, but we wound up with some of the worse expansion of organized crime, narcotics organizations, money laundering, arms dealing and terrorism the world had ever seen. One man really can make a difference!

    Now its time to do the retro-rewind again!

    Why, damn, we are back at the guy who helped to *cause* all these problems, President Jimmy Carter. I have traced this back before, but we might as well start at where 'hope & change' started: with laxness and malaise. But before *that* lets look at some of the folks advising Sen. Obama and the rest of the candidates at that time on foreign policy. You see one of the problems in the 'hope & change' category is the maladroitness of one of your advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski. In an article from Policy Review at the Hoover Institution, we have Mark Bowden reviewing a book put out by Atlantic Monthly Press ( DEC 2006-JAN 2007 Policy Review) we get to see just how Mr. ZB looked at Iran, and you just might want to think a moment about a man who wanted to back the Shah of Iran 'to the hilt' and guaranteed that, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wanted to come to terms with Iran. That was all part of the series of events that led to the first US Embassy break-in in Iran ( FEB 1979) and the second break-in and hostage taking on 04 NOV 1979. Mr. ZB would want to back the Shah 'to the hilt' unless Iran was willing to come over to the US side of the Cold War, in which case he was more than ready to dump the Shah. When Henry Kissinger and Nelson Rockefeller were able to persuade the Carter Administration to take in the ailing Shah, *then* we got the hostage taking. In other words, the Carter Administration was dealing different cards with Mr. ZB and Cyrus Vance, each of whom assumed that Iran was going to be a 'rational state actor' just like all the other Nations on the planet. But Khomeini had his own 'hope & change' that wanted nothing to do with 'Great Power Politics' and was all for overthrowing absolutely everything in the aim of getting a Global Islamic State.

    Apparently Mr. ZB couldn't grasp that and tried to appease Iran by putting forward a 'Green Belt' of Islamic States between the US and USSR. He was hoping that Iran would form up a league of 'moderate muslim' states to confront the USSR! Of course Iraq, France and a few other countries had told us just how radical Khomeini *was* and that his idea of a 'Green Belt' was a one-way, Caliphate-only affair. Somewhere near the end of his term, President Carter finally had the dawning light appear to him, in the form of an election not going so well for him, that he was being dealt with in bad faith by Iran and that they were playing *political games* to wound his Administration and get him out of power. His response to all of this was to sit in the Rose Garden, go 'tut-tut' and do very little. Of course he did try a rescue attempt, but since the US Armed Forces still had not rebuilt nor recovered morale since Vietnam, that operation was an advanced CF of the worst kind.

    Say, what was that about you wanting to cut advanced weapons systems and training, Sen. Obama? Sound like the Jimmy Carter prescription for disaster to me...

    But then I was in the US during that part of the Cold War. I didn't get to be a Kansan-Hawaiin that would spend time in Indonesia and lead a cushioned life insulated from the concept that a sudden nuclear decision in the Kremlin would give me a permanent bad hair day that was terminal. Nor did I get to go through an Ivy League school to rack up tons of debt nor a lovely multi-hundreds of thousands a year job with which to pay it off, all the time garnering lofty ideas of racial separation and how bad the US was and that we deserved everything we got. The feeling with Carter was, at least from my neck of the woods, that he should do something to storm in there and get our people freed just as was done during the Spanish Civil War and other times when US Citizens in government employment overseas were taken hostage by hostiles. I was utterly appalled by President Reagan actually *dealing* with such barbaric characters, and seeking to pay them off, which is something the US has assiduously tried to avoid since President Jefferson not wanting to spend one cent for tribute but millions for defense of our citizens. When those practicing Private War upon the high seas endangered US commerce, President Jackson sent the first US vessel to circumnavigate the planet: the frigate USS Potomac.

    When we *stopped* defending our citizens who had joined our government on the CIVIL SIDE or who were engaged in normal commerce and fully protected under the Law of Nations from unjust attacks, then things started to go very, very wrong.

    But then you wouldn't recognize that as justice, but 'imperialism' that standing up for your fellow citizen and ensuring he is safe from the depredation of those practicing Private War. No, you want to talk with those seeking to dismantle Nations so that they may rule the planet to their own petty desires. Apparently we have tried talking with them, beseeching with them to act in a civilized manner, to show any hint of understanding of reason and reciprocity amongst Nations. Some of your fellow Congresscrittes have been making regular pilgrimages to Syria, for years now, and we have no let-up in the Syrian stance on things. Here is what came of Congressman Rahall's trip:

    Damascus, Syria -- The Middle East peace process "is a process that must succeed, and that is our position, that we want to see that process succeed," Congressman Nick J. Rahall (Democrat, West Virginia) said at an on-the-record press briefing here January 7.

    Rahall, who is leading a congressional delegation to the Middle East that includes Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California) and Maurice Hinchey (Democrat, New York), said "Our mission is to build upon the strong relationships we have with the Syrian people, both on a personal basis and the bilateral relationships that exist between the Syrian and the American government. We hope to use our dialogue while in the country to open up the peace process once again."

    Noting that this was his first visit to the region, Congressman Rohrabacher said he believes the people of the region are "heartsick for peace" and that "there is an opportunity today to further the cause of peace and to come, at last, to an understanding among the parties here in the region that will lead to a lasting peace."

    "There have been a number of examples recently of a ... new fresh wind blowing across this part of the world," Congressman Hinchey said. "There are opportunities to sweep away some of the mistakes of the past, particularly the last two decades. And we hope that this opportunity will be taken advantage of and that we can move forward in a more positive way, both my country, your country, the other countries of this region...."

    That trip was in 1998. Notice the 'new fresh wind' and all of that? Lots of 'hope & change' there and everyone was ready to 'make nice' after a couple of decades of having Israel being attacked, the triple bombings in Beirut against the US... yes, lets just sweep that all under the rug now! As for the most recent trip let see what Rep. Joe Pitts had to say on this:

    "Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," Pitts said after returning home Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength."

    [..]

    "The first thing we said was … to appeal to the Syrian government to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq with (explosives) and killing our soldiers in Iraq," Pitts said. The Republicans also talked about stopping Syrian support of Hamas and Hezbollah and Syrian involvement in Lebanon, he said.

    [..]

    "He denied that there were terrorists that they knew about going through their country," Pitts said. "(The Syrians) said if you have evidence, give it to us, and we'll act on it.

    "They were interested in diplomacy. They want respect. Basically, they feel we have talked down to them, and we don't treat them with civility and as an equal." (Thank you to the Lancaster Online for this 05 APR 2007 report!)

    Why, Sen. Obama, aren't you stealing someone else's 'hope & change' ideas? All they want is a some respect and civility for breaking their agreements on WMD creation and proliferation of technology. A mere *nothing* to someone ready for all this 'hope & change' stuff, no?

    The last man who went to talk to and appease a tyrant was Neville Chamberlain and our media lauded him as seen in this American Radio Account:

    Now we know that Neville Chamberlain, who is a Realist and masterful man, has made up his mind that the time has come to give up attempts at ideal solutions to the European problems, such as through the League of Nations. To deal with facts, as he found them, and the two outstanding facts were the two dictators, Hitler and Moussolini. Both had grievances that had to be recognized and it's possible were right. Before Europe would turn over in bed and most dream comfortably. And Chamberlain told his Cabinet that he was going to settle this and on a Realist basis.
    Ah, such a great idea giving up attempts at 'ideal solutions' and just working with dictators and tyrants who have grievances and giving them what they want. Half-a-loaf and all that! Of course you dare not isolate a tyrant and dictator... why, that is just something that is far too civilized to even consider, as Arthur Henderson points out:
    But to cut off relations with an aggressor may often invite retaliation by armed action, and this would, in its turn, make necessary some form of collective self-defence by the loyal members of the League.
    Yes, if you don't talk to dictators they just might get a bit irate and do something to you! Can't have that now, can we? Arthur Henderson died in 1935 before the outcomes of what that sort of mental attitude did to the world by the policies it created. Policies that sound something like this:
    Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

    Why, are you sure that Iran and Syria just haven't resorted to 'collective self-defense'? Wouldn't that be the lovely excuse to deploy about whey they feel so aggrieved in the world, Sen. Obama? That is, of course, from the Iraq Study Group report, page 7. Which was so enlightened and 'bi-partisan' that it recommends seeking to ask States that are exporting terrorism to destabilize a neighbor if they might, pretty please, think about not doing that? Unfortunately for the very high minded 'Realists' they cannot seem to deal with irrational leaders of Nations, which puts them in a bind when they run across same.

    How about you, Sen. Obama? Just how do you deal with irrational world leaders that are in charge of Nations seeking to export terror, destruction and seek to dominate more and more of our globe? Because, somehow, as seeing the US as the *problem* in the world and wanting us to start disarming in the face of those seeking genocide and domination, I just don't see that attitude as coming to a good end. But that is history for you! Where the 'ideal solution' of wanting leaders of Nations to act in a responsible manner with other Nations just isn't 'Realistic'.

    And not doing so is suicidal.

    Sphere: Related Content

    08 May 2008

    No data? No theory!

    There are two highly related concepts to come from the science fiction field, although they were both present in the general society far before the rise of SF, and these two forms would hinge upon the basis for science itself: information.

    Scientific information has value in that it is put into a regularized formulation of conceptions usually expressed via mathematics, but often through other means when good and rigorous mathematics cannot properly be applied. A field that has experienced much in the 'trial and error' mode is biochemistry, particularly that of longer chain structures in living organisms. The math is, actually, well defined, but the calculation amounts necessary to tell of how a protein forms and interacts with its surroundings is far from simple. Similarly medications that may prove effective in a test tube may prove to be harmful or even lethal in living organisms, thus requiring trials of medications first through complex chemical analogs, then into similar biotic systems (usually animal trials) and then into actual human test subjects. At any point in that process results indicating negative reactions in the target biological system are discarded: for every *new* drug there are thousands or even tens of thousands that went nowhere and were sidelined during this systematic approach to examination. And each of those trials is recorded and become part of the larger literature in that field, so that others can learn by the things that did not prove out. Modern and near future computing power may change that system radically as extremely complex and non-linear functions between molecules may prove amenable to newer computer platforms based on quantum physics.

    Geology is a scientific realm that tends to require some of the tools of the trade across multiple fields as it has under its umbrella everything from astrophysics (planetary motion and the motion of the solar system in the galaxy) all the way down to figuring out how cells function in past observed biotic systems. While it involves all of the sciences in that umbrella, it depends upon a naturally recorded history that has had non-regularity of record keeping: the entire Earth's history is not recorded at any one spot of the planet, but is a massive cross-indexed system of observations going from direct observations of the Oort cloud down to the sedimentary strata seen on old fashioned slate chalkboards. Physics and biology have played major and determining roles in geology, but so have biochemistry and astronomy: the greatest insight into the K-T extinction event was *not* made by a geologist but by Luis Alvarez a physicist who was working with his son Walter who was a geologist.

    In a tragi-comedic event Luis Alvarez pointed out that the K-T boundary layer, seen in both terrestrial and water sedimentary deposits was most likely deposited simultaneously. This was not very new but the 'what did it mean' brought everyone up short, until Luis Alvarez suggested the simple idea of getting an elemental analysis of it. The world-wide geologic community went on a scramble to start doing this thing known as: looking at the record and analyzing it. The results were astounding, indicating a high incidence of Iridium not found in normal terrestrial processes, large quantities of 3-axis shocked quartz (rarely seen in even extreme volcanic activity) and a lot of carbon particulates. Iridium, shocked quartz and soot... all in quantities only an inch or so thick, but evenly distributed on a global basis as seen in sea floor cores and uplifted rock strata. If you had a continuous transition from the Cretaceous to the Tertiary, you had this boundary layer. Taken as a whole it indicated a large astronomical event from a boloid 6-10 miles across impacting the planet.

    That is not the only case of geology not doing its job, and rigorous work on such things as Piltdown Man would demonstrate that a hodge-podge of bones were being passed off as 'the real thing' while, in fact, they bore none of the developmental traits expected from such an animal nor did they have the same age. Piltdown Man was created to try and bolster a theory of human development that was popular, but ultimately wrong. It was done with intent to defraud the community and raise the status of a theory and those backing it and it remains a waypoint on the line of human hubris in the sciences.

    In the non-fraud realm one can be absolutely certain they are right and have no coherent theory to back them up. In one of the earliest pieces I wrote, the case of Alfred Wegener came to the forefront. He is not well known outside the scientific community even when his observational capabilities were excellent. For that he was given proper credit and praise. He also recognized that the idea of static continents was contra-indicated by his field observations and would seek to overturn all of uniformitarianism that postulated fixed continents that went up and down, but basically stayed in place. There he ran afoul of the physics of his theory and it was not held by the scientific community at large. Only the post-WWII released observations of US submarine magnetic records would allow the first major pieces of this revolutionary idea to be put together properly. In 20 years all of static uniformitarianism had been replaced by motion-based uniformitarianism in this thing known as plate tectonics. By having a regularized understanding of how and why continents could move, the resultant Tectonic Theory explained not only all the observations that uniformiatrianism in the static mode could not, but made the ability to predict outcomes of this process. That was a global scientific community revelation and gave a new framework for the basis of Earth history and uniformity of process that went across all the sciences. Many would not be effected deeply, while others, such as biology and embryology, would start to piece together the puzzle of Ernst Haeckel's observation that "ontologeny recapitulates phylogeny".

    In that realm, too, Haeckel had done good work to actually draw out the stages of embryos from first development to final, pre-birth life form. As an observation it is excellent, but the concept that each embryological form represents the adult formulation of a previous species is incorrect: growth patterns of previous developments are retained, genetically, which may give a temporary outward appearance to that of predecessor species, but at no point until birth is the final form of any species represented. By having an understanding of past climates and biotas, the parallels between modern embryos and past life forms is one that is parallel in track, due to ancestry, but not definitive at any step along the way. This would give a spur to genetics to examine just how and why the tempo and mode of developmental changes in embryos happen which would lead to the modern analysis of gene timing in embryology and being able to record which genes (or gene suites) influence what growth patterns and for how long. By looking at base patterning for body type and how that is influenced by climate biologists can now look for the genetic trait types that allow for the formulation of these body parts. The question of how those pattern and timing changes are reflected in the final, resultant animal are, however, still to be figured out, but the genetic backing for them is unquestionable and puts a solid understanding of how and why species can arise from parent species and allows us to look for modern climate equivalents in places like Australia or off the coast of Bosnia.

    In these endeavors the primacy of data that is analyzed is supreme: when data contraindicates a theory or hypothesis, no matter how well held, that conjecture either needs to be 'patched' or tossed out completely. Einstein's Special relativity had a measurement that could be done during a solar eclipse and when a mathematician pointed out an error in his math, Einstein scrambled to ensure that the proper rendition of his formulas was given to the wider community. Relativity, itself, would seek to give a new framework to encapsulate and replace Newtonian physics, which had been patched to the point of falling apart by the early 20th century. Without that change we might have even a lower opinion of Einstein's ability at math than we do today! His problem was to develop an encompassing framework that explained all the problems with the older system as seen by data, and give it a new system which explains the problems and postulates effects that are predictive. General relativity would, finally, solve the problem of 'why is Mercury's orbit so irregular?', and give frame-dragging as the answer. Einstein cannot be considered alone, just 'first to publish' and others had been on the cusp of both special and general relativity in the same era, so even without Einstein our world would still have many of the same features we see today because it was a large-scale endeavor that many tried to solve and publication by months or weeks or days or hours gets primacy of place in the history books.

    This brings us to a modern- day problem that is put forward by a number of people: Global Warming. GW, as a hypothesis, is built upon data sets: it has to be to have any scientific credence. One of the main data sets and data processing points has been the NASA group at Goddard Space Flight institute. Much of the data they processed seemed to indicate a growing in temperatures over time. An entire industry to hype this grew up and purported to show other effects of this climate change, and man-made global warming was posited due to carbon dioxide emissions. Way back when I first started blogging I looked at the carbon dioxide data vs. global temperatures for a period of 800 million years and found a general non-coincidence of measurements, save for the extremely low end of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Personally, I demoted GW from 'theory' well backed and having a good mechanical understanding of what it was presenting, to that of 'hypothesis' which is more speculation on less data than by hard-backed data. And note the data, itself, for such a long term sequencing of global temperature invalidates carbon dioxide as a driving force to a 'runaway greenhouse effect' as we have had much higher atmospheric concentrations (by an order of over 20 times) than today.

    As a data-driven concept it was, at best, hitting in the league of Alfred Wegener: it might be right, but not by the process being backed. Later, in another post, I posited that some of the largest scale geologic functions, that of plate tectonics, *does* offer a good driver for 'climate change'. Further, the star Sol, itself, if having minor (sub-1%) variations in output due to natural stellar processes, would have a huge impact on climate for our planet. In AUG 2007 the bottom started to drop out of GW as even a hypothesis: NASA had been demonstrated to have a calculation error that effected all data sets in a determinative way and their calculations were actually no longer coinciding with actual temperature readings. When processed data no longer correlates with actual readings, then the processing is in error and all previous work built on that must be set aside and re-examined. That is how science operates and that massive dataset dropping out from GW took the hypothesis with it. Without the data you are now purely speculating and have no fundamental backing by observation. Then the mean sea level records have demonstrated to have been analyzed without regard to plate tectonic activity and the re-adjustment of that demonstrates no significant change on a global basis of mean sea level. That is absolutely contra-indicatory of Global Warming as that conjecture has this dataset as one of its prize foundations: that foundation has been removed from it.

    In science 'one strike and you're out' usually does it. Two strikes is lethal. In 2006 NOAA released a report that indicated that not only were global mean sea temperatures not rising, but they were falling. Some of this was traced to instrumentation error on research vessels that were not conforming to wider-scale satellite data observations. This is not only contrary to Global Warming, it is a key part of the GW conjecture: that mean sea temperatures were rising. Then comes a killer for GW, when the 2007 student project by Anthony Watts to actually map and photograph weather stations in the US turns into the surfacestations.org site. If science is based upon observations, then assuring that the actual observation sites for gathering data have a commonality to them is essential. This mapping and photography project, now with many contributors, is showing up the high degree of variability within the US weather data recording system due to poor site placement and increasing density of buildings around previously isolated sites.

    Those are strikes three and four, respectively.

    When I refer to Anthropogenic Global Warming as a religion, it is due to the fact that it has no substantive underlying data to it. Even worse the data it depended upon has actually demonstrated to be giving *opposite* or non-coincidental trends to those purported. When your own data can no longer support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis must go: gather lots more data and try to make sense out of it as the limited data sets given are not there to back any AGW or GW theory. It can't even meet the scanty standard of Haeckel, which was far more detailed and is still useful for the actual developmental drawings he made.

    The data is just not there, therefore the theory is inoperable along the parameters it has been built upon... and will have a damned hard time finding *any* other parameters save for solar output. It would sure be nice to have a space based economy if that is the case...

    Once this current era of plate tectonics having the continents racing around the globe that started some 70 million years ago simmers down in a few millions of years I do expect traditional processes to come back and regression towards the mean to happen. Until then, until the Isthmus connect the Americas goes under, the Himalayas get out of their current location and Antarctica stops being a heat sink for the planet by moving northwards, all I can say is that the outlook for inter-glacial periods during our current arrangement will remain with highly variable temperatures and climate for thousands of years, trending towards rapid onset of continental glaciers lasting for tens of thousands of years if not longer.

    Sphere: Related Content