Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias
By Paul Bedard
The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.
In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called "Fox Effect," which claims the conservative media is dragging the left into the center, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that "all" mainstream news outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by the slant.
"Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias,'" he writes in an advance copy provided to Washington Whispers. "Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players."
What's more, he says, "this point illustrates a common misconception about the Drudge Report. According to my analysis, the Drudge Report is approximately the most fair, balanced, and centrist news outlet in the United States. Yet, the overwhelming majority of media commentators claim that it has a conservative bias. The problem, I believe, is that such commentators mistake relative bias for absolute bias. Yes, the Drudge Report is more conservative than the average U.S. news outlet. But it is a logical mistake to use that to infer that it is based on an absolute scale."
And in further analysis sure to enrage critics of conservative media, Groseclose determines that Drudge, on a conservative to liberal scale of 0-100, with 50 being centrist, actually leans a bit left of center with a score of 60.4. The reason: Drudge mostly links to the sites of the mainstream media, with just a few written by Matt Drudge himself. "Since these links come from a broad mix of media outlets, and since the news in general is left-leaning, it should not be surprising that the slant quotient of the Drudge Report leans left," he writes.
The author developed a calculation to figure out the "political quotient" to find the bias of media outlets and the average slant of an organization.
Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter. "Using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass—a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see."
He adds: "That bias makes us more liberal, which makes us less able to detect the bias, which allows the media to get away with more bias, which makes us even more liberal."
Some key points:
"Every mainstream national news outlet in the United States has a liberal bias."
"Supposedly conservative news outlets are not far right. For instance, the conservative bias of [Fox's] Special Report is significantly less than the liberal bias of CBS Evening News."
"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46."
Perhaps the most useful part of his book is the slant ratings of the media. The numbers are based on a conservative-to-liberal 0-100 rating, with 50 being centrist:
New York Times-73.7.
CBS Evening News-73.7.
NPR Morning Edition-66.3.
U.S. News & World Report-65.8.
Drudge Report-60.4.
ABC Good Morning America-56.1.
Washington Times-35.4.
Left Turn, How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, published by St. Martin's Press, is due out July 19.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Mother Convicted of Spanking Own Child
Judge has harsh words for Mom before sentencing her for spanking her kid
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CBS) -- A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.
"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.
As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she'll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.
She was arrested back in December after the child's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear end. The grandmother took the girl, who was two years-old at the time, to the hospital to be checked out.
Gonzales who doesn't have custody of the child or her other two children, is trying to get them back, but until CPS feels she is ready the kids are living with their paternal grandmother.
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CBS) -- A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.
"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.
As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she'll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.
She was arrested back in December after the child's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear end. The grandmother took the girl, who was two years-old at the time, to the hospital to be checked out.
Gonzales who doesn't have custody of the child or her other two children, is trying to get them back, but until CPS feels she is ready the kids are living with their paternal grandmother.
Homeland Security Demands Explanation for 'Racial Profiling' at Airport
U.S. Homeland Security Committee demands TSA explain reports of racial profiling at Newark airport
By Steve Strunsky/The Star-Ledger
WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee said they want the head of the Transportation Security Administration to explain how racial profiling became a common practice among TSA screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) are both seeking answers from TSA Administrator John Pistole, after a federal report found several behavior detection officers, or BDOs, had singled out Mexican and Dominican passengers for special scrutiny, bag searches, questioning and document reviews in 2008 and 2009.
"We have been in contact with TSA. We are looking forward to hearing Administrator Pistole’s analysis," King, who is from Long Island, said in a statement "After that, we will determine our course of action."
Thompson said the report confirmed his fears the TSA’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT program, was vulnerable to manipulation or abuse.
"TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report."
The Star-Ledger obtained a copy of the January 2010 report and broke the news of its findings on Sunday.
The report, which was ordered by Newark’s former TSA director in the wake of complaints from BDOs, said passengers found to have lapsed visas or expired passports would be referred for additional screening or turned over to immigration officials. It was an easy way, the report said, for the behavior detection unit to boost its referrals and appear productive.
The group of managers and BDOs who engaged in racial profiling were dubbed "the Great Mexican Hunters" by other TSA employees at the airport.
Racial profiling violates official TSA policy and courts have found it unconstitutional in other contexts, including traffic stops on the New Jersey Turnpike, a situation that led to federal monitoring of the State Police until last February.
The TSA acknowledged the report’s findings, but insisted Newark’s BDOs have been retrained and steps taken to prevent the practice from resurfacing.
A behavior detection manager demoted as a result of the report’s findings denied that racial profiling went on at the airport. He said managers cited in the report were the victims of false allegations by disgruntled subordinates, and that he was singled out as a scapegoat.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.), a frequent critic of the TSA’s use of full-body scanners, said he had cautioned Pistole to guard against racial profiling in the past.
"No one should have to fear unlawful detention or inspection based solely on the color of their skin," Holt said in a statement.
Ed Borocas, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey, called the revelations in the report "deeply troubling." William Buckman, a lawyer who helped to overturn scores of drug convictions obtained through racial profiling on the turnpike, said he was not surprised by the report’s findings.
"I’ve heard many anecdotal complaints about that," Buckman said. Whether used by troopers or airport screeners, Buckman said, "Racial profiling seems to be a fallback position to produce statistics."
Previous coverage:
• Report: Newark airport screeners targeted Mexicans
By Steve Strunsky/The Star-Ledger
WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee said they want the head of the Transportation Security Administration to explain how racial profiling became a common practice among TSA screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) are both seeking answers from TSA Administrator John Pistole, after a federal report found several behavior detection officers, or BDOs, had singled out Mexican and Dominican passengers for special scrutiny, bag searches, questioning and document reviews in 2008 and 2009.
"We have been in contact with TSA. We are looking forward to hearing Administrator Pistole’s analysis," King, who is from Long Island, said in a statement "After that, we will determine our course of action."
Thompson said the report confirmed his fears the TSA’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT program, was vulnerable to manipulation or abuse.
"TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report."
The Star-Ledger obtained a copy of the January 2010 report and broke the news of its findings on Sunday.
The report, which was ordered by Newark’s former TSA director in the wake of complaints from BDOs, said passengers found to have lapsed visas or expired passports would be referred for additional screening or turned over to immigration officials. It was an easy way, the report said, for the behavior detection unit to boost its referrals and appear productive.
The group of managers and BDOs who engaged in racial profiling were dubbed "the Great Mexican Hunters" by other TSA employees at the airport.
Racial profiling violates official TSA policy and courts have found it unconstitutional in other contexts, including traffic stops on the New Jersey Turnpike, a situation that led to federal monitoring of the State Police until last February.
The TSA acknowledged the report’s findings, but insisted Newark’s BDOs have been retrained and steps taken to prevent the practice from resurfacing.
A behavior detection manager demoted as a result of the report’s findings denied that racial profiling went on at the airport. He said managers cited in the report were the victims of false allegations by disgruntled subordinates, and that he was singled out as a scapegoat.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-12th Dist.), a frequent critic of the TSA’s use of full-body scanners, said he had cautioned Pistole to guard against racial profiling in the past.
"No one should have to fear unlawful detention or inspection based solely on the color of their skin," Holt said in a statement.
Ed Borocas, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey, called the revelations in the report "deeply troubling." William Buckman, a lawyer who helped to overturn scores of drug convictions obtained through racial profiling on the turnpike, said he was not surprised by the report’s findings.
"I’ve heard many anecdotal complaints about that," Buckman said. Whether used by troopers or airport screeners, Buckman said, "Racial profiling seems to be a fallback position to produce statistics."
Previous coverage:
• Report: Newark airport screeners targeted Mexicans
UN aims to set new international labor laws
New treaty aims to protect millions of domestic workers
The International Labour Organisation has overwhelmingly backed a new convention to protect domestic workers as governments try to establish a universal standard to protect as many as 100 million people worldwide.
By Joseph BAMAT (text)
Member countries of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favour of a landmark treaty to protect the rights of domestic workers worldwide. Advocates of the new convention say a universal standard is needed to address the situation of workers that have long remained among the most exploited and abused.
According to data from individual countries, more than 52.5 million people worldwide earn their living as domestic workers. However, their often unofficial status in their host countries makes it likely that the real figure is closer to 100 million, the ILO said.
“Domestic workers represent the largest category of workers that continue to face huge deficits in terms of legal protection,” said Manuela Tomei, head of the Conditions of Work and Employment Programme office at the ILO.
According to the UN group, domestic work is one of the oldest occupations, but because it is carried out in private homes, it remains one of the most difficult to monitor.
The new convention grants domestic workers one full day off per week, as well as overtime pay or vacation compensation for working extra hours. It also requires governments to inform domestic workers of their rights and ensures their right to organise as well as access to courts to file worker complaints.
Underscoring the risks faced by domestic workers, a Malaysian couple was charged on Thursday with the murder of their Indonesian maid. Police suspect that the victim, Isti Komariyah, 26, was beaten to death on June 5 by her employers. Indonesia banned its citizens from working as domestic workers in Malaysia in 2009 after reports of widespread abuse.
The ILO treaty, which was adopted with 396 votes for, 16 against and 63 abstentions, will come into effect upon its ratification by two countries. A handful of countries, including Brazil, Namibia and South Africa, have already said they would ratify the accord. The ILO hopes the convention will come into force within two years.
Lively debate
The convention seeks to define the status of domestic workers and states unambiguously that such employees should be afforded the same rights as other employees in a particular country. “In many countries, domestic workers are not regarded as workers, and are not covered by existing work codes and laws,” Tomei explained.
Great Britain said it could not vote for the convention as it was "unable to ratify in the foreseeable future", the French news agency AFP reported. Britain noted that it was not practical to apply the same health and safety standards – including inspections – to private households employing domestic workers. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand also abstained.
Tomei said certain issues sparked lively debate at the ILO ahead of Thursday’s vote.
“How do we strike the right balance between allowing labour inspections and people’s right to privacy within their own homes?” she asked.
Tomei said the delegates searched for a compromise text that was worded in such a way as to allow flexibility. “[The convention] does not impose inspections, so it can be applied in a meaningful way to the broad range of legal regimes across the planet,” she said.
Changing mindsets
At a press conference after the vote, ILO director Juan Somavia said the convention was a historic step in applying systems of standards to informal economies. Domestic work is largely excluded from social programmes such as maternity benefits and social security. This often perpetuates unjust social models and disproportionally affects women, the ILO has noted.
“Mindsets need to be changed,” Tomei told FRANCE 24. “We’re slowly shifting from considering domestic work as a master/servant relationship to a worker/employer relationship.”
While Swaziland was the only government to vote against the treaty, the power of the convention to improve the lives of domestic workers remains difficult to foresee. Tomei admitted the convention will not change conditions overnight and that its effects largely depend on the will of individual member states.
Countries will not have to implement the treaty until after it is ratified and others can opt not to sign up, further reducing the convention’s impact.
The International Labour Organisation has overwhelmingly backed a new convention to protect domestic workers as governments try to establish a universal standard to protect as many as 100 million people worldwide.
By Joseph BAMAT (text)
Member countries of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favour of a landmark treaty to protect the rights of domestic workers worldwide. Advocates of the new convention say a universal standard is needed to address the situation of workers that have long remained among the most exploited and abused.
According to data from individual countries, more than 52.5 million people worldwide earn their living as domestic workers. However, their often unofficial status in their host countries makes it likely that the real figure is closer to 100 million, the ILO said.
“Domestic workers represent the largest category of workers that continue to face huge deficits in terms of legal protection,” said Manuela Tomei, head of the Conditions of Work and Employment Programme office at the ILO.
According to the UN group, domestic work is one of the oldest occupations, but because it is carried out in private homes, it remains one of the most difficult to monitor.
The new convention grants domestic workers one full day off per week, as well as overtime pay or vacation compensation for working extra hours. It also requires governments to inform domestic workers of their rights and ensures their right to organise as well as access to courts to file worker complaints.
Underscoring the risks faced by domestic workers, a Malaysian couple was charged on Thursday with the murder of their Indonesian maid. Police suspect that the victim, Isti Komariyah, 26, was beaten to death on June 5 by her employers. Indonesia banned its citizens from working as domestic workers in Malaysia in 2009 after reports of widespread abuse.
The ILO treaty, which was adopted with 396 votes for, 16 against and 63 abstentions, will come into effect upon its ratification by two countries. A handful of countries, including Brazil, Namibia and South Africa, have already said they would ratify the accord. The ILO hopes the convention will come into force within two years.
Lively debate
The convention seeks to define the status of domestic workers and states unambiguously that such employees should be afforded the same rights as other employees in a particular country. “In many countries, domestic workers are not regarded as workers, and are not covered by existing work codes and laws,” Tomei explained.
Great Britain said it could not vote for the convention as it was "unable to ratify in the foreseeable future", the French news agency AFP reported. Britain noted that it was not practical to apply the same health and safety standards – including inspections – to private households employing domestic workers. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand also abstained.
Tomei said certain issues sparked lively debate at the ILO ahead of Thursday’s vote.
“How do we strike the right balance between allowing labour inspections and people’s right to privacy within their own homes?” she asked.
Tomei said the delegates searched for a compromise text that was worded in such a way as to allow flexibility. “[The convention] does not impose inspections, so it can be applied in a meaningful way to the broad range of legal regimes across the planet,” she said.
Changing mindsets
At a press conference after the vote, ILO director Juan Somavia said the convention was a historic step in applying systems of standards to informal economies. Domestic work is largely excluded from social programmes such as maternity benefits and social security. This often perpetuates unjust social models and disproportionally affects women, the ILO has noted.
“Mindsets need to be changed,” Tomei told FRANCE 24. “We’re slowly shifting from considering domestic work as a master/servant relationship to a worker/employer relationship.”
While Swaziland was the only government to vote against the treaty, the power of the convention to improve the lives of domestic workers remains difficult to foresee. Tomei admitted the convention will not change conditions overnight and that its effects largely depend on the will of individual member states.
Countries will not have to implement the treaty until after it is ratified and others can opt not to sign up, further reducing the convention’s impact.
EU's contested plan for five-month paid maternity in limbo
EU's contested plan for five-month paid maternity in limbo
European Union ministers Friday failed to endorse a hotly-contested plan to offer new mothers in Europe five months of fully-paid maternity leave.
The scheme, approved by the European parliament late last year but notably opposed by Britain on grounds of the costs, was left in limbo after failing to win approval from EU ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
In a statement issued following the talks, the EU said "several ministers expressed their concerns."
"Some ministers, given the diverging views, advocated that the Council should consider not continuing its work on this topic, while others stressed that the work should continue."
The plan adopted by the parliament proposed raising maternity leave from 14 weeks to 20 while giving fathers across the 27-nation bloc two weeks to spend time with their newborn.
But some governments warned the 20-week fully paid leave would add a huge burden to hard-pressed economies, while business leaders argued it might work against giving jobs to women in the long term.
Britain said at the time it would more than double its maternity leave bill, adding up to 2.4 billion pounds a year (2.75 billion euros, $3.8 billion).
European parliament rapporteur on maternity leave, Portuguese Socialist Edite Estrela criticised the lack of progress but said work would continue to find a compromise "which will fulfil the needs of European families and of the European economy."
She said in a statement that pubic opinion favoured the scheme.
A recent EU-wide Eurobarometer opinion survey showed nearly eight out of 10 respondents, or 78 percent, in favour of maternity leave of 20 weeks at full pay.
The scheme will now go back to the EU executive, the European Commission, for further work.
European Union ministers Friday failed to endorse a hotly-contested plan to offer new mothers in Europe five months of fully-paid maternity leave.
The scheme, approved by the European parliament late last year but notably opposed by Britain on grounds of the costs, was left in limbo after failing to win approval from EU ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
In a statement issued following the talks, the EU said "several ministers expressed their concerns."
"Some ministers, given the diverging views, advocated that the Council should consider not continuing its work on this topic, while others stressed that the work should continue."
The plan adopted by the parliament proposed raising maternity leave from 14 weeks to 20 while giving fathers across the 27-nation bloc two weeks to spend time with their newborn.
But some governments warned the 20-week fully paid leave would add a huge burden to hard-pressed economies, while business leaders argued it might work against giving jobs to women in the long term.
Britain said at the time it would more than double its maternity leave bill, adding up to 2.4 billion pounds a year (2.75 billion euros, $3.8 billion).
European parliament rapporteur on maternity leave, Portuguese Socialist Edite Estrela criticised the lack of progress but said work would continue to find a compromise "which will fulfil the needs of European families and of the European economy."
She said in a statement that pubic opinion favoured the scheme.
A recent EU-wide Eurobarometer opinion survey showed nearly eight out of 10 respondents, or 78 percent, in favour of maternity leave of 20 weeks at full pay.
The scheme will now go back to the EU executive, the European Commission, for further work.
School surveys 7th-graders on oral sex
School surveys 7th-graders on oral sex
By Todd Starnes
A middle school in Massachusetts is under fire for requiring children to complete a graphic sex survey -- without parental knowledge or consent -- that included questions about sexual partners and oral sex.
The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Education against the Fitchburg School Committee. They are representing the two middle school-aged daughters of Arlene Tessitore.
Tessitore said her daughters, both students at Memorial Middle School, were told they had to complete a Youth Risk Behavior Study.
“Kids were actually told to sit down and take them,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The parents here are very upset.”
Whitehead said the girls were deeply disturbed by the subject matter of the study – including questions about suicide, drug use and sexual behavior.
“One of the questions is, ‘have you ever had oral sex,’” Whitehead said. “You’re talking about kids who probably don’t even know what oral sex is.”
He said the survey also delved into even more graphic language.
“It’s adult material,” he told Fox News Radio, noting that one question asked students what method they used to prevent pregnancy during their last sexual encounter.
“It goes down a whole list, including birth control pills, condoms and one of the answers is ‘withdraw,’” Whitehead said. “Adults know what this is, but kids have to imagine or go online to find out what it means.”
Principal Fran Thomas told Fox News Radio that students were indeed given the survey – and admits it was graphic. But Thomas said the school has nothing to do with the content and they were required to administer the survey to fulfill a grant requirement.
“I can take no responsibility for what’s on that survey,” Thomas said. “It’s not generated by the school system.”
Thomas said the survey was funded by a federal grant and administered by LUK Inc., a local social services agency -- in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control.
The organization’s leader did not return numerous calls for comment. But according to its website, LUK, Inc.’s mission is to “challenge and support youth & families to recognize and fulfill their unique and productive potential through community-based prevention, intervention and education services.”
A spokesperson for the CDC denied any involvement in the Fitchburg sex survey. The CDC said only seven states and six urban districts include sexual identity questions on their YRBS surveys – and the questions are optional.
But Principal Thomas disputed that notion.
“It was not optional,” he said. “It’s part of a grant that they applied for and the district said you have to administer this survey.”
According to Whitehead, parents were sent a “passive consent” opt-out form. However, Tessitore said she never received the form and never gave permission for her daughters to take part in the survey.
“It was a case of the school telling parents what they were going to do,” he said. “If parents want their kids to answer these kinds of questions as federal law requires, they should give written consent. But if they don’t give consent, I don’t think public officials should be asking children such questions.”
Thomas said he understands the concerns expressed by the parents. But should the middle school be asking children questions about oral sex?
“That’s not a question I’d be asking,” Thomas said. “That’s not information that needs to be gathered in an indiscriminate manner – asking every single student these sorts of questions.”
Thomas said it wasn’t appropriate. “I think there are many things that schools are called upon to do because they think they’ve got a captive audience,” he noted.
Whitehead wants the Department of Education to step in and demand that the Fitchburg school follow the law when it comes to parental consent.
“Parents send their children to public schools to receive an education; not to become subjects of governmental data mining,” Whitehead said.
Click here for more on this story from Fox Radio.
By Todd Starnes
A middle school in Massachusetts is under fire for requiring children to complete a graphic sex survey -- without parental knowledge or consent -- that included questions about sexual partners and oral sex.
The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Education against the Fitchburg School Committee. They are representing the two middle school-aged daughters of Arlene Tessitore.
Tessitore said her daughters, both students at Memorial Middle School, were told they had to complete a Youth Risk Behavior Study.
“Kids were actually told to sit down and take them,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The parents here are very upset.”
Whitehead said the girls were deeply disturbed by the subject matter of the study – including questions about suicide, drug use and sexual behavior.
“One of the questions is, ‘have you ever had oral sex,’” Whitehead said. “You’re talking about kids who probably don’t even know what oral sex is.”
He said the survey also delved into even more graphic language.
“It’s adult material,” he told Fox News Radio, noting that one question asked students what method they used to prevent pregnancy during their last sexual encounter.
“It goes down a whole list, including birth control pills, condoms and one of the answers is ‘withdraw,’” Whitehead said. “Adults know what this is, but kids have to imagine or go online to find out what it means.”
Principal Fran Thomas told Fox News Radio that students were indeed given the survey – and admits it was graphic. But Thomas said the school has nothing to do with the content and they were required to administer the survey to fulfill a grant requirement.
“I can take no responsibility for what’s on that survey,” Thomas said. “It’s not generated by the school system.”
Thomas said the survey was funded by a federal grant and administered by LUK Inc., a local social services agency -- in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control.
The organization’s leader did not return numerous calls for comment. But according to its website, LUK, Inc.’s mission is to “challenge and support youth & families to recognize and fulfill their unique and productive potential through community-based prevention, intervention and education services.”
A spokesperson for the CDC denied any involvement in the Fitchburg sex survey. The CDC said only seven states and six urban districts include sexual identity questions on their YRBS surveys – and the questions are optional.
But Principal Thomas disputed that notion.
“It was not optional,” he said. “It’s part of a grant that they applied for and the district said you have to administer this survey.”
According to Whitehead, parents were sent a “passive consent” opt-out form. However, Tessitore said she never received the form and never gave permission for her daughters to take part in the survey.
“It was a case of the school telling parents what they were going to do,” he said. “If parents want their kids to answer these kinds of questions as federal law requires, they should give written consent. But if they don’t give consent, I don’t think public officials should be asking children such questions.”
Thomas said he understands the concerns expressed by the parents. But should the middle school be asking children questions about oral sex?
“That’s not a question I’d be asking,” Thomas said. “That’s not information that needs to be gathered in an indiscriminate manner – asking every single student these sorts of questions.”
Thomas said it wasn’t appropriate. “I think there are many things that schools are called upon to do because they think they’ve got a captive audience,” he noted.
Whitehead wants the Department of Education to step in and demand that the Fitchburg school follow the law when it comes to parental consent.
“Parents send their children to public schools to receive an education; not to become subjects of governmental data mining,” Whitehead said.
Click here for more on this story from Fox Radio.
China delaying probe into fake military parts: US
China delaying probe into fake military parts: US
WASHINGTON Two key US senators late on Tuesday accused China of hampering a congressional probe into how counterfeit electronics end up in the US military supply chain by denying entry visas to investigators.
“I can’t say that I’m surprised, but I surely am disappointed, and it’s not in their interest,” Democratic Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said. “I am disappointed that they don’t see that.”
“The United States and China are not destined to be adversaries. We have overlapping interests and this is actually one of them,” said Senator John McCain, the top Republican on Levin’s panel.
The senators also said China had required that government minders attend any interviews conducted in China as part of the investigation, which was announced in March, but agreed that request was a “non-starter.”
Levin and McCain said that they had worked for weeks to get entry visas for staff to visit the city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province, which they described as the epicentre of the fake parts trade based on US government reports.
“We are not confirming guilt or innocence, but there are sufficient allegations,” said McCain, who warned that at stake was “the ability of this country to defend itself with weapons systems that it can rely on.”
US defence contractors and component distributors “almost totally and exclusively point to China, specifically the city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province, as a source of counterfeit electronic parts,” said Levin.
The Democrat said the investigators would meet with the US consul general in Hong Kong early on Wednesday as part of a last-ditch attempt to secure the necessary visas for what he said would be a one- or two-day visit.
“Our staff has been told that the trade in counterfeit electronic parts takes place openly in that city and in that province, and they plan to travel to that city to make a firsthand assessment,” said Levin.
Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said that the issue “involves law enforcement and China’s judicial sovereignty, which should be respected.”
“We’ve been telling the congressmen’s offices that such issues are supposed to be raised through the normal channel of China-US law enforcement cooperation, and we’re ready to stay in touch with the US side,” Wang said.
McCain, asked by AFP what would happen if Beijing continues to block the trip, said: “I would guess that we will then complain about it but then also we’ll seek further investigation on this issue.”
He noted that a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office — the US Congress’s investigative arm — on the issue “didn’t get Chinese cooperation.”
Levin said that report found that counterfeit electronics had “infiltrated” the Pentagon’s supply chain, including microprocessors for the F-15 fighter jet and microcircuits for US Missile Defence Agency hardware.
WASHINGTON Two key US senators late on Tuesday accused China of hampering a congressional probe into how counterfeit electronics end up in the US military supply chain by denying entry visas to investigators.
“I can’t say that I’m surprised, but I surely am disappointed, and it’s not in their interest,” Democratic Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said. “I am disappointed that they don’t see that.”
“The United States and China are not destined to be adversaries. We have overlapping interests and this is actually one of them,” said Senator John McCain, the top Republican on Levin’s panel.
The senators also said China had required that government minders attend any interviews conducted in China as part of the investigation, which was announced in March, but agreed that request was a “non-starter.”
Levin and McCain said that they had worked for weeks to get entry visas for staff to visit the city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province, which they described as the epicentre of the fake parts trade based on US government reports.
“We are not confirming guilt or innocence, but there are sufficient allegations,” said McCain, who warned that at stake was “the ability of this country to defend itself with weapons systems that it can rely on.”
US defence contractors and component distributors “almost totally and exclusively point to China, specifically the city of Shenzhen in Guangdong province, as a source of counterfeit electronic parts,” said Levin.
The Democrat said the investigators would meet with the US consul general in Hong Kong early on Wednesday as part of a last-ditch attempt to secure the necessary visas for what he said would be a one- or two-day visit.
“Our staff has been told that the trade in counterfeit electronic parts takes place openly in that city and in that province, and they plan to travel to that city to make a firsthand assessment,” said Levin.
Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said that the issue “involves law enforcement and China’s judicial sovereignty, which should be respected.”
“We’ve been telling the congressmen’s offices that such issues are supposed to be raised through the normal channel of China-US law enforcement cooperation, and we’re ready to stay in touch with the US side,” Wang said.
McCain, asked by AFP what would happen if Beijing continues to block the trip, said: “I would guess that we will then complain about it but then also we’ll seek further investigation on this issue.”
He noted that a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office — the US Congress’s investigative arm — on the issue “didn’t get Chinese cooperation.”
Levin said that report found that counterfeit electronics had “infiltrated” the Pentagon’s supply chain, including microprocessors for the F-15 fighter jet and microcircuits for US Missile Defence Agency hardware.
Bond Market Rejects Greek Solution Already
Bond Market Rejects Greek Solution Already
If the "Vienna-Style" Agreement between Trichet, Sarkozy, and Merkel was a genuine solution to the crisis in Greece, sovereign debt yields would be falling sharply across Europe.
Instead, yields in Portugal are up, and yields in Spain, Italy, and Ireland are only slightly lower.
Spain 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .08 to 5.57%
Portugal 10-Year Government Bond Yield Up .04 to 10.91%
Italy 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .03 to 4.82%
Ireland 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .17 to 11.39%
Action in Greek 2-Year Bonds
After falling as "low" as 27.52% 2-year Greek bonds closed at 28.79%.
Market Laughs at "Solution"
The bond market laughs at the proposed solution to the Greek crisis, and so do I.
Four Things to Expect
1) Expect the market to call another can-kicking bluff as early as next week.
2) Expect more pompous foolery from Trichet and Sarkozy.
3) Expect Merkel to take another well-deserved election pounding in September.
4) The main thing to expect is for the market to start demanding involuntary haircuts on the debt of Portugal, Ireland, then Spain and Italy.
In the next phase of the crisis (which can happen as soon as Monday), expect to see yields shoot up in Spain and Italy.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
If the "Vienna-Style" Agreement between Trichet, Sarkozy, and Merkel was a genuine solution to the crisis in Greece, sovereign debt yields would be falling sharply across Europe.
Instead, yields in Portugal are up, and yields in Spain, Italy, and Ireland are only slightly lower.
Spain 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .08 to 5.57%
Portugal 10-Year Government Bond Yield Up .04 to 10.91%
Italy 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .03 to 4.82%
Ireland 10-Year Government Bond Yield Down .17 to 11.39%
Action in Greek 2-Year Bonds
After falling as "low" as 27.52% 2-year Greek bonds closed at 28.79%.
Market Laughs at "Solution"
The bond market laughs at the proposed solution to the Greek crisis, and so do I.
Four Things to Expect
1) Expect the market to call another can-kicking bluff as early as next week.
2) Expect more pompous foolery from Trichet and Sarkozy.
3) Expect Merkel to take another well-deserved election pounding in September.
4) The main thing to expect is for the market to start demanding involuntary haircuts on the debt of Portugal, Ireland, then Spain and Italy.
In the next phase of the crisis (which can happen as soon as Monday), expect to see yields shoot up in Spain and Italy.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
How ObamaCare Will Further Explode the Deficit
How ObamaCare Will Further Explode the Deficit
Peter Ferrara, Forbes
President Obama bludgeoned Obamacare through Congress on the claim, backed by the Congressional Budget Office, that it would not add to the deficit, even though it adopts or wildly expands three entitlement programs. As I discuss in my new book available this week from HarperCollins, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, close analysis of the CBO score and other new numbers indicates that, quite to the contrary, Obamacare will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over the next 20 years, and possibly more.
There were three enormous conceptual errors in the CBO score, in addition to the budget trickery indentified by now House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. The first relates to the new middle class entitlement health insurance program...
Read Full Article ›
Peter Ferrara, Forbes
President Obama bludgeoned Obamacare through Congress on the claim, backed by the Congressional Budget Office, that it would not add to the deficit, even though it adopts or wildly expands three entitlement programs. As I discuss in my new book available this week from HarperCollins, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, close analysis of the CBO score and other new numbers indicates that, quite to the contrary, Obamacare will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over the next 20 years, and possibly more.
There were three enormous conceptual errors in the CBO score, in addition to the budget trickery indentified by now House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. The first relates to the new middle class entitlement health insurance program...
Read Full Article ›
Soylent Brown?
Soylent Brown?
Steven L. Taylor
Via Digital Trends: Japan scientist synthesizes meat from human feces
The “meat” is 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The researchers color the poop meat red with food coloring and enhance the flavor with soy protein. Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef.
Steven L. Taylor
Via Digital Trends: Japan scientist synthesizes meat from human feces
The “meat” is 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The researchers color the poop meat red with food coloring and enhance the flavor with soy protein. Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef.
Businesses Rip Obama Chief of Staff in Meeting:“Your Jedi Tricks Don’t Work on Us”
Businesses Rip Obama Chief of Staff in Meeting:“Your Jedi Tricks Don’t Work on Us”
Bill Daley to National Association of Manufacturers: "Sometimes you can't defend the "indefensible"
You know it’s getting bad when Obama’s number-one right hand man can’t justify, explain, or defend the administration’s failed economic policies……you know it’s getting REALLY bad when the liberal media lapdogs are not even trying to gloss over the failure.
Daily Caller:
“White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.”
[…]
“Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning told The Daily Caller that Daley’s inability to defend Obama’s regulations is an indication that the administration’s plans aren’t working. Manning also points out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.
“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,” Manning said in an email. “The chickens are coming home to roost from the wholesale assault by Obama on the free enterprise system and the private job creators who make it run. The meeting itself is incredible in that it demonstrates just how vulnerable Obama feels in 2012.”
The Workforce Fairness Institute’s Fred Wszolek told The Daily Caller that Daley’s lackluster performance is even more questionable when comes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and its campaign against the Boeing Company.”
Even the liberal Washington Post finds it difficult to put lipstick on this pig:
“But the outreach soon turned into a rare public dressing down of the president’s policies with his highest-ranking aide.
One by one, exasperated executives stood to air their grievances on environmental regulations and stalled free-trade deals. And Daley, the former banker tasked with building ties with industry, found himself looking for the right balance between empathy and defending his boss.
At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”
Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
[…]
“When a paper company executive said Environmental Protection Agency regulations might cost her $10 million to $15 million to upgrade a mill, Daley said the number of rules and regulations “that come out of agencies is overwhelming.”
Later, he added: “We’re trying to bring some rationality to it.”
[…]
“But some business executives in the room said they were unimpressed by the White House’s attempts to woo industry.
“We think there’s a thin facade by the administration to say the right things, but they don’t come close to doing things,” said Barney T. Bishop III, chief executive of the business group Associated Industries of Florida. He called the efforts to streamline regulations “immaterial.”
“We love the platitudes, but we want to see action,” Bishop said.”
[…]
“Daley said afterward that he’s sympathetic to the gripes he heard. “This is a practical world you’ve got to live in,” he said. “These people run businesses.”
Even back in February, the John Batchelor was asking, “Where’s Bill Daley?”
How long can he last when even his chief of staff can't explain or defend him?
You know it’s getting bad when Obama’s number-one right hand man can’t justify, explain, or defend the administration’s failed economic policies……you know it’s getting REALLY bad when the liberal media lapdogs are not even trying to gloss over the failure.
Daily Caller:
“White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.”
[…]
“Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning told The Daily Caller that Daley’s inability to defend Obama’s regulations is an indication that the administration’s plans aren’t working. Manning also points out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.
“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,” Manning said in an email. “The chickens are coming home to roost from the wholesale assault by Obama on the free enterprise system and the private job creators who make it run. The meeting itself is incredible in that it demonstrates just how vulnerable Obama feels in 2012.”
The Workforce Fairness Institute’s Fred Wszolek told The Daily Caller that Daley’s lackluster performance is even more questionable when comes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and its campaign against the Boeing Company.”
Even the liberal Washington Post finds it difficult to put lipstick on this pig:
“But the outreach soon turned into a rare public dressing down of the president’s policies with his highest-ranking aide.
One by one, exasperated executives stood to air their grievances on environmental regulations and stalled free-trade deals. And Daley, the former banker tasked with building ties with industry, found himself looking for the right balance between empathy and defending his boss.
At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”
Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
[…]
“When a paper company executive said Environmental Protection Agency regulations might cost her $10 million to $15 million to upgrade a mill, Daley said the number of rules and regulations “that come out of agencies is overwhelming.”
Later, he added: “We’re trying to bring some rationality to it.”
[…]
“But some business executives in the room said they were unimpressed by the White House’s attempts to woo industry.
“We think there’s a thin facade by the administration to say the right things, but they don’t come close to doing things,” said Barney T. Bishop III, chief executive of the business group Associated Industries of Florida. He called the efforts to streamline regulations “immaterial.”
“We love the platitudes, but we want to see action,” Bishop said.”
[…]
“Daley said afterward that he’s sympathetic to the gripes he heard. “This is a practical world you’ve got to live in,” he said. “These people run businesses.”
Even back in February, the John Batchelor was asking, “Where’s Bill Daley?”
Iran's Secret Network
Iran's Secret Network
Major General Qassem Suleimani’s Inner Circle
By Ali Alfoneh | Middle Eastern Outlook
This is the second in a series of Middle Eastern Outlooks about Qassem Suleimani.[1]
On January 24, 2011, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei promoted Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), to major general, the highest rank in the IRGC since the end of the Iran/Iraq war in 1988.[2] As discussed in the first Outlook in this series, Suleimani's rise to prominence in the IRGC has been gradual rather than meteoric. His personal and professional background and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the late 1990s helped advance his career. However, Suleimani's network matters, too. This Outlook identifies members of Suleimani's network within and outside the IRGC. It also argues that fluctuations in their careers could serve as indicators of Suleimani's authority in the Islamic Republic.
Key points in this Outlook:
Two letters reveal Major General Qassem Suleimani's secret network in Iran.
Suleimani's inner circle has risen to power within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps since the Iran/Iraq war.
By following fluctuations in the careers of other individuals in Suleimani's network, we can assess his power in the Islamic Republic.
From September 1981 until the end of the Iraq war in 1988, Suleimani was stationed at the Southern front.[3] The Forty-First Tharallah Division participated in most major military operations under his command, and he was in daily contact with all the important IRGC -commanders. Suleimani maintained those relationships after the end of the war during his tenure as IRGC Kerman chief, and after his appointment as IRGC Quds Force chief sometime between September 10, 1997, and March 21, 1998.[4] This Outlook therefore argues that Suleimani's network of IRGC commanders during the war is more important than any other network he may have had before.
But Suleimani's extensive war-era network poses an analytical challenge. Reconstructing the IRGC's order of battle during the war with Iraq and since the end of the war is beyond the scope of this Outlook. Also, the fact that Suleimani was in contact with many other top IRGC commanders does not preclude fierce competition, factionalism, and outright enmity between them. It is therefore important to seek reliable information about Suleimani's factional loyalties within the IRGC.
Suleimani's Network within the IRGC
This Outlook identifies two political letters signed by Suleimani and a group of other IRGC commanders that shed light on Suleimani's factional network within the IRGC. The first is an open letter signed by thirty-four IRGC commanders praising Mohsen Rezai upon his resignation as IRGC chief, which coincided with President Mohammad Khatami's first term in office in 1997. In the letter, the commanders thank God for having had the opportunity to "soldier and study" with Rezai "for almost two decades," and stress that Rezai was liked both by Khomeini and Khamenei.[5] The letter was an outright act of protest at Rezai's dismissal. Rezai had criticized Khatami during the presidential campaign and the commanders blamed Khatami for his firing. The second letter, signed by a group of IRGC commanders, threatens that if the Khatami government fails to suppress the student uprising of 1999, they will take the issue into their own hands[6] (see appendix in PDF).
Since Suleimani is a signatory to both letters, his network may best be illustrated by two concentric circles. According to this model, signatories of both letters in the inner circle constitute Suleimani's core network; signatories of one letter, who appear in the outer circle, may have a relationship with Suleimani but are not as close as the individuals in the inner circle (see figure 1)
The inner circle is composed of twenty-one individ-uals, including current important IRGC commanders such as Mohammad-Ali Aziz Jafari, IRGC chief; Ali Fadavi, IRGC Navy chief; Ali Fazli, Basij deputy; and Esmail Ghaani, Suleimani's deputy in the Quds Force. Twelve of them were IRGC division chiefs during the war with Iraq, which is the most significant factor. Three were Iran/Iraq war-era IRGC base chiefs, three were war-era IRGC intelligence chiefs, and two were IRGC operations deputies. With the exception of Yaghoub Zohdi, whose role during the war could not be established, all members of this circle were engaged in daily warfare during the war with Iraq (see appendix in PDF).
The composition of the outer circle of Suleimani's network is very different. Out of the sixteen members, four were Iran/Iraq war-era top commanders, including Mahmoud Ahmadpour, deputy IRGC minister; Ali Shamkhani, IRGC ground forces chief; Hossein Alayi, IRGC Navy chief; and Akbar Ghamkhar, IRGC logistics chief. Two were division chiefs, one was a division deputy, and one was a battalion chief. The outer circle includes no base chiefs, but slightly lower-level military personnel: a logistics deputy, an operations deputy, and an intelligence deputy. This circle also includes three IRGC navy commanders. The role of Mehdi Rabbani and Yazdan [Moyed-Nia] during the war with Iraq could not be established (see appendix in PDF).
Comparing the careers of the officers in the inner and outer circles shows that the outer members had slightly higher positions during the war with Iraq. With the exception of current IRGC deputy Hossein Salami, however, officers from the outer circle have become scholars at various IRGC research centers or have gone into business. Suleimani and other individuals from the inner circle had slightly lower positions during the war but enjoy top positions within the IRGC today, which may indicate that they promoted each others' careers within the IRGC (see appendix in PDF).
This is an important insight that not only helps us understand Suleimani's authority today, but also provides analytical tools to assess future changes in his power. If Suleimani's fortunes depend on the fortunes of the members of his network, fluctuations in their careers could indicate changes in his authority. Apart from this, Suleimani and members of the inner circle may also constitute the dominant faction in the IRGC responsible for strategic decision making within the IRGC and possibly in the Islamic Republic at large. By systematically analyzing statements made by these individuals, we may at the very least better grasp the dominant strategic thinking within the IRGC.
Suleimani and Rafsanjani
Although Suleimani and former Iranian president Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani are both from Kerman Province, information about early contact between the two is unavailable in the open-source material. There is also no reference to contacts between Suleimani and well-known clerical revolutionary figures from Kerman such as Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Mohammad-Ali Movahedi Kermani, and Yahya Jafari. It is quite possible that Suleimani and Rafsanjani did not have any ties before the Iran/Iraq war. According to Rafsanjani's memoirs, he and Suleimani had two meetings and one phone conversation during the war. On May 25, 1986, Suleimani, Shamkhani, Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf, then-Fifth Nasr Division chief, and many other IRGC commanders delivered "a bitter report on retreats" to Rafsanjani, who was then armed forces commander-in- chief.[7] On December 3, 1987, Suleimani and Rafsanjani had a phone conversation "about future operations,"[8] and on December 17, 1987, Rafsanjani met with all major IRGC commanders, including Suleimani, to discuss the invasion of al-Faw Peninsula, which would place the Iraqi city of Basra at risk of being attacked.[9]
The December 3, 1987, phone conversation between Suleimani and Rafsanjani is important because Suleimani probably expressed opposition to Rezai's plans to invade the al-Faw Peninsula, referenced by Rafsanjani as "future operations."[10] On December 6, 1987, Suleimani--who may have already secured Rafsanjani's support in the phone conversation--and Ahmad Kazemi, Eighth Najaf Division chief, opposed Rezai's plan at a planning seminar led by Rezai.[11] However, when Rafsanjani visited the front to discuss the al-Faw operation, Suleimani and Kazemi kept silent and did not voice their opposition to the al-Faw offensive.[12] Despite Rafsanjani's request, Suleimani and other commanders that opposed the operation did not come up with an alternative war plan.[13] Following the Iraqi counteroffensive that proved disastrous for Iranian forces, Suleimani openly accused Rezai of not having a plan for the war on January 1, 1988.[14] Suleimani's criticism provoked harsh comments from Yahya Rahim Safavi, then-IRGC ground forces deputy.[15] After the end of the war, Suleimani was appointed IRGC Kerman chief, which does not indicate a close relationship with Rafsanjani.[16]
Suleimani and Ahmadinejad
Suleimani's possible connections before and after the 1979 revolution with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his close advisers, Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi[17] and Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, may also be a contributing factor to his rise in power and authority in the Islamic Republic. Indeed, addressing IRGC veterans, Suleimani defended the regime after Iran's contested June 12, 2009, presidential elections.[18]
Suleimani could have established a working relationship with Ahmadinejad and Hashemi as early as 1979, when Suleimani was deployed with a company-size irregular contingent to Mahabad in West Azerbaijan Province to suppress the Kurdish separatist uprising, as documented in his memoirs.[19] That year, Ahmadinejad was "an adviser" to the governor of Kurdistan Province, which borders West Azerbaijan.[20] So was Hashemi,[21] who appeared in a photo with Ahmadinejad in Kurdistan in that period,[22] but who does not seem to have known Suleimani despite being a native of Kerman.[23] Rahim-Mashaei, Ahmadinejad's chief of staff, also served in the Kurdistan region in 1979. Indeed, it was Rahim-Mashaei who founded the intelligence unit of the province.[24] The fact that Suleimani and the triumvirate of Ahmadinejad, Hashemi, and Rahim-Mashaei were engaged in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in 1979 indicates that the four individuals have a long history of cooperation.
Suleimani and Khamenei
Khamenei has had a close relationship with Suleimani for decades. But it is not easy to establish the nature of the relationship between them. Khamenei usually praises war heroes only after their death, but he has made an exception for Suleimani, calling him "someone who was martyred at the front on numerous occasions and is a living martyr of the revolution."[25] A rare Iran/Iraq war- era photo shows Suleimani sitting on the right side of Khamenei, the place of honor, while Rezai, then-IRGC chief commander, sits on Khamenei's left side.[26] Before Suleimani's recent promotion, photos of Khamenei and Suleimani circulated on pro-regime websites.[27]
Suleimani's relationship with Khamenei may have begun as early as the late 1970s. In Ramadan of 1977 and 1978, Suleimani attended sermons of the revolutionary preacher Hojjat al-Eslam Reza Kamyab.[28] After the revolution, Kamyab was elected to the parliament from his native Khorasan Province, but he was soon assassinated by the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization [Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq] on July 29, 1981.[29] Suleimani's relationship with Kamyab, though short, may provide the key to his most important early connection: Kamyab was a student of another theologian from Khorasan Province, Ali Khamenei.[30] Apart from this, Khamenei spent some time in internal exile in Jiroft in Kerman Province in 1978.[31] However, as long as there is no further evidence of an early relationship between the two, it is difficult to assess the depth and importance of Suleimani's personal relationship with Khamenei. Understanding it would help determine whether it has been the key factor behind Suleimani's rise in prominence within the IRGC. It would also suggest whether Khamenei's death or departure from politics would jeopardize Suleimani's career.
Conclusion
Lack of transparency and freedom of information in the Islamic Republic, especially with regard to the IRGC, makes it difficult to research and assess promotion patterns and factionalism within the IRGC. However, biographic and open-source materials such as the two letters signed by IRGC commanders provide extremely valuable information about their careers. In the case of Suleimani, the lack of data makes it difficult to establish early contacts with Khamenei and the triumvirate of Ahmadinejad, Hashemi, and Rahim-Mashaei. It also makes it difficult to assess the importance of such contacts and their impact on Suleimani's career. Although Suleimani sided with Rafsanjani toward the end of the war with Iraq, analysis of the open-source material does not suggest a strong relationship between the two. This Outlook therefore argues that Suleimani's network within the IRGC has been the most important factor contributing to his rise to power. This is an important insight in assessing Suleimani's authority within the Islamic Republic. Despite the scarce open-source material about Suleimani, ebbs and flows in the careers of the members of Suleimani's network within the IRGC could also serve as indicators of Suleimani's fortunes and thereby help us assess his authority within the IRGC and the Islamic Republic at large.
Ali Alfoneh (ali.alfoneh@aei.org) is a resident fellow at AEI.
Notes
1. For the first Outlook in this series, see Ali Alfoneh, "Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani: A Biography," AEI Middle Eastern Outlook (January 2011), www.aei.org/outlook/101020.
2. "Sardar Qassem Suleimani Be Darajeh-ye Sarlashkari Nael Shod" [Commander Qassem Suleimani Was Appointed Major General], Fars News Agency (Tehran), January 24, 2011, www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8911040428 (accessed January 24, 2011).
3. Ashraf Seif al-Dini, Saf--Khaterat-e Razmandegan-e Kerman Dar Amaliat-e Karkheh-ye Nour [The Line--Memoirs of Kerman Fighters in Karkheh-ye Nour Operation] (Kerman: Vadi'at, 2008).
4. "Nagofteh-ha-ye Rahim-e Safavi Az 10 Sal Farmandehi-ye Sepah-e Pasdaran" [Rahim Safavi's Untold Stories from Ten Years as Revolutionary Guards Chief], Islamic Revolution's Documents Center, January 11, 2010, www.irdc.ir/fa/content/8583/default.aspx (accessed December 19, 2010).
5. "Nameh-ye Sardaran-e Defae-e Moghaddas Ba'd Az Este'fa-ye Doktor Rezai" [Letter of Sacred Defense Commanders following Resignation of Dr. Rezai], Forum Persian Tools Blog (Tehran), May 30, 2005, http://forum.persiantools.com/t19600.html (accessed February 6, 2011).
6. "Matn-e Kamel-e Nameh-ye Farmandehan-e Sepah Be Khatami" [The Complete Text of the Letter of the Guards Commanders to Khatami], Aftab News Agency (Tehran), June 11, 2005, www.aftabnews.ir/vdcftjydw6de.html (accessed February 6, 2011).
7. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1365 [Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1986-1987] (Tehran: Daftar-e Nashr-e Maaref-e Enghelab, 2009), 107.
8. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987-1988], ed. Alireza Hashemi (Tehran: Daftar-e Nashr-e Maaref-e Enghelab, 2010), 383.
9. Hossein Ardestani, Rouzshomar-e Jang-e Iran va Eragh [Iran/Iraq War Chronology], vol. 52 (Tehran: Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Eslami, 2003), 358.
10. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987-1988], 383.
11. Hossein Ardestani, Rouzshomar-e Jang-e Iran va Eragh [Iran/Iraq War Chronology], vol. 52, 257.
12. Ibid., 358.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 507.
15. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987- 1988], 434.
16. "Zheneral-e That-e Ta'ghib-e Amrika va Esrail" [General Wanted by the United States and Israel], Central Clubs, December 6, 2010, www.centralclubs.com/topic-t73819.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
17. "Samareh Hashemi: Man Va Agha-ye Ahmadinejad Gahi Ekhtelaf-e Nazar Darim Amma Tasmim-Girandeh-ye Nahayi Ou Ast" [Samareh Hashemi: Mr. Ahmadinejad and I Sometimes Have Differences of Opinion but He Is the Final Decision Maker], Khabar Online (Tehran), August 26, 2010, www.khabaronline.ir/news-87529.aspx (accessed January 29, 2011).
18. "Shoar-e Jomhouri-ye Irani Nafj-ye Eslam Ast" [The Slogan of the Iranian Republic Contradicts Islam], Fars News Agency (Tehran), December 24, 2009, www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8810030424 (accessed December 19, 2010).
19. "Sardar Qassemi: Gomnami Khasteh-ye Shahidan-e Ma Boud" [Commander Qassemi: Being Unknown Was the Wish of Our Martyrs], Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Tehran), June 7, 2005, www.jomhourieslami.com/1384/13840317/13840317_jomhori _islami_10_jebheh_va_jang.HTML#matlab_ (accessed December 9, 2010).
20. "Zendeginameh" [Biography], Riasat-e Jomhouri-ye Eslami-ye Iran (Tehran), www.president.ir/fa (accessed January 31, 2011).
21. "Samareh Hashemi Este'fa Dad" [Samareh Hashemi Resigned], Hamshahri (Tehran), April 15, 2009, www.hamshahrionline.ir/news-79065.aspx (accessed January 31, 2011).
22. "Tasvir-e Montasher-Nashodeh az Ahmadineajd va Hashemi Samareh Dar Kordestan" [Unpublished Photo of Ahmadinejad and Hashemi Samareh in Kurdistan], Sarkhat (Tehran), November 15, 2009, www.sarkhat.com/fa/news/135416374 (accessed January 31, 2011).
23. "Revayat-e Samareh Hashemi Az Didar-e Do Reis-Jomhour" [Samareh Hashemi's Account of the Meeting of Two Presidents], Alef News Agency (Tehran), November 23, 2010, http://alef.ir/ 1388/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87166&Itemid=99999999 (accessed January 25, 2011).
24. "Mashaei yek Moemen va Yek Modir-e Velayat-Madar Ast" [Mashaei Is a Devout and Guardian Jurist-Abiding Executive], Masha News (Tehran), www.mashanews.com/%D8% A7%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87%D8%A7/tabid/78/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3318/-----.aspx (accessed January 3, 2011).
25. "Ou Be Pishani-ye Khod Eshareh Kard va Goft: Tir Inja-ye Man Khahad Khord" [He Pointed at His Forehead and Said: The Bullet Will Hit Me Here], Sajed (Tehran), February 17, 2007, www.sajed.ir/new/pioneers/sardar-ghasem-soleimani/ 1853.html (accessed February 13, 2011).
26. "Aks: Ayatollah Khamenei, Shahid Bakeri, Mohsen Rezai, Qassem Suleimani, Rahim Safavi Dar Jebhe" [Photo: Ayatollah Khamenei, Martyr Bakeri, Mohsen Rezai, Qassem Suleimani, Rahim Safavi in the Front], Rasekhoon (Tehran), January 10, 2011, www.rasekhoon.net/Forum/ThreadShow-127573-1.aspx (accessed January 11, 2011).
27. "Zheneral-e That-e Ta'ghib-e Amrika va Esrail" [General Wanted by the United States and Israel], Central Clubs (Tehran), December 6, 2010, www.centralclubs.com/topic-t73819.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
28. Hossein Fatemi, "Shahid Seyyed Reza Kamyab" [Martyr Seyyed Reza Kamyab], Gonabad Noor (Gonbad), April 4, 2009, www.gonabadnoor.com/ax-news/item/295-%D8%B4% D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8% AF%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%A7% D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%A8.html (accessed January 25, 2010).
29. Hossein Fatemi, "Shahid Seyyed Reza Kamyab" [Martyr Seyyed Reza Kamyab].
30. Ibid.
31. "Mosahebeh-ye Mohem Ba Zadsar-e Jirofti Ke Motasefaneh Sansour Shod" [Important Interview with Zadsar Jirofti Which Was Unfortunately Censored], Ali Zadsar Jirofti (Jiroft), November 15, 2010, www.zadsar.net/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=1422&Itemid=1 (accessed February 28, 2011).
Major General Qassem Suleimani’s Inner Circle
By Ali Alfoneh | Middle Eastern Outlook
This is the second in a series of Middle Eastern Outlooks about Qassem Suleimani.[1]
On January 24, 2011, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei promoted Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), to major general, the highest rank in the IRGC since the end of the Iran/Iraq war in 1988.[2] As discussed in the first Outlook in this series, Suleimani's rise to prominence in the IRGC has been gradual rather than meteoric. His personal and professional background and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the late 1990s helped advance his career. However, Suleimani's network matters, too. This Outlook identifies members of Suleimani's network within and outside the IRGC. It also argues that fluctuations in their careers could serve as indicators of Suleimani's authority in the Islamic Republic.
Key points in this Outlook:
Two letters reveal Major General Qassem Suleimani's secret network in Iran.
Suleimani's inner circle has risen to power within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps since the Iran/Iraq war.
By following fluctuations in the careers of other individuals in Suleimani's network, we can assess his power in the Islamic Republic.
From September 1981 until the end of the Iraq war in 1988, Suleimani was stationed at the Southern front.[3] The Forty-First Tharallah Division participated in most major military operations under his command, and he was in daily contact with all the important IRGC -commanders. Suleimani maintained those relationships after the end of the war during his tenure as IRGC Kerman chief, and after his appointment as IRGC Quds Force chief sometime between September 10, 1997, and March 21, 1998.[4] This Outlook therefore argues that Suleimani's network of IRGC commanders during the war is more important than any other network he may have had before.
But Suleimani's extensive war-era network poses an analytical challenge. Reconstructing the IRGC's order of battle during the war with Iraq and since the end of the war is beyond the scope of this Outlook. Also, the fact that Suleimani was in contact with many other top IRGC commanders does not preclude fierce competition, factionalism, and outright enmity between them. It is therefore important to seek reliable information about Suleimani's factional loyalties within the IRGC.
Suleimani's Network within the IRGC
This Outlook identifies two political letters signed by Suleimani and a group of other IRGC commanders that shed light on Suleimani's factional network within the IRGC. The first is an open letter signed by thirty-four IRGC commanders praising Mohsen Rezai upon his resignation as IRGC chief, which coincided with President Mohammad Khatami's first term in office in 1997. In the letter, the commanders thank God for having had the opportunity to "soldier and study" with Rezai "for almost two decades," and stress that Rezai was liked both by Khomeini and Khamenei.[5] The letter was an outright act of protest at Rezai's dismissal. Rezai had criticized Khatami during the presidential campaign and the commanders blamed Khatami for his firing. The second letter, signed by a group of IRGC commanders, threatens that if the Khatami government fails to suppress the student uprising of 1999, they will take the issue into their own hands[6] (see appendix in PDF).
Since Suleimani is a signatory to both letters, his network may best be illustrated by two concentric circles. According to this model, signatories of both letters in the inner circle constitute Suleimani's core network; signatories of one letter, who appear in the outer circle, may have a relationship with Suleimani but are not as close as the individuals in the inner circle (see figure 1)
The inner circle is composed of twenty-one individ-uals, including current important IRGC commanders such as Mohammad-Ali Aziz Jafari, IRGC chief; Ali Fadavi, IRGC Navy chief; Ali Fazli, Basij deputy; and Esmail Ghaani, Suleimani's deputy in the Quds Force. Twelve of them were IRGC division chiefs during the war with Iraq, which is the most significant factor. Three were Iran/Iraq war-era IRGC base chiefs, three were war-era IRGC intelligence chiefs, and two were IRGC operations deputies. With the exception of Yaghoub Zohdi, whose role during the war could not be established, all members of this circle were engaged in daily warfare during the war with Iraq (see appendix in PDF).
The composition of the outer circle of Suleimani's network is very different. Out of the sixteen members, four were Iran/Iraq war-era top commanders, including Mahmoud Ahmadpour, deputy IRGC minister; Ali Shamkhani, IRGC ground forces chief; Hossein Alayi, IRGC Navy chief; and Akbar Ghamkhar, IRGC logistics chief. Two were division chiefs, one was a division deputy, and one was a battalion chief. The outer circle includes no base chiefs, but slightly lower-level military personnel: a logistics deputy, an operations deputy, and an intelligence deputy. This circle also includes three IRGC navy commanders. The role of Mehdi Rabbani and Yazdan [Moyed-Nia] during the war with Iraq could not be established (see appendix in PDF).
Comparing the careers of the officers in the inner and outer circles shows that the outer members had slightly higher positions during the war with Iraq. With the exception of current IRGC deputy Hossein Salami, however, officers from the outer circle have become scholars at various IRGC research centers or have gone into business. Suleimani and other individuals from the inner circle had slightly lower positions during the war but enjoy top positions within the IRGC today, which may indicate that they promoted each others' careers within the IRGC (see appendix in PDF).
This is an important insight that not only helps us understand Suleimani's authority today, but also provides analytical tools to assess future changes in his power. If Suleimani's fortunes depend on the fortunes of the members of his network, fluctuations in their careers could indicate changes in his authority. Apart from this, Suleimani and members of the inner circle may also constitute the dominant faction in the IRGC responsible for strategic decision making within the IRGC and possibly in the Islamic Republic at large. By systematically analyzing statements made by these individuals, we may at the very least better grasp the dominant strategic thinking within the IRGC.
Suleimani and Rafsanjani
Although Suleimani and former Iranian president Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani are both from Kerman Province, information about early contact between the two is unavailable in the open-source material. There is also no reference to contacts between Suleimani and well-known clerical revolutionary figures from Kerman such as Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Mohammad-Ali Movahedi Kermani, and Yahya Jafari. It is quite possible that Suleimani and Rafsanjani did not have any ties before the Iran/Iraq war. According to Rafsanjani's memoirs, he and Suleimani had two meetings and one phone conversation during the war. On May 25, 1986, Suleimani, Shamkhani, Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf, then-Fifth Nasr Division chief, and many other IRGC commanders delivered "a bitter report on retreats" to Rafsanjani, who was then armed forces commander-in- chief.[7] On December 3, 1987, Suleimani and Rafsanjani had a phone conversation "about future operations,"[8] and on December 17, 1987, Rafsanjani met with all major IRGC commanders, including Suleimani, to discuss the invasion of al-Faw Peninsula, which would place the Iraqi city of Basra at risk of being attacked.[9]
The December 3, 1987, phone conversation between Suleimani and Rafsanjani is important because Suleimani probably expressed opposition to Rezai's plans to invade the al-Faw Peninsula, referenced by Rafsanjani as "future operations."[10] On December 6, 1987, Suleimani--who may have already secured Rafsanjani's support in the phone conversation--and Ahmad Kazemi, Eighth Najaf Division chief, opposed Rezai's plan at a planning seminar led by Rezai.[11] However, when Rafsanjani visited the front to discuss the al-Faw operation, Suleimani and Kazemi kept silent and did not voice their opposition to the al-Faw offensive.[12] Despite Rafsanjani's request, Suleimani and other commanders that opposed the operation did not come up with an alternative war plan.[13] Following the Iraqi counteroffensive that proved disastrous for Iranian forces, Suleimani openly accused Rezai of not having a plan for the war on January 1, 1988.[14] Suleimani's criticism provoked harsh comments from Yahya Rahim Safavi, then-IRGC ground forces deputy.[15] After the end of the war, Suleimani was appointed IRGC Kerman chief, which does not indicate a close relationship with Rafsanjani.[16]
Suleimani and Ahmadinejad
Suleimani's possible connections before and after the 1979 revolution with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his close advisers, Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi[17] and Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, may also be a contributing factor to his rise in power and authority in the Islamic Republic. Indeed, addressing IRGC veterans, Suleimani defended the regime after Iran's contested June 12, 2009, presidential elections.[18]
Suleimani could have established a working relationship with Ahmadinejad and Hashemi as early as 1979, when Suleimani was deployed with a company-size irregular contingent to Mahabad in West Azerbaijan Province to suppress the Kurdish separatist uprising, as documented in his memoirs.[19] That year, Ahmadinejad was "an adviser" to the governor of Kurdistan Province, which borders West Azerbaijan.[20] So was Hashemi,[21] who appeared in a photo with Ahmadinejad in Kurdistan in that period,[22] but who does not seem to have known Suleimani despite being a native of Kerman.[23] Rahim-Mashaei, Ahmadinejad's chief of staff, also served in the Kurdistan region in 1979. Indeed, it was Rahim-Mashaei who founded the intelligence unit of the province.[24] The fact that Suleimani and the triumvirate of Ahmadinejad, Hashemi, and Rahim-Mashaei were engaged in suppressing the Kurdish rebellion in 1979 indicates that the four individuals have a long history of cooperation.
Suleimani and Khamenei
Khamenei has had a close relationship with Suleimani for decades. But it is not easy to establish the nature of the relationship between them. Khamenei usually praises war heroes only after their death, but he has made an exception for Suleimani, calling him "someone who was martyred at the front on numerous occasions and is a living martyr of the revolution."[25] A rare Iran/Iraq war- era photo shows Suleimani sitting on the right side of Khamenei, the place of honor, while Rezai, then-IRGC chief commander, sits on Khamenei's left side.[26] Before Suleimani's recent promotion, photos of Khamenei and Suleimani circulated on pro-regime websites.[27]
Suleimani's relationship with Khamenei may have begun as early as the late 1970s. In Ramadan of 1977 and 1978, Suleimani attended sermons of the revolutionary preacher Hojjat al-Eslam Reza Kamyab.[28] After the revolution, Kamyab was elected to the parliament from his native Khorasan Province, but he was soon assassinated by the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization [Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq] on July 29, 1981.[29] Suleimani's relationship with Kamyab, though short, may provide the key to his most important early connection: Kamyab was a student of another theologian from Khorasan Province, Ali Khamenei.[30] Apart from this, Khamenei spent some time in internal exile in Jiroft in Kerman Province in 1978.[31] However, as long as there is no further evidence of an early relationship between the two, it is difficult to assess the depth and importance of Suleimani's personal relationship with Khamenei. Understanding it would help determine whether it has been the key factor behind Suleimani's rise in prominence within the IRGC. It would also suggest whether Khamenei's death or departure from politics would jeopardize Suleimani's career.
Conclusion
Lack of transparency and freedom of information in the Islamic Republic, especially with regard to the IRGC, makes it difficult to research and assess promotion patterns and factionalism within the IRGC. However, biographic and open-source materials such as the two letters signed by IRGC commanders provide extremely valuable information about their careers. In the case of Suleimani, the lack of data makes it difficult to establish early contacts with Khamenei and the triumvirate of Ahmadinejad, Hashemi, and Rahim-Mashaei. It also makes it difficult to assess the importance of such contacts and their impact on Suleimani's career. Although Suleimani sided with Rafsanjani toward the end of the war with Iraq, analysis of the open-source material does not suggest a strong relationship between the two. This Outlook therefore argues that Suleimani's network within the IRGC has been the most important factor contributing to his rise to power. This is an important insight in assessing Suleimani's authority within the Islamic Republic. Despite the scarce open-source material about Suleimani, ebbs and flows in the careers of the members of Suleimani's network within the IRGC could also serve as indicators of Suleimani's fortunes and thereby help us assess his authority within the IRGC and the Islamic Republic at large.
Ali Alfoneh (ali.alfoneh@aei.org) is a resident fellow at AEI.
Notes
1. For the first Outlook in this series, see Ali Alfoneh, "Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani: A Biography," AEI Middle Eastern Outlook (January 2011), www.aei.org/outlook/101020.
2. "Sardar Qassem Suleimani Be Darajeh-ye Sarlashkari Nael Shod" [Commander Qassem Suleimani Was Appointed Major General], Fars News Agency (Tehran), January 24, 2011, www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8911040428 (accessed January 24, 2011).
3. Ashraf Seif al-Dini, Saf--Khaterat-e Razmandegan-e Kerman Dar Amaliat-e Karkheh-ye Nour [The Line--Memoirs of Kerman Fighters in Karkheh-ye Nour Operation] (Kerman: Vadi'at, 2008).
4. "Nagofteh-ha-ye Rahim-e Safavi Az 10 Sal Farmandehi-ye Sepah-e Pasdaran" [Rahim Safavi's Untold Stories from Ten Years as Revolutionary Guards Chief], Islamic Revolution's Documents Center, January 11, 2010, www.irdc.ir/fa/content/8583/default.aspx (accessed December 19, 2010).
5. "Nameh-ye Sardaran-e Defae-e Moghaddas Ba'd Az Este'fa-ye Doktor Rezai" [Letter of Sacred Defense Commanders following Resignation of Dr. Rezai], Forum Persian Tools Blog (Tehran), May 30, 2005, http://forum.persiantools.com/t19600.html (accessed February 6, 2011).
6. "Matn-e Kamel-e Nameh-ye Farmandehan-e Sepah Be Khatami" [The Complete Text of the Letter of the Guards Commanders to Khatami], Aftab News Agency (Tehran), June 11, 2005, www.aftabnews.ir/vdcftjydw6de.html (accessed February 6, 2011).
7. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1365 [Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1986-1987] (Tehran: Daftar-e Nashr-e Maaref-e Enghelab, 2009), 107.
8. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987-1988], ed. Alireza Hashemi (Tehran: Daftar-e Nashr-e Maaref-e Enghelab, 2010), 383.
9. Hossein Ardestani, Rouzshomar-e Jang-e Iran va Eragh [Iran/Iraq War Chronology], vol. 52 (Tehran: Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enghelab-e Eslami, 2003), 358.
10. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987-1988], 383.
11. Hossein Ardestani, Rouzshomar-e Jang-e Iran va Eragh [Iran/Iraq War Chronology], vol. 52, 257.
12. Ibid., 358.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 507.
15. Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Defae va Siasat: Karnameh va Khaterat-e Hashemi Rafsanjani Sal-e 1366 [Defense and Politics: Record and Memoirs of Hashemi Rafsanjani the Year 1987- 1988], 434.
16. "Zheneral-e That-e Ta'ghib-e Amrika va Esrail" [General Wanted by the United States and Israel], Central Clubs, December 6, 2010, www.centralclubs.com/topic-t73819.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
17. "Samareh Hashemi: Man Va Agha-ye Ahmadinejad Gahi Ekhtelaf-e Nazar Darim Amma Tasmim-Girandeh-ye Nahayi Ou Ast" [Samareh Hashemi: Mr. Ahmadinejad and I Sometimes Have Differences of Opinion but He Is the Final Decision Maker], Khabar Online (Tehran), August 26, 2010, www.khabaronline.ir/news-87529.aspx (accessed January 29, 2011).
18. "Shoar-e Jomhouri-ye Irani Nafj-ye Eslam Ast" [The Slogan of the Iranian Republic Contradicts Islam], Fars News Agency (Tehran), December 24, 2009, www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8810030424 (accessed December 19, 2010).
19. "Sardar Qassemi: Gomnami Khasteh-ye Shahidan-e Ma Boud" [Commander Qassemi: Being Unknown Was the Wish of Our Martyrs], Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Tehran), June 7, 2005, www.jomhourieslami.com/1384/13840317/13840317_jomhori _islami_10_jebheh_va_jang.HTML#matlab_ (accessed December 9, 2010).
20. "Zendeginameh" [Biography], Riasat-e Jomhouri-ye Eslami-ye Iran (Tehran), www.president.ir/fa (accessed January 31, 2011).
21. "Samareh Hashemi Este'fa Dad" [Samareh Hashemi Resigned], Hamshahri (Tehran), April 15, 2009, www.hamshahrionline.ir/news-79065.aspx (accessed January 31, 2011).
22. "Tasvir-e Montasher-Nashodeh az Ahmadineajd va Hashemi Samareh Dar Kordestan" [Unpublished Photo of Ahmadinejad and Hashemi Samareh in Kurdistan], Sarkhat (Tehran), November 15, 2009, www.sarkhat.com/fa/news/135416374 (accessed January 31, 2011).
23. "Revayat-e Samareh Hashemi Az Didar-e Do Reis-Jomhour" [Samareh Hashemi's Account of the Meeting of Two Presidents], Alef News Agency (Tehran), November 23, 2010, http://alef.ir/ 1388/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87166&Itemid=99999999 (accessed January 25, 2011).
24. "Mashaei yek Moemen va Yek Modir-e Velayat-Madar Ast" [Mashaei Is a Devout and Guardian Jurist-Abiding Executive], Masha News (Tehran), www.mashanews.com/%D8% A7%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87%D8%A7/tabid/78/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3318/-----.aspx (accessed January 3, 2011).
25. "Ou Be Pishani-ye Khod Eshareh Kard va Goft: Tir Inja-ye Man Khahad Khord" [He Pointed at His Forehead and Said: The Bullet Will Hit Me Here], Sajed (Tehran), February 17, 2007, www.sajed.ir/new/pioneers/sardar-ghasem-soleimani/ 1853.html (accessed February 13, 2011).
26. "Aks: Ayatollah Khamenei, Shahid Bakeri, Mohsen Rezai, Qassem Suleimani, Rahim Safavi Dar Jebhe" [Photo: Ayatollah Khamenei, Martyr Bakeri, Mohsen Rezai, Qassem Suleimani, Rahim Safavi in the Front], Rasekhoon (Tehran), January 10, 2011, www.rasekhoon.net/Forum/ThreadShow-127573-1.aspx (accessed January 11, 2011).
27. "Zheneral-e That-e Ta'ghib-e Amrika va Esrail" [General Wanted by the United States and Israel], Central Clubs (Tehran), December 6, 2010, www.centralclubs.com/topic-t73819.html (accessed December 9, 2010).
28. Hossein Fatemi, "Shahid Seyyed Reza Kamyab" [Martyr Seyyed Reza Kamyab], Gonabad Noor (Gonbad), April 4, 2009, www.gonabadnoor.com/ax-news/item/295-%D8%B4% D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8% AF%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%A7% D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%A8.html (accessed January 25, 2010).
29. Hossein Fatemi, "Shahid Seyyed Reza Kamyab" [Martyr Seyyed Reza Kamyab].
30. Ibid.
31. "Mosahebeh-ye Mohem Ba Zadsar-e Jirofti Ke Motasefaneh Sansour Shod" [Important Interview with Zadsar Jirofti Which Was Unfortunately Censored], Ali Zadsar Jirofti (Jiroft), November 15, 2010, www.zadsar.net/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=1422&Itemid=1 (accessed February 28, 2011).
Obama Wants Israel to Pay for UN Veto
Obama Wants Israel to Pay for UN Veto
Jonathan S. Tobin
Obama administration officials are in Israel this week for more talks with Israel and the Palestinians. Their goal isn’t simply to try and get Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bend to the president’s demand Israel accept the 1967 lines as the starting point for future negotiations, though that is certainly on the top of their agenda. It is to force Israel to make concessions that will somehow convince the Palestinians to abandon their effort to have the United Nations recognize an independent Palestinian state inside those same 1967 borders.
The Americans are pretending the purpose of the president’s controversial Middle East policy speech and the subsequent diplomatic hammering of Israel by Secretary of State Clinton and envoy Dennis Ross is to revive the long stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. But no one seriously believes the Palestinians are interested in negotiations. They have had several opportunities during the two and a half years of the Obama administration but have consistently refused.
Now the Palestinians have decided the Third World anti-Israel majority in the United Nations will eliminate the need for them to even go through the charade of negotiations. UN recognition will mean they can have their state without recognizing Israel’s legitimacy or agreeing to end the conflict. This is a recipe for more bloodshed and an end of American influence in the region. Which is why any U.S. administration, even one as unfriendly to Israel as that of Obama, must veto such a resolution. But the president, who pines for the love of the Arab world in vain, doesn’t want to do it. So he is putting all of his effort into making Israel bribe the Palestinians into dropping the UN initiative.
This is madness for a number of reasons.
First, there is no reason for the U.S. to fold when in all likelihood, the Palestinians will have to give up anyway. Their plan has no chance of success.
Second, any Israeli concessions at this point will not lead to real peace talks. Had PA leader Mahmoud Abbas been willing to accept a Palestinian state in peace alongside Israel in borders that largely resemble what Obama is demanding, he could have said yes to such an offer in 2008 when Ehud Olmert put it on the table. But he said no then just as his predecessor Yasir Arafat said no to previous Israeli offers in 2000 and 2001. Given that he is now part of a coalition with the Islamists of Hamas, there is literally no chance Abbas can make peace now–no matter what gifts he is handed by Obama.
Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters in the United States are being told the Jewish state must give in on the borders to help Obama in the UN. But whether Netanyahu caves or not, there will be no peace talks and no UN recognition of a Palestinian state. All that would be accomplished by an Israeli surrender would be giving up its only bargaining chips — territory — in exchange for nothing. Even worse, doing so now would be an implicit recognition of Hamas’ legitimacy, which would mark yet another departure by the Obama administration from the pro-Israel policies of its predecessors.
Jonathan S. Tobin
Obama administration officials are in Israel this week for more talks with Israel and the Palestinians. Their goal isn’t simply to try and get Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bend to the president’s demand Israel accept the 1967 lines as the starting point for future negotiations, though that is certainly on the top of their agenda. It is to force Israel to make concessions that will somehow convince the Palestinians to abandon their effort to have the United Nations recognize an independent Palestinian state inside those same 1967 borders.
The Americans are pretending the purpose of the president’s controversial Middle East policy speech and the subsequent diplomatic hammering of Israel by Secretary of State Clinton and envoy Dennis Ross is to revive the long stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. But no one seriously believes the Palestinians are interested in negotiations. They have had several opportunities during the two and a half years of the Obama administration but have consistently refused.
Now the Palestinians have decided the Third World anti-Israel majority in the United Nations will eliminate the need for them to even go through the charade of negotiations. UN recognition will mean they can have their state without recognizing Israel’s legitimacy or agreeing to end the conflict. This is a recipe for more bloodshed and an end of American influence in the region. Which is why any U.S. administration, even one as unfriendly to Israel as that of Obama, must veto such a resolution. But the president, who pines for the love of the Arab world in vain, doesn’t want to do it. So he is putting all of his effort into making Israel bribe the Palestinians into dropping the UN initiative.
This is madness for a number of reasons.
First, there is no reason for the U.S. to fold when in all likelihood, the Palestinians will have to give up anyway. Their plan has no chance of success.
Second, any Israeli concessions at this point will not lead to real peace talks. Had PA leader Mahmoud Abbas been willing to accept a Palestinian state in peace alongside Israel in borders that largely resemble what Obama is demanding, he could have said yes to such an offer in 2008 when Ehud Olmert put it on the table. But he said no then just as his predecessor Yasir Arafat said no to previous Israeli offers in 2000 and 2001. Given that he is now part of a coalition with the Islamists of Hamas, there is literally no chance Abbas can make peace now–no matter what gifts he is handed by Obama.
Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters in the United States are being told the Jewish state must give in on the borders to help Obama in the UN. But whether Netanyahu caves or not, there will be no peace talks and no UN recognition of a Palestinian state. All that would be accomplished by an Israeli surrender would be giving up its only bargaining chips — territory — in exchange for nothing. Even worse, doing so now would be an implicit recognition of Hamas’ legitimacy, which would mark yet another departure by the Obama administration from the pro-Israel policies of its predecessors.
The Non-war in Libya
The Non-war in Libya
Posted by John Samples
On Sunday, the Obama administration will have made war in Libya for more than 90 days without authorization from Congress. This violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. The administration claims it does not violate the latter because the war in Libya is not actually a war for legal purposes. The non-war war argument is not going over well; even the New York Times editorial page says the administration’s case “borders on sophistry.”
Beyond the headlines and the political struggle, the administration’s efforts to expand the presidential power to start wars also shifts political authority from the U.S. Congress to the United Nations. For more on the problems of Obama’s radical moves in foreign policy, see my essay here.
Posted by John Samples
On Sunday, the Obama administration will have made war in Libya for more than 90 days without authorization from Congress. This violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. The administration claims it does not violate the latter because the war in Libya is not actually a war for legal purposes. The non-war war argument is not going over well; even the New York Times editorial page says the administration’s case “borders on sophistry.”
Beyond the headlines and the political struggle, the administration’s efforts to expand the presidential power to start wars also shifts political authority from the U.S. Congress to the United Nations. For more on the problems of Obama’s radical moves in foreign policy, see my essay here.
Fineman agrees with Michael Savage: Democrats Didn't Like Weiner Going On Fox News
Howard Fineman: Democrats Didn't Like Weiner Going On Fox News
y Noel Sheppard | June 17, 2011 | 19:33
Now that disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has resigned, the media are not only trying to help resuscitate his career but also coming up with reasons why he wasn't that well liked anyway.
Jumping on the bandwagon was the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews Friday, "I also don't think a lot of people loved the fact that he was on Fox a lot" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I didn't know this but I learned it the hard way, that people in politics don't like it when some member of Congress is always on television. They don't like it.
HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST: No, they don't. And it's one thing if you get to that position through your work for others as well as yourself. It's not just expanding your own Twitter ranks and your own Facebook page and your own prominence on television and your own fundraising prowess. It's your willingness to work in the House and work on the committees and help other people raise money and do all that other kind of thing. And he wasn't widely regarded as somebody who wanted to do any of that. Now, he was a great arguer and I felt, I also don't think a lot of people loved the fact that he was on Fox a lot. You know, he would say he went on Fox to fight the fight and, you know, make the battle and join the against the conservatives, but he was also looking for eyeballs to be in front of and giving credibility to a network that a lot of the hard core Democrats in the House don't like.
MATTHEWS: I believe that's where he could probably end up in the next few months, by the way. If Spitzer found a home at CNN, I think he may well find his home with Roger Ailes. Just speculating, I don’t know anything about it I think it's the kind of liberal that I think Roger would love to get out there and say here's the guy with the dunce cap on. But he has to wear the dunce cap. You know what I mean guys? John Harris, do you think that’s too wiseass to think like that?
JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Well, I think on Fox they’re looking for somebody like the Washington Generals who lose every time to the Harlem Globetrotters.
FINEMAN: Yeah, and that's not Weiner.
MATTHEWS: They lose to the Globetrotters.
So, in Harris's view, all of the liberal contributors to Fox are shills hand-picked to lose to the conservative commentators. I wonder if he'd say that to Bob Beckel, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams.
As for Matthews, this is the second time in two days he's floated the idea of Weiner going to FNC. Makes you wonder if this isn't his way to help the embattled former Congressman.
As for Weiner, he sure did like appearing on Fox. Who can forget his knock down drag out fights with Megyn Kelly such as this one back in March.
y Noel Sheppard | June 17, 2011 | 19:33
Now that disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has resigned, the media are not only trying to help resuscitate his career but also coming up with reasons why he wasn't that well liked anyway.
Jumping on the bandwagon was the Huffington Post's Howard Fineman who told MSNBC's Chris Matthews Friday, "I also don't think a lot of people loved the fact that he was on Fox a lot" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I didn't know this but I learned it the hard way, that people in politics don't like it when some member of Congress is always on television. They don't like it.
HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST: No, they don't. And it's one thing if you get to that position through your work for others as well as yourself. It's not just expanding your own Twitter ranks and your own Facebook page and your own prominence on television and your own fundraising prowess. It's your willingness to work in the House and work on the committees and help other people raise money and do all that other kind of thing. And he wasn't widely regarded as somebody who wanted to do any of that. Now, he was a great arguer and I felt, I also don't think a lot of people loved the fact that he was on Fox a lot. You know, he would say he went on Fox to fight the fight and, you know, make the battle and join the against the conservatives, but he was also looking for eyeballs to be in front of and giving credibility to a network that a lot of the hard core Democrats in the House don't like.
MATTHEWS: I believe that's where he could probably end up in the next few months, by the way. If Spitzer found a home at CNN, I think he may well find his home with Roger Ailes. Just speculating, I don’t know anything about it I think it's the kind of liberal that I think Roger would love to get out there and say here's the guy with the dunce cap on. But he has to wear the dunce cap. You know what I mean guys? John Harris, do you think that’s too wiseass to think like that?
JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Well, I think on Fox they’re looking for somebody like the Washington Generals who lose every time to the Harlem Globetrotters.
FINEMAN: Yeah, and that's not Weiner.
MATTHEWS: They lose to the Globetrotters.
So, in Harris's view, all of the liberal contributors to Fox are shills hand-picked to lose to the conservative commentators. I wonder if he'd say that to Bob Beckel, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams.
As for Matthews, this is the second time in two days he's floated the idea of Weiner going to FNC. Makes you wonder if this isn't his way to help the embattled former Congressman.
As for Weiner, he sure did like appearing on Fox. Who can forget his knock down drag out fights with Megyn Kelly such as this one back in March.
La Raza Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP
NCLR Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations with Guatemala and Nicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations with Guatemala and Nicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.
The Military Model Of Liberalism
The Military Model Of Liberalism
It sounds great, until you think about it.
by John Hayward
Writing at the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof has discovered a strange new respect for the military. “You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works,” he burbles.
Kristof goes on to praise the military for doing more to “provide equal opportunity to working-class families – especially to blacks – than just about any social program.” It seems like only yesterday liberals were howling that the military forces poor blacks onto the battlefield as cannon fodder. What a difference a new President makes!
Kristof also praises the military for providing education, training, health care, child care, and other benefits while holding the income gap between top brass and enlisted men down to a factor of 10, while private-sector CEOs “earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices.”
It all “sounds pretty lefty” to Kristof. He’s one of the last people on Earth who takes former NATO commander Wesley Clark seriously, so he quotes Clark’s happy agreement: “It’s the purest form of socialism there is.”
Naturally, Kristof pauses to damn the military for its shoddy treatment of gays and lesbians, and women for that matter, and of course there’s all that killing and dying stuff, but otherwise he has concluded the military is like a daydream from a warm summer afternoon nap on the Berkeley campus. He actually concludes by suggesting a movement toward the military model, which he sees as a more advanced form of civilization than evil, selfish corporatism.
No, seriously, he really says that:
“But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
“So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.”
“Hoo-ah!”
The liberal love affair with authoritarian control really is a wonder to behold. They swoon like tweens at a Justin Bieber concert when they think about enlightened socialist dreamboats gaining absolute power over a benighted citizenry, whose problems the Great and the Good could then set about fixing. Kristof’s colleague at the Times, Thomas Friedman, can scarcely get through a column without sobbing over the beauty and grandeur of communist China.
There are many ways to pick apart Kristof’s little daydream, but let me focus on the one that jumped out at me immediately. What is the defining characteristic of the military? It’s tempting to say “killing people and breaking things,” but that’s not all they do, and even combat forces don’t spend every hour of their career discharging their weapons.
The defining characteristic of the military is its sense of duty. Military people give, take, and relay orders to accomplish missions. Everyone involved in the military is required to discharge their duty. Failure to obey orders and fulfill duties brings disciplinary action, and in extreme cases, expulsion.
There is no place in that model for the Left’s preferred constituency of dependents. One thing the military does not have is welfare for the indigent. Also, soldiers don’t get to demand better benefits and less work, or go on strike when their demands are not met. There is no “community organizing.”
This is crucial to an understanding of military efficiency. All of the marvelous benefits Kristof is drooling over cannot be extended to people who refuse to earn them. The level of control over the military population required to accomplish its missions and distribute its resources could never be imposed on a civilian population, and it would be immoral to try. Soldiers voluntarily accept military discipline when they enter the service, and we honor them for their sacrifice. There have been societies which toyed with imposing militaristic control over unwilling civilian populations, but nobody thinks of them as the future, outside of besotted liberals.
You can’t have military health care, child care, and other benefits without military duty, and the ability to expel those who don’t fulfill those duties. For that matter, the military cannot have them without the wealth produced through private-sector risk-taking and innovation, which quickly stagnate in authoritarian societies.
The liberal fantasies that bankrupted America never die. It’s interesting how often they involve a world where every citizen has no choice but to accept orders without question.
It sounds great, until you think about it.
by John Hayward
Writing at the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof has discovered a strange new respect for the military. “You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works,” he burbles.
Kristof goes on to praise the military for doing more to “provide equal opportunity to working-class families – especially to blacks – than just about any social program.” It seems like only yesterday liberals were howling that the military forces poor blacks onto the battlefield as cannon fodder. What a difference a new President makes!
Kristof also praises the military for providing education, training, health care, child care, and other benefits while holding the income gap between top brass and enlisted men down to a factor of 10, while private-sector CEOs “earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices.”
It all “sounds pretty lefty” to Kristof. He’s one of the last people on Earth who takes former NATO commander Wesley Clark seriously, so he quotes Clark’s happy agreement: “It’s the purest form of socialism there is.”
Naturally, Kristof pauses to damn the military for its shoddy treatment of gays and lesbians, and women for that matter, and of course there’s all that killing and dying stuff, but otherwise he has concluded the military is like a daydream from a warm summer afternoon nap on the Berkeley campus. He actually concludes by suggesting a movement toward the military model, which he sees as a more advanced form of civilization than evil, selfish corporatism.
No, seriously, he really says that:
“But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
“So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.”
“Hoo-ah!”
The liberal love affair with authoritarian control really is a wonder to behold. They swoon like tweens at a Justin Bieber concert when they think about enlightened socialist dreamboats gaining absolute power over a benighted citizenry, whose problems the Great and the Good could then set about fixing. Kristof’s colleague at the Times, Thomas Friedman, can scarcely get through a column without sobbing over the beauty and grandeur of communist China.
There are many ways to pick apart Kristof’s little daydream, but let me focus on the one that jumped out at me immediately. What is the defining characteristic of the military? It’s tempting to say “killing people and breaking things,” but that’s not all they do, and even combat forces don’t spend every hour of their career discharging their weapons.
The defining characteristic of the military is its sense of duty. Military people give, take, and relay orders to accomplish missions. Everyone involved in the military is required to discharge their duty. Failure to obey orders and fulfill duties brings disciplinary action, and in extreme cases, expulsion.
There is no place in that model for the Left’s preferred constituency of dependents. One thing the military does not have is welfare for the indigent. Also, soldiers don’t get to demand better benefits and less work, or go on strike when their demands are not met. There is no “community organizing.”
This is crucial to an understanding of military efficiency. All of the marvelous benefits Kristof is drooling over cannot be extended to people who refuse to earn them. The level of control over the military population required to accomplish its missions and distribute its resources could never be imposed on a civilian population, and it would be immoral to try. Soldiers voluntarily accept military discipline when they enter the service, and we honor them for their sacrifice. There have been societies which toyed with imposing militaristic control over unwilling civilian populations, but nobody thinks of them as the future, outside of besotted liberals.
You can’t have military health care, child care, and other benefits without military duty, and the ability to expel those who don’t fulfill those duties. For that matter, the military cannot have them without the wealth produced through private-sector risk-taking and innovation, which quickly stagnate in authoritarian societies.
The liberal fantasies that bankrupted America never die. It’s interesting how often they involve a world where every citizen has no choice but to accept orders without question.
The open-source license landscape is changing
The open-source license landscape is changing
by Gordon Haff
There's no such thing as "the" open-source license. There are lots of them. Sixty-nine to be precise if one accepts the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as the definitive arbiter of what is open source and what is not.
Some are essentially legacy licenses; in general, the continued proliferation of licenses has abated in recent years but it's often more trouble than it's worth to fully retire licenses that are still in use by active software. Others won't be relevant to a specific type of copyrighted material, such as software programs. (Material under an open-source license is still copyrighted; indeed, copyright law is integral to the working of open-source licensing.)
However, when it comes to open-source software licenses specifically, there are two broad categories. One includes "copyleft" licenses, of which the General Public License (GPL) is the best known. The other includes "permissive" licenses, most notably the Apache, BSD, and MIT licenses.
Different licenses impose more, fewer, or different types of restrictions within that general framework. But those two categories capture the core philosophical distinction. A copyleft license requires that if changes are made to a program's code, and the changed program is distributed outside an organization, the source code containing the changes must likewise be distributed. Permissive licenses don't.
With that as background, Matt Aslett of the 451 Group brings us some interesting numbers that suggest the relative popularity of these two license types is changing.
Aslett points to data from Black Duck Software, a firm focused on enabling open-source software adoption, suggesting use of the GPL family of licenses is declining as a percentage of overall open-source license use--though, in absolute numbers, it continues to grow. According to Aslett, Black Duck told him that, "The license usage data represents all the OSS projects we've spidered and have in our Knowledgebase which is now around 500,000." By contrast, the use of more permissive licenses is up in both relative and absolute terms.
451 Group's own data shows a similar pattern. Aslett writes: "Having updated the results to the end of 2010, our analysis now covers 321 vendors and shows that 2010 was the first year in which there were more companies formed around projects with non-copyleft licences than with strong copyleft licences." Ian Skerrett at the Eclipse Foundation makes a similar argument based on his considerable interactions with a wide range of open-source communities. He argues that: "As an experiment, name one popular community open source project created in the last 5 years that uses the AGPL or GPL? JQuery (MIT but also GPL v2), OpenStack(Apache), Hadoop (Apache), Hudson/Jenkins (MIT), nodejs (MIT) and Android (Apache). I claim all these project use a permissive license to get as many users and adopters, to encourage potential contributions."
It's not a trend that's without controversy. For example, Bradly M. Kuhn, former executive director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), writes that: "Anyway, as you might suspect, I'm generally against the idea of relicensing from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license in most situations. In fact, I generally take the stance that you should go with the strictest copyleft possible unless there's a strong reason not to. This is well-argued in RMS' essay on the LGPL itself, and I won't repeat those arguments here. Frankly, if I were picking a license for OpenOffice.org and/or LibreOffice from start, I'd pick AGPLv3-or-later, because of the concern that it could be turned into a Google Docs-like web service."
(The Affero GPL (AGPL) is a variant of the GPL v3 license intended to address the fact that the delivery of software in the form of a service doesn't count as distribution in most copyleft licenses--and therefore doesn't trigger the requirement that software changes be provided back to the community. Strong copyleft advocates view this as a loophole to be plugged with licenses like the AGPL. The AGPL has not been widely adopted however.)
If we stipulate for purposes of argument that this trend toward permissive licenses is occurring, why is it occurring? And is it bad news for open source?
Anything but. It reflects less concern about preventing free-riders and more about growing communities. Skerrett puts it this way: "I claim all these projects use a permissive license to get as many users and adopters, to encourage potential contributions. They aren't worried about trying to force anyone. You can't force anyone to contribute to your project; you can only limit your community through a restrictive license."
Or to put it another way, open source is no longer widely viewed as a child that needs to be protected. As I wrote in 2008:
"Such a worldview implicitly assumes that copyleft is the only reason that open-source users contribute back their enhancements. Copyleft may or may not have played a major role in the rise of open source. Certainly, the GPL has long been the most common open-source license, used by Linux, GNU, and many others. However, the BSD license--which does not require that code changes be made available--is also widely used. It's an interesting historical debate whether the ultimate impact of Linux was far greater than the BSD operating system because of license differences, or because of other reasons--of which there were many. In any case, open source does not begin and end with the GPL and copyleft.
"And that's just looking at history. Today, open source is widely embraced by all manner of technology companies because they've found that, for many purposes, open source is a great way to engage with developer and user communities--and even with competitors. Therefore, the concern that, left to their own devices, companies will wholesale strip-mine open-source projects and "take it all private" seems anachronistic. That's not to say that everyone will always contribute as much code without copyleft as with it, but the suggestion that copyleft is all that's holding the whole open-source process together just doesn't square with the facts."
by Gordon Haff
There's no such thing as "the" open-source license. There are lots of them. Sixty-nine to be precise if one accepts the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as the definitive arbiter of what is open source and what is not.
Some are essentially legacy licenses; in general, the continued proliferation of licenses has abated in recent years but it's often more trouble than it's worth to fully retire licenses that are still in use by active software. Others won't be relevant to a specific type of copyrighted material, such as software programs. (Material under an open-source license is still copyrighted; indeed, copyright law is integral to the working of open-source licensing.)
However, when it comes to open-source software licenses specifically, there are two broad categories. One includes "copyleft" licenses, of which the General Public License (GPL) is the best known. The other includes "permissive" licenses, most notably the Apache, BSD, and MIT licenses.
Different licenses impose more, fewer, or different types of restrictions within that general framework. But those two categories capture the core philosophical distinction. A copyleft license requires that if changes are made to a program's code, and the changed program is distributed outside an organization, the source code containing the changes must likewise be distributed. Permissive licenses don't.
Aslett points to data from Black Duck Software, a firm focused on enabling open-source software adoption, suggesting use of the GPL family of licenses is declining as a percentage of overall open-source license use--though, in absolute numbers, it continues to grow. According to Aslett, Black Duck told him that, "The license usage data represents all the OSS projects we've spidered and have in our Knowledgebase which is now around 500,000." By contrast, the use of more permissive licenses is up in both relative and absolute terms.
451 Group's own data shows a similar pattern. Aslett writes: "Having updated the results to the end of 2010, our analysis now covers 321 vendors and shows that 2010 was the first year in which there were more companies formed around projects with non-copyleft licences than with strong copyleft licences." Ian Skerrett at the Eclipse Foundation makes a similar argument based on his considerable interactions with a wide range of open-source communities. He argues that: "As an experiment, name one popular community open source project created in the last 5 years that uses the AGPL or GPL? JQuery (MIT but also GPL v2), OpenStack(Apache), Hadoop (Apache), Hudson/Jenkins (MIT), nodejs (MIT) and Android (Apache). I claim all these project use a permissive license to get as many users and adopters, to encourage potential contributions."
It's not a trend that's without controversy. For example, Bradly M. Kuhn, former executive director of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), writes that: "Anyway, as you might suspect, I'm generally against the idea of relicensing from a copyleft to a non-copyleft license in most situations. In fact, I generally take the stance that you should go with the strictest copyleft possible unless there's a strong reason not to. This is well-argued in RMS' essay on the LGPL itself, and I won't repeat those arguments here. Frankly, if I were picking a license for OpenOffice.org and/or LibreOffice from start, I'd pick AGPLv3-or-later, because of the concern that it could be turned into a Google Docs-like web service."
(The Affero GPL (AGPL) is a variant of the GPL v3 license intended to address the fact that the delivery of software in the form of a service doesn't count as distribution in most copyleft licenses--and therefore doesn't trigger the requirement that software changes be provided back to the community. Strong copyleft advocates view this as a loophole to be plugged with licenses like the AGPL. The AGPL has not been widely adopted however.)
If we stipulate for purposes of argument that this trend toward permissive licenses is occurring, why is it occurring? And is it bad news for open source?
Anything but. It reflects less concern about preventing free-riders and more about growing communities. Skerrett puts it this way: "I claim all these projects use a permissive license to get as many users and adopters, to encourage potential contributions. They aren't worried about trying to force anyone. You can't force anyone to contribute to your project; you can only limit your community through a restrictive license."
Or to put it another way, open source is no longer widely viewed as a child that needs to be protected. As I wrote in 2008:
"Such a worldview implicitly assumes that copyleft is the only reason that open-source users contribute back their enhancements. Copyleft may or may not have played a major role in the rise of open source. Certainly, the GPL has long been the most common open-source license, used by Linux, GNU, and many others. However, the BSD license--which does not require that code changes be made available--is also widely used. It's an interesting historical debate whether the ultimate impact of Linux was far greater than the BSD operating system because of license differences, or because of other reasons--of which there were many. In any case, open source does not begin and end with the GPL and copyleft.
"And that's just looking at history. Today, open source is widely embraced by all manner of technology companies because they've found that, for many purposes, open source is a great way to engage with developer and user communities--and even with competitors. Therefore, the concern that, left to their own devices, companies will wholesale strip-mine open-source projects and "take it all private" seems anachronistic. That's not to say that everyone will always contribute as much code without copyleft as with it, but the suggestion that copyleft is all that's holding the whole open-source process together just doesn't square with the facts."
Judicial Watch: Tax dollars for La Raza skyrocket after Obama appoints one of its leaders to White House post
Judicial Watch: Tax dollars for La Raza skyrocket after Obama appoints one of its leaders to White House post
By: Mark Tapscott 06/17/11 6:39 PM
Should anybody care when a radical left-wing special interest group gets a big boost in federally funded grants and contracts after one of its most visible leaders is appointed to a key White House job?
That's exactly what happened after President Obama appointed Cecilla Munoz, the National Council of La Raza's (NCLR) senior vice president, as his director of inter-governmental affairs, according to an investigation by Judicial Watch.
The inter-governmental affairs job is among the most powerful in a presidential administration in terms of its occupant being able to direct or influence the awarding of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants in aid and contracts.
Here's how Judicial Watch describes the significance of the Munoz appointment:
"The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
"Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special 'ethics waiver' to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
"She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago."
For more from Judicial Watch, go here
By: Mark Tapscott 06/17/11 6:39 PM
Should anybody care when a radical left-wing special interest group gets a big boost in federally funded grants and contracts after one of its most visible leaders is appointed to a key White House job?
That's exactly what happened after President Obama appointed Cecilla Munoz, the National Council of La Raza's (NCLR) senior vice president, as his director of inter-governmental affairs, according to an investigation by Judicial Watch.
The inter-governmental affairs job is among the most powerful in a presidential administration in terms of its occupant being able to direct or influence the awarding of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants in aid and contracts.
Here's how Judicial Watch describes the significance of the Munoz appointment:
"The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
"Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special 'ethics waiver' to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
"She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago."
For more from Judicial Watch, go here
Time to Cut Aid to Lebanon?
Time to Cut Aid to Lebanon?
By John Tabin on 6.17.11 @ 9:10PM
Now that Lebanon has a government dominated by allies of Hezbollah, a bipartisan group of Congressmen think maybe it's time to curtail US aid, Josh Rogin reports:
Now Howard Berman (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is pushing a bill to end almost all U.S. assistance to Lebanon. He's joined by the top Lebanese-Americans in Congress, including Darrell Issa (R-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), and Nick Rahall (D-WV).
His bill, the Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA), is modeled on Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (PATA) that Congress passed after Hamas won the 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council...
Berman had put a hold on assistance to Lebanon last summer, but later allowed the money to go through because he wanted to strengthen the LAF in its internal struggle against Hezbollah. But now the situation is totally different and he won't back off, he said.
"The notion that the LAF will remain an island of independence under a government that is dominated and welded together by Hezbollah is a very different proposition," he said.
Berman's bill would still allow support for rule of law and democracy programs, educational funding, and even training of Lebanese forces in America under the IMET program. The president would also be able to waive restrictions in the law in cases that were deemed to be in the national security interests of the U.S.
His GOP counterpart, HFAC chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is generally supportive of the idea and is considering supporting the bill, Berman said.
Of course, when it comes to dealing with Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon, adjusting foreign aid to Beirut is no substitute for a strategy toward Hezbollah's sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. On the latter, Lee Smith (who argues that the composition of the new Lebanese government undermines a pet theory of Obama counterterrorism czar John Brennan's) explains some of the steps for putting pressure on Assad that the Obama administration has so far declined to take.
By John Tabin on 6.17.11 @ 9:10PM
Now that Lebanon has a government dominated by allies of Hezbollah, a bipartisan group of Congressmen think maybe it's time to curtail US aid, Josh Rogin reports:
Now Howard Berman (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is pushing a bill to end almost all U.S. assistance to Lebanon. He's joined by the top Lebanese-Americans in Congress, including Darrell Issa (R-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), and Nick Rahall (D-WV).
His bill, the Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA), is modeled on Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (PATA) that Congress passed after Hamas won the 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council...
Berman had put a hold on assistance to Lebanon last summer, but later allowed the money to go through because he wanted to strengthen the LAF in its internal struggle against Hezbollah. But now the situation is totally different and he won't back off, he said.
"The notion that the LAF will remain an island of independence under a government that is dominated and welded together by Hezbollah is a very different proposition," he said.
Berman's bill would still allow support for rule of law and democracy programs, educational funding, and even training of Lebanese forces in America under the IMET program. The president would also be able to waive restrictions in the law in cases that were deemed to be in the national security interests of the U.S.
His GOP counterpart, HFAC chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is generally supportive of the idea and is considering supporting the bill, Berman said.
Of course, when it comes to dealing with Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon, adjusting foreign aid to Beirut is no substitute for a strategy toward Hezbollah's sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. On the latter, Lee Smith (who argues that the composition of the new Lebanese government undermines a pet theory of Obama counterterrorism czar John Brennan's) explains some of the steps for putting pressure on Assad that the Obama administration has so far declined to take.
Obama Claims The UN Can Usurp Congressional War Authority
Obama Claims The UN Can Usurp Congressional War Authority
by Jeff Dunetz
The Congress shall have Power…. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions… Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution.
Earlier this week Speaker Boehner sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
“Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Boehner wrote. “The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made.”
Yesterday the President gave his response. He sent a 30+ page report (embedded below) justifying continued military involvement U.S. military involvement is “legitimated” by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.
U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
A major problem with that argument is that the Constitution’s provisions regarding the United States use of military force mentions Congress, but it doesn’t mention the United Nations as having the right to legitimize the use of American forces.
The President’s statement brings to mind George Washington’s farewell address where he said:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.
The administration also claims that its actions are not governed by the War Powers Act because the U.S. involvement does not constitute “hostilities” – the term used by the act to limit the time the president may commit U.S. forces into combat.
The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.
Maybe its me, whether the action is right or wrong,when one nation drops bombs on another that represents hostilities. It is also interesting that the President says further congressional authorization, as the operation has never been authorized by Congress.
Whether you agree with the rationale behind placing Americans in danger by participating in the Libya operation or not, the President’s explanation sets dangerous precedent that congress needs to address. Who is allowed to “legitimize” the use of American Military, Congress or the United Nations? The Constitution would say Congress. Additionally what is the definition of hostilities? Are bombing operations considered hostilities? Embargoes? Is it “anything goes” as long as there are no troops on the ground?
The answers to these questions are vital to the future direction of the Country, our use of military force, and most importantly are we a sovereign nation or a vassal state of the UN?
You can see the President’s entire response by clicking the link below.
United States Activities in Libya 6-15-11//
by Jeff Dunetz
The Congress shall have Power…. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions… Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution.
Earlier this week Speaker Boehner sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
“Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Boehner wrote. “The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made.”
Yesterday the President gave his response. He sent a 30+ page report (embedded below) justifying continued military involvement U.S. military involvement is “legitimated” by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.
U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.
A major problem with that argument is that the Constitution’s provisions regarding the United States use of military force mentions Congress, but it doesn’t mention the United Nations as having the right to legitimize the use of American forces.
The President’s statement brings to mind George Washington’s farewell address where he said:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.
The administration also claims that its actions are not governed by the War Powers Act because the U.S. involvement does not constitute “hostilities” – the term used by the act to limit the time the president may commit U.S. forces into combat.
The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.
Maybe its me, whether the action is right or wrong,when one nation drops bombs on another that represents hostilities. It is also interesting that the President says further congressional authorization, as the operation has never been authorized by Congress.
Whether you agree with the rationale behind placing Americans in danger by participating in the Libya operation or not, the President’s explanation sets dangerous precedent that congress needs to address. Who is allowed to “legitimize” the use of American Military, Congress or the United Nations? The Constitution would say Congress. Additionally what is the definition of hostilities? Are bombing operations considered hostilities? Embargoes? Is it “anything goes” as long as there are no troops on the ground?
The answers to these questions are vital to the future direction of the Country, our use of military force, and most importantly are we a sovereign nation or a vassal state of the UN?
You can see the President’s entire response by clicking the link below.
United States Activities in Libya 6-15-11//
Report: In Rare Move Obama Overruled Lawyers on Libya Air War
Report: In Rare Move Obama Overruled Lawyers on Libya Air War
Scott Baker
WASHINGTON (AP) — The New York Times is reporting that President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite views to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers.
The newspaper reported Friday in its online edition that the president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute “hostilities,” triggering the need for congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution.
Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, the paper reported, but rarely do so.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: The link to the complete New York Times report is here.
Scott Baker
WASHINGTON (AP) — The New York Times is reporting that President Barack Obama decided he could continue the air war in Libya without congressional approval despite views to the contrary from Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers.
The newspaper reported Friday in its online edition that the president relied instead on the opinions of other senior administration lawyers that continuing U.S. participation in the air operations against the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did not constitute “hostilities,” triggering the need for congressional permission under the War Powers Resolution.
Presidents can ignore the advice of the Office of Legal Counsel, the paper reported, but rarely do so.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: The link to the complete New York Times report is here.
Obamacare waivers get axe in last-minute Friday night news dump
Obamacare waivers get axe in last-minute Friday night news dump
By Matthew Boyle
In what’s appearing to be a last-minute move to avoid scrutiny, President Barack Obama’s administration announced late Friday that it is doing away with Obamacare waivers.
Obama administration official Steve Larsen said no new applications, or waiver renewal applications, will be accepted after Sept. 22 this year. Larsen said politics was “absolutely not” a part of the decision to do away with the controversial program, but it certainly looks that way with the decision to dump the news on Friday. It’s a common public relations practice to roll news out late on Fridays when trying to shift attention away from controversial topics.
The administration defended the Obamacare waivers program until now, saying it was necessary to avoid disrupting negative economic effects on employers who couldn’t afford certain provisions in the legislation. The waivers exempt recipients from having to annually increase the amount of coverage they provide their employees with, a major part of the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul.
Each year through 2014, Obamacare requires employers and other health plan providers to increase the minimum annual dollar amount limits they provide their employees with. This year the amount they had to increase it to was $750,000 per person. The annual limit requirement waivers exempt recipients from having to meet that requirement, and if they would have gotten renewed waivers each thereafter, future requirements. But, the administration’s doing away with the program kills those chances.
The Friday night news dump comes after a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report earlier this week still left several unanswered questions on how the administration was handling the Obamacare waiver process. That GAO report found that more than 3 million Americans are benefiting from the more than 1,400 Obamacare waivers granted so far. But, it also found that there’s still more than 150,000 Americans who are hurting after the administration denied their organizations’ applications for waivers.
The news dump also comes on the heels of The Daily Caller’s report that the Obamacare waivers were never in the original law, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) granted itself the power through administrative rules. Several of the organizations and unions that lobbied HHS to grant itself the power to issue waivers from Obamacare’s annual limit requirements either got waivers themselves or have political connections to companies or groups that did. That includes the owner of the company that applied for the 38 waivers that went to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district.
Flex-Plan Services co-owner Hilarie Aitken, the executive who admitted to applying for all the Pelosi-district waivers, sits on the board of the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), a Washington trade-group that lobbies to “represent and promote flexible compensation programs.” ECFC was one of many groups that lobbied the HHS to give itself annual limit waiver power through a rule making process.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told TheDC Pelosi’s district getting Obamacare waivers was “unflippingbelievable” and 2012 GOP presidential candidate former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called it “crony capitalism.”
By Matthew Boyle
In what’s appearing to be a last-minute move to avoid scrutiny, President Barack Obama’s administration announced late Friday that it is doing away with Obamacare waivers.
Obama administration official Steve Larsen said no new applications, or waiver renewal applications, will be accepted after Sept. 22 this year. Larsen said politics was “absolutely not” a part of the decision to do away with the controversial program, but it certainly looks that way with the decision to dump the news on Friday. It’s a common public relations practice to roll news out late on Fridays when trying to shift attention away from controversial topics.
The administration defended the Obamacare waivers program until now, saying it was necessary to avoid disrupting negative economic effects on employers who couldn’t afford certain provisions in the legislation. The waivers exempt recipients from having to annually increase the amount of coverage they provide their employees with, a major part of the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul.
Each year through 2014, Obamacare requires employers and other health plan providers to increase the minimum annual dollar amount limits they provide their employees with. This year the amount they had to increase it to was $750,000 per person. The annual limit requirement waivers exempt recipients from having to meet that requirement, and if they would have gotten renewed waivers each thereafter, future requirements. But, the administration’s doing away with the program kills those chances.
The Friday night news dump comes after a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report earlier this week still left several unanswered questions on how the administration was handling the Obamacare waiver process. That GAO report found that more than 3 million Americans are benefiting from the more than 1,400 Obamacare waivers granted so far. But, it also found that there’s still more than 150,000 Americans who are hurting after the administration denied their organizations’ applications for waivers.
The news dump also comes on the heels of The Daily Caller’s report that the Obamacare waivers were never in the original law, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) granted itself the power through administrative rules. Several of the organizations and unions that lobbied HHS to grant itself the power to issue waivers from Obamacare’s annual limit requirements either got waivers themselves or have political connections to companies or groups that did. That includes the owner of the company that applied for the 38 waivers that went to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district.
Flex-Plan Services co-owner Hilarie Aitken, the executive who admitted to applying for all the Pelosi-district waivers, sits on the board of the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), a Washington trade-group that lobbies to “represent and promote flexible compensation programs.” ECFC was one of many groups that lobbied the HHS to give itself annual limit waiver power through a rule making process.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told TheDC Pelosi’s district getting Obamacare waivers was “unflippingbelievable” and 2012 GOP presidential candidate former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called it “crony capitalism.”
Shocking Study Results Reveal Moral Imperative to Fix Medicaid
Shocking Study Results Reveal Moral Imperative to Fix Medicaid
This week, The New York Times highlighted a study on Medicaid, the federal–state partnership to provide health care to the poor and disabled, and its failure to offer enrolled children access to care. The researchers used a “secret shopper” technique to see how many specialists in Cook County, Illinois, turned away children with Medicaid compared to private insurance.
The results were jaw-dropping. While specialists turned away 11 percent of privately insured children, 66 percent of children with Medicaid were unable to get an appointment. For those who did, the waiting time was 22 days longer than for other patients.
Shocking as these results may be, they aren’t a surprise—and they aren’t unique to Cook County. One physician’s response: “It’s interesting to think you even need a study to prove that. It’s pretty much common knowledge.” Though Medicaid provides adequate coverage on paper, nationwide, beneficiaries experience low access and poor quality care. The reason is decreasing provider reimbursement, which is a symptom of a large issue: States can’t afford the current Medicaid program, and thanks to the new health care law, it is only going to get worse.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT) recently visited The Heritage Foundation to bring attention to this issue. He pointed to Medicaid’s “mission creep” as one of the largest problems:
Though Medicaid was intended to serve the most vulnerable members of society, it now covers almost one-fourth of the entire population. And that number will grow under Obamacare, which extends the program to upward of 20 million additional individuals.… An ever-expanding Medicaid program is devastating for our nation and our states’ finances, and by spreading itself so thin, fails to provide adequate care for those who need it.
Meanwhile, states’ hands are further tied by so-called maintenance of eligibility restrictions in the stimulus and Obamacare that limit their ability to review or restructure who is eligible for the program. This leaves states with fewer tools to manage the program and forces them to reduce spending by further cutting benefits or reimbursements for providers. This has led to the severe access problems outlined above.
Governors from 29 states recently sent a letter to Senator Hatch outlining the principles to guide Medicaid reform. They write that Congress “should provide states and territories a general healthcare framework where we can make necessary adjustments without constantly seeking permission from the federal government for changes that we already know work.”
The first step is repeal of Obamacare, which exacerbates the Medicaid crisis through a huge expansion in eligibility. Then, Washington should change the federal financing of the program to encourage financially responsible behavior from the states and the federal government. Meanwhile, the role of Medicaid should be reorganized. Under the Heritage plan, Medicaid would assist healthy moms and kids mainstream into private health insurance. For the truly vulnerable poor, disabled, and elderly, states should be given greater authority to develop innovative models that promote patient-centered reforms. To read more about the right direction for Medicaid reform, read Heritage’s plan at http://savingthedream.org.
This week, The New York Times highlighted a study on Medicaid, the federal–state partnership to provide health care to the poor and disabled, and its failure to offer enrolled children access to care. The researchers used a “secret shopper” technique to see how many specialists in Cook County, Illinois, turned away children with Medicaid compared to private insurance.
The results were jaw-dropping. While specialists turned away 11 percent of privately insured children, 66 percent of children with Medicaid were unable to get an appointment. For those who did, the waiting time was 22 days longer than for other patients.
Shocking as these results may be, they aren’t a surprise—and they aren’t unique to Cook County. One physician’s response: “It’s interesting to think you even need a study to prove that. It’s pretty much common knowledge.” Though Medicaid provides adequate coverage on paper, nationwide, beneficiaries experience low access and poor quality care. The reason is decreasing provider reimbursement, which is a symptom of a large issue: States can’t afford the current Medicaid program, and thanks to the new health care law, it is only going to get worse.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT) recently visited The Heritage Foundation to bring attention to this issue. He pointed to Medicaid’s “mission creep” as one of the largest problems:
Though Medicaid was intended to serve the most vulnerable members of society, it now covers almost one-fourth of the entire population. And that number will grow under Obamacare, which extends the program to upward of 20 million additional individuals.… An ever-expanding Medicaid program is devastating for our nation and our states’ finances, and by spreading itself so thin, fails to provide adequate care for those who need it.
Meanwhile, states’ hands are further tied by so-called maintenance of eligibility restrictions in the stimulus and Obamacare that limit their ability to review or restructure who is eligible for the program. This leaves states with fewer tools to manage the program and forces them to reduce spending by further cutting benefits or reimbursements for providers. This has led to the severe access problems outlined above.
Governors from 29 states recently sent a letter to Senator Hatch outlining the principles to guide Medicaid reform. They write that Congress “should provide states and territories a general healthcare framework where we can make necessary adjustments without constantly seeking permission from the federal government for changes that we already know work.”
The first step is repeal of Obamacare, which exacerbates the Medicaid crisis through a huge expansion in eligibility. Then, Washington should change the federal financing of the program to encourage financially responsible behavior from the states and the federal government. Meanwhile, the role of Medicaid should be reorganized. Under the Heritage plan, Medicaid would assist healthy moms and kids mainstream into private health insurance. For the truly vulnerable poor, disabled, and elderly, states should be given greater authority to develop innovative models that promote patient-centered reforms. To read more about the right direction for Medicaid reform, read Heritage’s plan at http://savingthedream.org.
The Rise of the Democratic Super-Secret PACs
The Rise of the Democratic Super-Secret PACs
Posted by Moe Lane
Super PACs are, of course, the political groups that were set up after the Supreme Court’s landmark free speech decision in Citizens United: they are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money advocating both for and against political candidates, but may not donate to those candidates directly. The Left ostensibly hates them, which did not stop them from using them to raise over 28 million dollars in the 2010 election cycle (44% of total Super PAC fundraising) to the Right’s over 35 million (54%: the other 2% hedged their bets); their general argument is that allowing groups to openly spending money expressing their opinions on candidates is corrosive to American democracy. ‘Openly’ is the key here: Super PACs must generally disclose their donors.
The generally is… the interesting bit.
OpenSecrets will take the reader most of the way there, but not quite (can’t imagine why): you see, there’s a loophole in this system. A nonprofit organization does not have to disclose its donors; so a Super PAC that receives a donation from a nonprofit has effectively received an anonymous donation. OpenSecrets found five Super PACs that received most of their revenue this way: New Power PAC (NPP), ProgressOhio (PO), Environment Colorado Action Fund (ECAF), Protecting America’s Retirees (PAR), and the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund (NRC). All five groups received between 88% and 100% of their total funding from precisely one group per Super PAC: they are fairly obviously being used by their parent groups to hide their donors - in a perfectly legal manner, mind you. Total amount being hid this way? Just over 1.4 million dollars: which is not a bad amount of money to licitly launder.
But here’s the interesting bit: OpenSecrets is not nearly being as apocalyptic about this as one might expect from a pro-transparency group. And why is that? Well, far be it from me to suggest that the Center for Responsive Politics might have a bias, but if you drill down into actual campaign ads done by these five Super PACs, you notice something…
For D Against D For R Against R Total % Dem
NAR $ 757,200 $ - $340,066 $ - $1,097,266 69%
PAR $ 157,233 $ - $ - $ - $ 157,233 100%
ECAF $ 143,158 $ - $ - $ - $ 143,158 100%
PO $ - $ - $ - $18,412 $ 18,412 100%
NPP $ 8,017 $ - $ - $ 3,827 $ 11,844 100%
Total $1,065,608 $ - $340,066 $22,239 $1,427,913 76%
Like the fact that 76% of the money raised in this fashion was used to either try to elect a Democrat, or attack a Republican. The National Association of Realtors was the only one that was bipartisan, and even then it put 69% of its money into Democratic candidates*. In other words, color me shocked that the CRP’s ostensibly nonpartisan website somehow neglected to mention that the Democrats used Citizens United in 2010 to sneak $1.1 million past the watchdogs - or that this was in flagrant disregard of the Democrats’ own pious rhetoric on the matter of transparency…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: For the record, the CRP doesn’t muck about with the data. But its analysis of that data always needs to be checked.
*Incumbent protection.
Posted by Moe Lane
Super PACs are, of course, the political groups that were set up after the Supreme Court’s landmark free speech decision in Citizens United: they are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money advocating both for and against political candidates, but may not donate to those candidates directly. The Left ostensibly hates them, which did not stop them from using them to raise over 28 million dollars in the 2010 election cycle (44% of total Super PAC fundraising) to the Right’s over 35 million (54%: the other 2% hedged their bets); their general argument is that allowing groups to openly spending money expressing their opinions on candidates is corrosive to American democracy. ‘Openly’ is the key here: Super PACs must generally disclose their donors.
The generally is… the interesting bit.
OpenSecrets will take the reader most of the way there, but not quite (can’t imagine why): you see, there’s a loophole in this system. A nonprofit organization does not have to disclose its donors; so a Super PAC that receives a donation from a nonprofit has effectively received an anonymous donation. OpenSecrets found five Super PACs that received most of their revenue this way: New Power PAC (NPP), ProgressOhio (PO), Environment Colorado Action Fund (ECAF), Protecting America’s Retirees (PAR), and the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund (NRC). All five groups received between 88% and 100% of their total funding from precisely one group per Super PAC: they are fairly obviously being used by their parent groups to hide their donors - in a perfectly legal manner, mind you. Total amount being hid this way? Just over 1.4 million dollars: which is not a bad amount of money to licitly launder.
But here’s the interesting bit: OpenSecrets is not nearly being as apocalyptic about this as one might expect from a pro-transparency group. And why is that? Well, far be it from me to suggest that the Center for Responsive Politics might have a bias, but if you drill down into actual campaign ads done by these five Super PACs, you notice something…
For D Against D For R Against R Total % Dem
NAR $ 757,200 $ - $340,066 $ - $1,097,266 69%
PAR $ 157,233 $ - $ - $ - $ 157,233 100%
ECAF $ 143,158 $ - $ - $ - $ 143,158 100%
PO $ - $ - $ - $18,412 $ 18,412 100%
NPP $ 8,017 $ - $ - $ 3,827 $ 11,844 100%
Total $1,065,608 $ - $340,066 $22,239 $1,427,913 76%
Like the fact that 76% of the money raised in this fashion was used to either try to elect a Democrat, or attack a Republican. The National Association of Realtors was the only one that was bipartisan, and even then it put 69% of its money into Democratic candidates*. In other words, color me shocked that the CRP’s ostensibly nonpartisan website somehow neglected to mention that the Democrats used Citizens United in 2010 to sneak $1.1 million past the watchdogs - or that this was in flagrant disregard of the Democrats’ own pious rhetoric on the matter of transparency…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: For the record, the CRP doesn’t muck about with the data. But its analysis of that data always needs to be checked.
*Incumbent protection.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Michigan Islamic Group Cleared To Take Over Elementary School
Michigan Islamic Group Cleared To Take Over Elementary School
via Islamic Group Cleared To Take Over Empty Farmington School – Community News Story – WDIV Detroit.
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — The Farmington School Board unanimously approved the sale of the former Eagle Elementary School to the Islamic Cultural Association on Wednesday despite anti-Muslim protests.
At the school board meeting, around 200 people attempted to block the deal expressing concerns that property values would decrease if Muslims congregated in the area.
The school, which was originally slated for demolition, is expected to become an Islamic cultural and activity center.
Judging by the photograph included with this story, residents have every right to be extremely concerned. The terrorist-linked Muslim group CAIR is involved in some way with the school, and that does not bode well for the area. Check back in five to ten years.
via Islamic Group Cleared To Take Over Empty Farmington School – Community News Story – WDIV Detroit.
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — The Farmington School Board unanimously approved the sale of the former Eagle Elementary School to the Islamic Cultural Association on Wednesday despite anti-Muslim protests.
At the school board meeting, around 200 people attempted to block the deal expressing concerns that property values would decrease if Muslims congregated in the area.
The school, which was originally slated for demolition, is expected to become an Islamic cultural and activity center.
Judging by the photograph included with this story, residents have every right to be extremely concerned. The terrorist-linked Muslim group CAIR is involved in some way with the school, and that does not bode well for the area. Check back in five to ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)