Saw this recently on newsrealblog.com and decided to share it with you. The video was made in 1948 by Harding College during the height of the Cold War. The quality is a little iffy and the overall effect a bit hokey, sort of like the old projectors I saw in the 70's. However, the message is a timeless one for all people regardless of their political affiliation. Please do give it a viewing!
Johnny Cash
Found this great WSJ article from Peggy Noonan. I have posted on the problems that America (and by logical extension, Western civilization). As America goes, so goes the rest of the free world. Those of us living here in the Union of Soviet Canadian Republic should take no comfort in the problems that are afflicting the U.S.. Indeed they are worrisome. Let us continue to pray for our nation - assuming it isn't too late!
Johnny Cash
(Please note the emphasis in bold is mine and not the author's)
The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers. Waves of money are sloshing through the system, creating a false rising tide that lifts all boats for the moment. The tide will recede. The boats aren't rising, they're bobbing, and will settle. No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we're entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008. Economists, statisticians, forecasters and market specialists will argue about what the new numbers mean, but no one believes them, either. Among the things swept away in 2008 was public confidence in the experts. The experts missed the crash. They'll miss the meaning of this moment, too.
The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.
It is a story in two parts. The first: "They do not think they can make it better."
I talked this week with a guy from Big Pharma, which we used to call "the drug companies" until we decided that didn't sound menacing enough. He is middle-aged, works in a significant position, and our conversation turned to the last great recession, in the late mid- to late 1970s and early '80s. We talked about how, in terms of numbers, that recession was in some ways worse than the one we're experiencing now. Interest rates were over 20%, and inflation and unemployment hit double digits. America was in what might be called a functional depression, yet there was still a prevalent feeling of hope. Here's why. Everyone thought they could figure a way through. We knew we could find a path through the mess. In 1982 there were people saying, "If only we get rid of this guy Reagan, we can make it better!" Others said, "If we follow Reagan, he'll squeeze out inflation and lower taxes and we'll be America again, we'll be acting like Americans again." Everyone had a path through.
Now they don't. The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can't figure a way out. Have you heard, "If only we follow Obama and the Democrats, it will all get better"? Or, "If only we follow the Republicans, they'll make it all work again"? I bet you haven't, or not much.
This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems—debt, spending, war—seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out. It's not a path through.
And so the disheartenedness of the leadership class, of those in business, of those who have something. This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City. They took their tax dollars with them—in 2006 alone more than $4 billion.
You know what New York, both state and city, will do to make up for the lost money. They'll raise taxes.
I talked with an executive this week with what we still call "the insurance companies" and will no doubt soon be calling Big Insura. (Take it away, Democratic National Committee.) He was thoughtful, reflective about the big picture. He talked about all the new proposed regulations on the industry. Rep. Barney Frank had just said on some cable show that the Democrats of the White House and Congress "are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area." The executive said of Washington: "They don't understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who've said to me 'I'm done.' " He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, "They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."
He felt government doesn't understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings. Mr. Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue. But of course they're human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they're all rats. (That would be you, Chamber of Commerce.)
And here is the second part of the story. While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless . . . one almost calls it optimism, but it is not that.
It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed. They don't see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.
When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?
I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry. They talk about their "concerns"—they're big on that word. But they're not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's lap.
They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—"strongest nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest standard of living"—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.
We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.
I cannot help but think the next major crisis surrounding Israel will involve some kind of energy breakthrough. Will space-based solar energy be that breakthrough? The idea is simple enough: Have a bunch of photovoltaic mirrors reflect to a collecting satellite which sends it to a ground-based receiver who then feed such energy into the grid. Such a capital-intensive investment would need major government (meaning American) backing before it even gets off the ground. Not only is such an endeavor expensive, the technology and ingenuity involved will be daunting. I envision some bright bulb from Israel stepping onto the world stage to solve these technical dilemmas inadvertently setting the stage for the Gog-Magog battle foretold in Ezekiel 38-39. You can read the full Wall Street Journal article here. Here's a pasting of the relevant paragraphs.
Johnny Cash
SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER
For more than three decades, visionaries have imagined tapping solar power where the sun always shines—in space. If we could place giant solar panels in orbit around the Earth, and beam even a fraction of the available energy back to Earth, they could deliver nonstop electricity to any place on the planet.
(Text for picture shown)
Sunlight is reflected off giant orbiting mirrors to an array of photovoltaic cells; the light is converted to electricity and then changed into microwaves, which are beamed to earth. Ground-based antennas capture the microwave energy and convert it back to electricity, which is sent to the grid.
The technology may sound like science fiction, but it's simple: Solar panels in orbit about 22,000 miles up beam energy in the form of microwaves to earth, where it's turned into electricity and plugged into the grid. (The low-powered beams are considered safe.) A ground receiving station a mile in diameter could deliver about 1,000 megawatts—enough to power on average about a million U.S. homes.
The cost of sending solar collectors into space is the biggest obstacle, so it's necessary to design a system lightweight enough to require only a few launches. A handful of countries and companies aim to deliver space-based power as early as a decade from now.
On October 14th 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change expert, gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Bible prophecy is proceeding rapidly. Once the rapture hits, America's preeminence in the world will come to an end. An age of lawlessness (more on that later) and darkness will overcome the world in a seven-year period known as the Tribulation (Daniel's 70th week). Pray now to receive the free gift that Jesus paid for you on the cross. There's not much time left.
Johnny Cash
Read the article from The Independent in its original form here.
The Demise of the Dollar
By Robert Fisk
In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning - along with China, Russia, Japan and France - to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.
The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place - although they have not discovered the details - are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."
This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil - yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.
The decline of American economic power linked to the current global recession was implicitly acknowledged by the World Bank president Robert Zoellick. "One of the legacies of this crisis may be a recognition of changed economic power relations," he said in Istanbul ahead of meetings this week of the IMF and World Bank. But it is China's extraordinary new financial power - along with past anger among oil-producing and oil-consuming nations at America's power to interfere in the international financial system - which has prompted the latest discussions involving the Gulf states.
Brazil has shown interest in collaborating in non-dollar oil payments, along with India. Indeed, China appears to be the most enthusiastic of all the financial powers involved, not least because of its enormous trade with the Middle East.
China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq - blocked by the US until this year - and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources. China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.
Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls. In a clear sign of China's growing financial muscle, the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, yesterday pleaded with Beijing to let the yuan appreciate against a sliding dollar and, by extension, loosen China's reliance on US monetary policy, to help re-balance the world economy and ease upward pressure on the euro.
Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements - the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system - America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.
The Chinese believe, for example, that the Americans persuaded Britain to stay out of the euro in order to prevent an earlier move away from the dollar. But Chinese banking sources say their discussions have gone too far to be blocked now. "The Russians will eventually bring in the rouble to the basket of currencies," a prominent Hong Kong broker told The Independent. "The Brits are stuck in the middle and will come into the euro. They have no choice because they won't be able to use the US dollar."
Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.
The US discussed the trend briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh; the Chinese Central Bank governor and other officials have been worrying aloud about the dollar for years. Their problem is that much of their national wealth is tied up in dollar assets.
"These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."
Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. Bankers remember, of course, what happened to the last Middle East oil producer to sell its oil in euros rather than dollars. A few months after Saddam Hussein trumpeted his decision, the Americans and British invaded Iraq.
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."
(Revelation 18:2-3)
Who will come to America's aid when the money runs out? I do not believe this will happen during the Church Age. However, once Jesus comes for His bride (the church) America's preeminent global reign will cease. Not something I personally wish for, yet this must happen in order to facilitate the rise of the Antichrist and a one world government. The link to the original Front Page Mag article is here.
Johnny Cash
The Worst is Yet to Come
By: Vasko Kohlmayer
Monday, August 31, 2009
"Today, we're pointed in the right direction... While we've rescued our economy from catastrophe, we've also begun to build a new foundation for growth,” said President Obama recently.
Unfortunately, the president's declarations and all the talk about the green shoots by his acolytes in the media are merely wishful thinking. Far from rescuing it, the Bush/Obama stimulus has dealt a damaging blow to the economy, and one which will exert its harmful effects for years to come. We only need to take a quick look at the big picture to see why.
Last year the American economic system experienced major trauma as more and more banks, companies and individuals were brought to the verge of bankruptcy. In most cases their plight was caused by their inability to service their liabilities. Buoyed by the easy availability of cheap credit and loose monetary policy of preceding years, government, commercial entities as well as private persons had taken on unprecedented levels of debt. Paul Craig Roberts, formerly Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, correctly points out that we lived in “a debt economy.” Writing in Journal Sentinel, John Torinus, a banker with experience in leveraged buyouts, described the astonishingly lax mindset that had come to dominate the whole sphere of borrowing:
The investment banks that crashed and burned were leveraged as high as 35 to 1. Their 3% equity base disappeared in a sinkhole of excessive debt... The excessive leverage went far beyond the investment banks. Home buyers could get insured or federally backed mortgages with 5% down or sometimes less. They were leveraged 20 to 1 or more. Credit checks were loose.
The cheap credit – which was made possible by artificially low interest rates – brought on the borrowing frenzy to a feverish pitch. Paul Craig Roberts observes:
The debt economy caused Americans to leverage their assets. They refinanced their homes and spent the equity. They maxed out numerous credit cards. They worked as many jobs as they could find. Debt expansion and multiple family incomes kept the economy going.
Toward the end of 2008 the overall debt level – public, commercial and personal – in the American economy was well over $50 trillion. This was three and a half times the size of the country's total economic output (around $14 trillion) and more than double the debt level of 2000. At over 350 percent, this made ours the most over leveraged economy in history. To put it bluntly, all of us – individuals, businesses and especially government – lived beyond our means. The American economy was over-leveraged through and through.
The racket held while the economy boomed. But once it seized, the over-indebtedness became unsustainable and things began falling apart. Describing this process, Nouriel Roubinini, one of America's leading financial commentators, wrote in Forbes:
Americans lived in a "Made-off" and Ponzi bubble economy for a decade or even longer. Madoff is the mirror of the American economy and of its over-leveraged agents: a house of cards of leverage over leverage by households, financial firms and corporations that has now collapsed in a heap.
Painful as the impending bankruptcies tsunami would have been, it would have ultimately delivered a remedy. In order for an economic system to remain viable, excessive indebtedness must be corrected and those responsible chastised for their misjudgment. It is for this purpose that the market evolved the institution of bankruptcy. Had it been left to unfold unimpeded, the process would have reduced the overall leverage and the economy would have eventually found itself on a sound footing once again.
The government, however, resolved not to allow the market do its work. In a misguided attempt to avert the necessary pain, it began propping up failing enterprises and individuals with more easy credit and direct cash injections. And even though it was initially advertised as a relatively short-term and targeted effort, the operation has been ongoing for nearly nine months while continually expanding in scope.
This approach is fundamentally flawed on a number of levels. To begin with, the government's actions interfere with the market's corrective forces. But the most obvious problem is that the government simply does not have the money to do this. It is ironic that even before it embarked on its “rescue” effort, the government itself was already more deeply indebted than the companies it sought to save. With some $65 trillion in total obligations, the federal government was, in fact, the most over-leveraged institution in America.
The rescue has unsurprisingly turned out to be a singularly expensive undertaking. So much so that the government's deficit at the end of this fiscal year will exceed the previous record by nearly a factor of four. At some 11 percent of GDP, this is also the highest peacetime deficit in American history when measured as a portion of the overall economy.
If the government's strategy – bailing out debt-ridden companies and individuals by enlarging its own astronomical debt – seems misguided, it is. There is an old truism that says you cannot get out of debt by running deeper into debt. And yet this is precisely what the government has been trying to do. This is why its approach will ultimately fail.
The authors of the latest Comstock Partners special report put their finger on the crux of the matter. Countering the conventional wisdom of the spend-and-stimulate Keynesians, they write:
We, however, don't believe that the U.S. massive stimulus programs and money printing can solve a problem of excess debt generation... If this were the answer Argentina would be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. This excess debt actually resulted from the same money printing and easy money that we are now using to alleviate the pain.
The bailouts reward bad management and irresponsible businesses practices and forestall the remedy the market is trying to administer. Contrary to what we have been told, all those injections of credit and capital do not contain a cure. Instead they are filled with the noxious serum of public debt whose toxic effects are slowly poisoning the whole system. The festering sores of the economic crisis have been only temporarily masked with government made bailout band aids, but those are no thicker than a dollar bill. The sickness will eventually break out again, but next time it will hit with greater intensity.
Our over-leveraged government can give out those lavish bailouts only because it can still borrow at low interest. But bond investors have been growing increasingly vocal in expressing their doubts about the government's ability to make good on its debts. It is only a matter of time before they start demanding higher bond yields. When that happens, borrowing will become prohibitively expensive. Saddled with an enormous debt and with no one to advance easy cash, the government will find itself in the same position as the companies it is trying to save today. When that moment finally arrives, there will be no one to finance the ultimate bail out. If you thought that letting a couple of big banks fail would have been bad, wait what happens when the federal government itself goes under.
Make no mistake: The worst is still yet to come.
Hope you found this as funny as I did. Got this great article from snopes.com.
Johnny Cash
The job of President of the United States is being outsourced to India.
What a GREAT IDEA!!!
Washington, DC — June 11, 2009
Congress today announced, that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India, as of September 1, 2009.
The move is being made in order to save the President's $500,000 yearly salary, and also a record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months.
It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the President's term. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.
Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.
Gurvinder Singh, a tele-technician for IndusTeleservices, Mumbai, India, will assume the office of President as of September 1, 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, NY thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview.
"I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President." A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem as Obama had never been familiar with the issues either.
Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson. "Obama has used them successfully for years, with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about."
Obama will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period, he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.
Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime.
A greeter position at WalMart was suggested due to Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands, as well as his 'special' smile.
THIS IS SATIRE FOLKS!!
This humor piece about the U.S. presidency's being outsourced to India is actually a version of a 2004 satirical article about President George W. Bush. Although the 2009 version's topical references — a weak economy, a growing budget deficit, the looming threat of job outsourcing — might strike a chord with many Americans, and those who are no fans of the current U.S. president might appreciate its sly digs at Barack Obama, why we've received so many inquiries about this particular article is something of a puzzle, as its premise isn't at all plausible: The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law have very specific provisions about the line of succession to the presidency, and that line does not encompass Congress' arbitrarily bypassing the vice president (and everyone else in the chain of succession) to hand over the office of chief executive to an unelected foreign resident. Not to mention that if the U.S. presidency were really set to change hands within the next few months, that subject would be the dominant topic of every American news outlet, not an obscure bit of information spread solely via e-mail.
If nothing else, the notion that the U.S. presidency would be given over to someone who would undertake it as a moonlighting job for $320 per month crosses the line from believability to absurdity.
'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia (Modern Iran - JC), Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.
(Ezekiel 38:3-6)
Something interesting has just happened in Iran. A massive presidential election has taken place with the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being returned to office. Best to wait for the dust to settle before we can properly gauge what's really going on. Here's an interview with Dr. George Friedman (CEO of Stratfor) giving his assessment of the situation.
Johnny Cash
President Barack Obama was in Arizona recently selling his mortgage relief plan. As stratfor notes, this 'concentrates an unprecedented amount of financial power in government hands'. It also dovetails perfectly with Bible prophecy. If more and more money can be funneled into fewer and fewer hands, then all the money (and all the power) can be bestowed to one man. Lenin (and Jesus) was right! Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism.
Johnny Cash
I've been thinking about Obama lately and his pork-laden 'stimulus package'. Let's be honest here: This is nothing more than payback for political favors. We can go the secular big government route or we can try something radically different: A true conservative movement with a Christian foundation. Here's eaglephin from YouTube on his opinion on America today:
It takes more than a pretty video and a bunch of celebrities singing to make a great president. It takes a person who understands where the true greatness of America lies.
Long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan challenged Americans to hope, to dream, to believe....
In themselves.
He brought change. He told us "yes we can". Except he also told us we didn't need government to do it. He inspired us with his words and his actions. He showed us that our individual liberty and creativity is what makes our country great not any government program.
Today, Americans are wowed by the empty oratory of politicians who promise nothing but failed socialism in disguise. Even the presumptive Republican nominee cloaks himself in the mantle of Reagan but has shown that he doesn't understand Reagan's philosophy.
Reagan was an idealist AND an ideologue. His policies were based in his rock solid conservative ideology. That doesn't mean he never compromised. But compromise is something different than standing on the same side of an issue with those who are supposed to be your political adversaries.
John McCain is no Ronald Reagan.
A lot of Americans are enamored of Ron Paul (R-Texas) and I can see why. The GOP should've stood behind this man (or Mike Huckabee) instead of John McCain. Rep. Paul is a free market advocate and a straight-shooter, a rarity in Washington. He's the man that George W. Bush always wanted to be but never was. Highly unlikely that President-elect Obama will give Rep. Paul the time of day.
Johnny Cash
As promised I will give my insight into what happened in 2008 and what that will mean in the upcoming year.
First and Foremost
I hope everybody survived the holiday season. Christmas is not unlike a roller coaster: A long wait leading to an exhilarated rush followed by an overwhelming desire to get off the second it ends. January is a time when many couples call it quits, whether they be married or unmarried. Nobody wants to be the Grinch by pulling the plug just before Christmas and New Year. Hence the reason why many delay the inevitable until January.
Man of the Year: Barack Obama
Of this there is little doubt. Although Michael Phelps had an unprecedented eight gold medals and the lovely Sarah (You betcha!) Palin made quite the impression, it is clear that President-Elect Obama is the man for 2008. Once President Obama assumes office, harsh realities will be front and centre. When looking at President Bush, it's clear that the office of POTUS ages a man like gasoline on fire. Mr. Obama is still a young man but even after four years (never mind the distinct possibility of eight), he will have a few grey hairs to show for it. Four years in the White House ages a man by at least a decade.
Musings on Democracy and the American Republic
Democracy is tyranny. How many of us know this rather salient political point? If 'rights' can be invented or nullified (and therefore abused) by a mere majority vote, how can that not be tyranny? Democracy was never meant to be an absolute, hence the reason why government powers must be curtailed. I think the Americans got it right. If more and more power is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, liberty becomes endangered. Winston Churchill, never a shy man when it came to the art of bloviating, said it best:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried (from time to time).
What Mr. Churchill was eluding to was the tendency towards dictatorship and as an indictment of Man's corrupt nature. It was never meant as a green light for the rich and the powerful to undermine a republic if that republic (meaning her government and her people) stands in the way of their internationalist ambitions. What I fear - with the liberal media being the chief enablers - is that's exactly what's going to happen. Many will interpret an Obama victory as a blank cheque to re-engineer America into their own humanistic and global worldview. A kind of secular-progressive jihad will be waged against America's Christian roots, a battle which will tear the world's most freest sovereign republic to shreds.
Peace In Our Time (Yes We Can? No We Can't!)
Gaza and Israel are once more in the crosshairs of the diplomatic world. The Palestinians in Gaza WERE given their land in 2005 and have been nothing but a constant thorn in Israel's side since. The godless Left, who never met a dictatorship they didn't like, has come roaring to the rescue. Not to the Israelis of course, but to the likes of Hamas! None of which surprises to those who keep a tab on the Left's movements.
This is an ongoing regional conflict in the Holy Land. We must remember however the danger is one of escalation. So long as the superpowers stay out it will remain a regional conflict. I've argued before that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is largely a static one. Neither side is capable of victory because of their overarching tactical familiarity with one another. There's no reason to believe this most recent military incursion by the IDF is going to any different. This is going to continue for some time minus the happy ending.
The End of History (The Marxist Dream That Will Not Die)
History will end all right. Just not in the way that people expect. Marx taught that capitalism will fade away to be replaced by a socialist new world order. The problem is it's not going to happen. The rise of globalism shows that capitalism is waxing, not waning. The Bible does not teach that things are going to get better, but rather the reverse:
For you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled.
(1 Thessalonians 5:2-5)
'The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night'. That ought to send a jolt of lightning to every liberal supporter. The expectation that history will come to an abrupt end the second Bush 43 leaves office is but pure fantasy. Not only will it not end, there's every reason to believe it will accelerate like never before. 2009 will be a year of destiny for Bible prophecy to converge on a mass scale. The theme for this year? FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Johnny Cash
No Christmas theme here. Very interesting stuff from stratfor's latest. As it turns out, neither the FBI nor the Washington Post were as altruistic as originally thought. Do we dare call it treason to conspire against a sitting president even if that president is a S.O.B.? Either way you slice it, Felt's betrayal of Nixon (with Woodward and Bernstein being the beneficiaries) had more to do with ego and ambition than patriotic duty. A must read!
Johnny Cash
The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism
December 22, 2008 | 1659 GMT
By George Friedman
Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who don’t recognize that name, Felt was the “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame. It was Felt who provided Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post with a flow of leaks about what had happened, how it happened and where to look for further corroboration on the break-in, the cover-up, and the financing of wrongdoing in the Nixon administration. Woodward and Bernstein’s exposé of Watergate has been seen as a high point of journalism, and their unwillingness to reveal Felt’s identity until he revealed it himself three years ago has been seen as symbolic of the moral rectitude demanded of journalists.
In reality, the revelation of who Felt was raised serious questions about the accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the actual price we all pay for journalistic ethics, and how for many years we did not know a critical dimension of the Watergate crisis. At a time when newspapers are in financial crisis and journalism is facing serious existential issues, Watergate always has been held up as a symbol of what journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that others were unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this vision of journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around Felt’s role. This is therefore not an excursion into ancient history, but a consideration of two things. The first is how journalists become tools of various factions in political disputes. The second is the relationship between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a Democratic society.
Watergate was about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The break-in was carried out by a group of former CIA operatives controlled by individuals leading back to the White House. It was never proven that then-U.S. President Richard Nixon knew of the break-in, but we find it difficult to imagine that he didn’t. In any case, the issue went beyond the break-in. It went to the cover-up of the break-in and, more importantly, to the uses of money that financed the break-in and other activities. Numerous aides, including the attorney general of the United States, went to prison. Woodward and Bernstein, and their newspaper, The Washington Post, aggressively pursued the story from the summer of 1972 until Nixon’s resignation. The episode has been seen as one of journalism’s finest moments. It may have been, but that cannot be concluded until we consider Deep Throat more carefully.
Deep Throat Reconsidered
Mark Felt was deputy associate director of the FBI (No. 3 in bureau hierarchy) in May 1972, when longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover died. Upon Hoover’s death, Felt was second to Clyde Tolson, the longtime deputy and close friend to Hoover who by then was in failing health himself. Days after Hoover’s death, Tolson left the bureau.
Felt expected to be named Hoover’s successor, but Nixon passed him over, appointing L. Patrick Gray instead. In selecting Gray, Nixon was reaching outside the FBI for the first time in the 48 years since Hoover had taken over. But while Gray was formally acting director, the Senate never confirmed him, and as an outsider, he never really took effective control of the FBI. In a practical sense, Felt was in operational control of the FBI from the break-in at the Watergate in August 1972 until June 1973.
Nixon’s motives in appointing Gray certainly involved increasing his control of the FBI, but several presidents before him had wanted this, too, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both of these presidents wanted Hoover gone for the same reason they were afraid to remove him: He knew too much. In Washington, as in every capital, knowing the weaknesses of powerful people is itself power — and Hoover made it a point to know the weaknesses of everyone. He also made it a point to be useful to the powerful, increasing his overall value and his knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the powerful.
Hoover’s death achieved what Kennedy and Johnson couldn’t do. Nixon had no intention of allowing the FBI to continue as a self-enclosed organization outside the control of the presidency and everyone else. Thus, the idea that Mark Felt, a man completely loyal to Hoover and his legacy, would be selected to succeed Hoover is in retrospect the most unlikely outcome imaginable.
Felt saw Gray’s selection as an unwelcome politicization of the FBI (by placing it under direct presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover and an insult to his memory, and a massive personal disappointment. Felt was thus a disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official in an organization that traditionally had protected its interests in predictable ways. (By then formally the No. 2 figure in FBI, Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray’s inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies’ wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim — who was usually guilty as sin — crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon’s crimes as by Nixon’s decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover’s playbook in motion.
Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of The Washington Post at the time. They were young (29 and 28), inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess he sought these three characteristics — as well as a newspaper with sufficient gravitas to gain notice. Felt obviously knew the two had been assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to lead them where he wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control, their investigation.
Systematic Spying on the President
And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide and control the young reporters’ investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what the White House had done, going back quite far. He could not possibly have known all this simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too many places simply to have been the product of one of his side hobbies. The only way Felt could have the knowledge he did was if the FBI had been systematically spying on the White House, on the Committee to Re-elect the President and on all of the other elements involved in Watergate. Felt was not simply feeding information to Woodward and Bernstein; he was using the intelligence product emanating from a section of the FBI to shape The Washington Post’s coverage.
Instead of passing what he knew to professional prosecutors at the Justice Department — or if he did not trust them, to the House Judiciary Committee charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing — Felt chose to leak the information to The Washington Post. He bet, or knew, that Post editor Ben Bradlee would allow Woodward and Bernstein to play the role Felt had selected for them. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all knew who Deep Throat was. They worked with the operational head of the FBI to destroy Nixon, and then protected Felt and the FBI until Felt came forward.
In our view, Nixon was as guilty as sin of more things than were ever proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was carrying out espionage against the president of the United States, not for any later prosecution of Nixon for a specific crime (the spying had to have been going on well before the break-in), but to increase the FBI’s control over Nixon. Woodward, Bernstein and above all, Bradlee, knew what was going on. Woodward and Bernstein might have been young and naive, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand who knew exactly who Felt was, knew the FBI playbook and understood that Felt could not have played the role he did without a focused FBI operation against the president. Bradlee knew perfectly well that Woodward and Bernstein were not breaking the story, but were having it spoon-fed to them by a master. He knew that the president of the United States, guilty or not, was being destroyed by Hoover’s jilted heir.
This was enormously important news. The Washington Post decided not to report it. The story of Deep Throat was well-known, but what lurked behind the identity of Deep Throat was not. This was not a lone whistle-blower being protected by a courageous news organization; rather, it was a news organization being used by the FBI against the president, and a news organization that knew perfectly well that it was being used against the president. Protecting Deep Throat concealed not only an individual, but also the story of the FBI’s role in destroying Nixon.
Again, Nixon’s guilt is not in question. And the argument can be made that given John Mitchell’s control of the Justice Department, Felt thought that going through channels was impossible (although the FBI was more intimidating to Mitchell than the other way around). But the fact remains that Deep Throat was the heir apparent to Hoover — a man not averse to breaking the law in covert operations — and Deep Throat clearly was drawing on broader resources in the FBI, resources that had to have been in place before Hoover’s death and continued operating afterward.
Burying a Story to Get a Story
Until Felt came forward in 2005, not only were these things unknown, but The Washington Post was protecting them. Admittedly, the Post was in a difficult position. Without Felt’s help, it would not have gotten the story. But the terms Felt set required that a huge piece of the story not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about an out-of-control government brought to heel by two young, enterprising journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasn’t what happened. Instead, it was about the FBI using The Washington Post to leak information to destroy the president, and The Washington Post willingly serving as the conduit for that information while withholding an essential dimension of the story by concealing Deep Throat’s identity.
Journalists have celebrated the Post’s role in bringing down the president for a generation. Even after the revelation of Deep Throat’s identity in 2005, there was no serious soul-searching on the omission from the historical record. Without understanding the role played by Felt and the FBI in bringing Nixon down, Watergate cannot be understood completely. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee were willingly used by Felt to destroy Nixon. The three acknowledged a secret source, but they did not reveal that the secret source was in operational control of the FBI. They did not reveal that the FBI was passing on the fruits of surveillance of the White House. They did not reveal the genesis of the fall of Nixon. They accepted the accolades while withholding an extraordinarily important fact, elevating their own role in the episode while distorting the actual dynamic of Nixon’s fall.
Absent any widespread reconsideration of the Post’s actions during Watergate in the three years since Felt’s identity became known, the press in Washington continues to serve as a conduit for leaks of secret information. They publish this information while protecting the leakers, and therefore the leakers’ motives. Rather than being a venue for the neutral reporting of events, journalism thus becomes the arena in which political power plays are executed. What appears to be enterprising journalism is in fact a symbiotic relationship between journalists and government factions. It may be the best path journalists have for acquiring secrets, but it creates a very partial record of events — especially since the origin of a leak frequently is much more important to the public than the leak itself.
The Felt experience is part of an ongoing story in which journalists’ guarantees of anonymity to sources allow leakers to control the news process. Protecting Deep Throat’s identity kept us from understanding the full dynamic of Watergate. We did not know that Deep Throat was running the FBI, we did not know the FBI was conducting surveillance on the White House, and we did not know that the Watergate scandal emerged not by dint of enterprising journalism, but because Felt had selected Woodward and Bernstein as his vehicle to bring Nixon down. And we did not know that the editor of The Washington Post allowed this to happen. We had a profoundly defective picture of the situation, as defective as the idea that Bob Woodward looks like Robert Redford.
Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult, as we know all too well. There is no simple solution to this quandary. In intelligence, we dream of the well-placed source who will reveal important things to us. But we also are aware that the information provided is only the beginning of the story. The rest of the story involves the source’s motivation, and frequently that motivation is more important than the information provided. Understanding a source’s motivation is essential both to good intelligence and to journalism. In this case, keeping secret the source kept an entire — and critical — dimension of Watergate hidden for a generation. Whatever crimes Nixon committed, the FBI had spied on the president and leaked what it knew to The Washington Post in order to destroy him. The editor of The Washington Post knew that, as did Woodward and Bernstein. We do not begrudge them their prizes and accolades, but it would have been useful to know who handed them the story. In many ways, that story is as interesting as the one about all the president’s men.
Below is the very lovely Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Swann in 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.
If there's one thing I've learnt in my Christian walk is not to be afraid of either personal or geopolitical events taking place. God is in control, and He uses all things for His glory. The same God who places a righteous man in office is the same God who installs tyrants. I like to call it 'the mystery of history'. I've noticed recently the irreversible and accelerating slide towards the end of the age. I'd still feel the same way even if John McCain were elected president. All that would've achieved is to buy us some time. Yet the end result would still be the same.
There's Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself!
It's not Obama that concerns me, it's his followers. As I see it, the system guarantees disappointment. Many black Christian supporters will be less than enthralled as gay marriage moves to the front pages. The possibility of American military action against Somali pirates will cause black Christians grief as well. The pacifists will be horrified as American troops move from Iraq into the quagmire that is Afghanistan. Christian Zionists who voted Democrat will see more nonsensical 'Land for Peace' deals placing Israel in greater peril. Will Obama secure America's southern flank, disappointing the Latino vote? To hear from all these Kool-Aid Utopians, on January 20, 2009, America will be delivered from the Devil himself. On the contrary, it will be more like going from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.
America is a Mess (and there's little we can do about it)
If America cannot be found in Bible prophecy, what does that tell us? A nation that consumes more than it exports and whose citizens save nothing are destined for rocky shoals. I want to be clear on this. I don't wish to drag the new guy down. But there are some hard realities that need to be faced. The standard by where we are headed must be God's Word. It is considered an absolute amongst humanists that we can (if only we truly believe!), pull ourselves out of this mess through our own man-centered efforts. Yet the Bible paints a much darker picture:
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
(Matthew 24:10-13)
I think its one of the greatest lies ever conceived. If all the 'isms' of the world have not brought us peace, why should we expect anything different? It's the very definition of madness: Doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. I think the very reason why the humanist school of thought is so seductive is because of our pride.
Man's Most Prized Possession Is.....
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)
His overwhelming sense of self-importance. And what are the people's treasure? Their biases, their assumptions, their cultural norms and of course, their sensuality and common sense. None of it does us a bit of good if it keeps us from God. Ignorance and apathy is our lot. Civilization is walking the plank and few seem to notice or care.
A Surefire Antidote: Faith and Courage
If trials are to come upon us, what tools do we have at our disposal? The courage to believe in a living God will surely be our most effective testimony. I think many Christians will rue the fact that they failed to capitalize on this unique time in history. Should we become disconsolate and afraid? No, we must not be afraid. We should stand for what we believe in, no matter what the cost.
Johnny Cash
As it was in King Solomon's day, the same can be said today:
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
(Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)
What the Election of Barack Obama Really Means
To me, it didn't really matter all that much. I was so overcome with emotion that I yawned, turned off the TV and went to bed, secure in the knowledge that the sun would rise again. As a Canadian-born white guy with a proud English heritage, I can tell you I was pretty much underwhelmed. But I think it's important to realize how much it meant to blacks. The election of BHO wasn't merely a changing of the guard, it was seen as a revolutionary act. Like I said, I tend to be a bit jaded by all this. But I do think it's very important that whites don't act dismissively. I believe the racial divide in America is alive and well, despite the fresh blood being injected into the body politic. Whites refuse to acknowledge the harm they've done and many blacks still carry a torch for slavery reparations. If someone wrongs you, repents and asks for forgiveness and is refused, what's a man to do? Jesus said you should grant and seek forgiveness before making sacrifices at the temple. In other words, confess all your sins and pray one for another. How simple. How beautiful. Yet this prescription will never be filled, leaving me pessimistic about future race relations.
Some Perspective Please!
I loved this Wesley Pruden comment from the Washington Times:
This election will be remembered as the campaign that ignited a religious revival. Never have so many atheists, skeptics, agnostics, secularists, heretics, freethinkers and rationalists hit the sawdust trail to imbibe so much on blind faith, and to make it their religion. Eat your heart out, Billy Graham.
That's the great thing about politics. You will never suffer for lack of material. Or people to mock and ridicule. Again, as with my previous post, none of this is meant as a personal attack against those who voted for the man. Far from it. On the contrary, I wish to engage those who take a more 'progressive' (read: socialist) view of things. I don't want to alienate anyone. But I do want to show the secularists the error of their ways. Let's be crystal clear on this: The secularists would love nothing more than to banish us evangelicals to some distant land, never to be heard from again. I believe this anti-God worldview is going to dominate like never before.
A Checklist Every President Should Adhere To
I wish nothing but the best for the new president. The foreign policy challenges are immense, but not impossible to overcome. Let's start with Israel. Despite the urgings of the Left, do not under any circumstances divide Israel's land. Ariel Sharon paid for giving away Gush Katif (Gaza) with an incapacitating stroke. I fear worse things will happen to Obama if he tries to negotiate away Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Israel has many enemies, Russia being chief amongst them. Recent moves in Libya confirm this. Do not be afraid to confront them and call their bluff if necessary.
Restore consumer confidence. Easier said than done I know, but this will make the difference from being a one-term president to a two-term one. A far-left policy of 'economic justice' would put America into a depression, never mind a recession. Re-engineering a free and open society is the last thing you should attempt.
Lastly, respect God's laws. A nation that willfully disobeys His ways is a nation that is destined for destruction. You serve a God for His purpose and at His pleasure. The God that delivered you victory on election night is the same one who can bring you down to defeat. President Obama, you are both a husband and a father. Don't place marriage and family on the altar of expediency in order to prove some obscure point.
Johnny Cash
Post election fever can be a bummer. This funny video comes from the Onion News Network. Hope you get a good laugh as much as I did.
Johnny Cash
Well, I managed to survive my move over the weekend. Six full truckloads over three days just about killed me. Glad it's over though. The X-Def lives on!
Barack Obama as President
Get used to it for at least the next four years. Possibly eight. Yikes! Here's what I think what happened over the past two years. John McCain lost this election not because he wasn't suitable or ready, but due to hubris. He's basically running as a member of Dubya's Republicans as opposed to running on his own name. The GOP ran out of luck and out of time to correct their mistakes. To be sure, many of the wounds inflicted were of the self-inflicted variety.
The 2003 War In Iraq
Irrational exuberance combined with underestimating the resolve of the enemy guaranteed that no lightning victory would occur. The Bush doctrine, which put forth the idea that free and democratic countries don't start wars, was correct on the strategic level. Lack of discernment hobbled the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts from the start.
McCain's Sisyphean Struggle
Sisyphus was the poor sod doomed to roll a massive rock uphill everyday for eternity. The media was in Obama's pocket from the get-go. Hard to get your message out when no-one wants to co-operate. To be sure, media liberals outnumbered conservative thinkers even in Reagan's day. Still, the Great Communicator managed and led. I think however that Reagan's America is vastly different than the one Bush 43 presided over. Prayer and attending church on Sundays were a given. Today, when a believer mentions God people look at them like they talk to an invisible man in the sky. Marriage was always between a man and a woman. Life began at conception and that was that. Sure there was sin in America in Reagan's day. But we didn't advertise and brag about it, did we? It isn't the demographic shift that should worry us, it's the moral shift away from Biblical values that will pose problems for America.
Swimming with Sharks
What's next? The next president faces immense challenges. Will Russia, with its increasing move towards sovietism, make a move? How about Iran? So many questions. I have a feeling that we'll soon find out. President Obama will be tested, let there be no doubt about that. In the meantime, do pray over President Obama. He'll need God's protection and all of His wisdom to guide a very difficult and complex country.
God Bless America!
Johnny Cash
Ah yes, the end of the baseball season. Not only does the first snowflake sighting remind me of winter, the real clincher is when the final out of the World Series is recorded. As of right now, Philadelphia leads Tampa Bay 3-1 with Game 5 going tomorrow. I've noticed however that it's been more than baseball players that've been getting chin music more than recently.
America: Land of the Free. But for how long?
There's a definite case of schaedenfreude going around the world as America's finances look a bit wobbly. The Chinese are a prime example. The Russians have got their mojo back and are bumping up their strategic nuclear capabilities. I do fear that however assumes the White House will be walking into a hornet's nest. As Pat Buchanan notes: With U.S. markets crashing and wealth vanishing, what are we doing with 750 bases and troops in over 100 countries? Good question Pat. More importantly, how does this fit into God's plan? It is becoming more and more obvious that America's power is receding. Daniel's vision of a revived Roman Empire must mean that America must fall.
Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
(Daniel 2:40-43)
'The people will be a mixture and will not remain united' is the perfect description of Europe. It appears that a new financial order is taking root amongst the EU. A second Bretton Woods (named after a town in New Hampshire) is being proposed that would put greater oversight on American finances. I feel for those investors who've been good stewards of their money only to get hurt in this latest catastrophe. They diversified their portfolio, they've not made hasty decisions and yet still they take it on the chin. Nobody said life was going to be fair! If there's any lesson in this, it is that God and God alone is the only thing that guarantees a return on investment. The things of Man can often fail, such as his monetary policy.
On a Personal Note
I'm moving - again! - to another place in Brampton. This post may (or may not) be the last post for October. As soon as I get my internet connection going at my new place I'll be back at it once more. Therefore there will not be a post next weekend, perhaps mid-week after the election. So much packing to do! I dread moving day. I remember my time as a university student moving from home to Hamilton in September only to reverse the process in April. I definitely feel like a foreigner in a foreign land. When God calls me home, whenever that might be, it will be then and only then I can truly say that I'm home. In the meantime I'm just going to have to suck it up and deal with it on Saturday. Wish me luck!
Johnny Cash
Without doubt the most dangerous place on earth right now is the Afgan-Pakistani border. So long as Canadian troops are there, the security and stability of Pakistan is paramount. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea seem tame by way of comparison. Below is a picture of a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter in the area of operations.
Johnny Cash
Pakistan, U.S.: Dangerous Tensions Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:12PM
Pakistani forces fired at U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon said Sept. 25. The border dispute highlights the dangers of the high tensions between Islamabad and Washington — tensions that are likely to get worse before there is any hope that they will get better.
Analysis
Pakistani forces fired upon U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon confirmed Sept. 25. However, a Pentagon spokesman denied Pakistani claims that the helicopters had entered Pakistani airspace. Islamabad later claimed that only “warning shots” were fired and later insisted that only signal flares were fired to warn the helicopters off.
This incident — almost a textbook border dispute, complete with each side claiming it was in the right place in an area where the precise border often is not clear, and subsequent revisions of statements — highlights the dangers of tensions as high as they are between Pakistan and the United States. For Washington, Islamabad’s lack of control over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is providing a safe haven for Taliban and foreign jihadist fighters as well as a vector for arms feeding the Afghan insurgency. For Pakistan, the United States’ increasingly overt and unilateral raids and strikes on Pakistani territory are challenging Islamabad’s sovereignty, and with it the support of its people.
Thus, Pakistan has increasingly threatened to forcefully oppose any further U.S. intrusion, though the only casualty so far has been an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that crashed in the region Sept. 23 — possibly for unrelated technical reasons. Indeed, though often flying well above the range of “trash fire” — small arms and anti-aircraft artillery — UAVs make a good intermediate step for Islamabad to demonstrate its resolve on the issue without firing upon U.S. servicemen. Islamabad cannot hope to garner public support for the fight against its own jihadist insurgency while U.S. forces continue to engage in unilateral strikes in the country.
Meanwhile, unless a Pakistani patrol catches helicopters flying low, the danger from small arms fire is not particularly extreme. Nevertheless, should Islamabad begin to employ more capable air defense weapons, the situation could quickly escalate — though Pakistan’s most capable air defense systems will remain committed to the Indian border. Both sides compound the potential for escalation.
On the Pakistani side, the paramilitary Frontier Corps patrols much of the border. The corps harbors more intense local tribal loyalties — likely making any given patrol more inclined to shoot and more likely to be aggressive in trying to bring down whatever U.S. target they might stumble upon, even if it is only approaching the border. The Frontier Corps is also likely to have individuals with conflicting loyalties — a situation that militants can exploit to deliberately trigger a U.S.-Pakistani clash, which would work to their advantage. The Frontier Corps or other forces in the area also have broad direction from Islamabad — compounded by high profile public statements by senior officials that Pakistan will defend its own territory — that they can interpret as they see fit and act on their own at the tactical level. Moreover, an outpost in Mohmand agency was hit June 11 in a U.S. strike that left 11 Frontier Corps soldiers — including a mid-level officer — dead.
On the U.S. side, rules of engagement stipulate very clearly the right to self defense — generally including preemptive self defense when the individual has a subjective sense of imminent hostile intent. Though more professional and restrained in a tactical sense, U.S. forces are likely to act aggressively to defend themselves once fired upon. In fact, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sept 23 told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the United Nations Charter allowed the United States to act in self-defense against international terrorists in Pakistan if the government was unable, or unwilling to deal with them. Perceptions and misconceptions in such situations — on both sides — often make the situation all too quick to escalate.
Even though this particular incident may boil down to the innocent firing of signal flares, the situation has all the ingredients for significant escalation while politically and militarily — in a strategic sense — both sides remain in limbo. Pakistan does not have the military capability to establish its writ in FATA on its own without reducing its forces opposite India to what it considers unacceptable levels. The United States is not only in mid-stride during the final weeks of election season, but is facing domestic economic troubles and is still formulating its new strategy for Afghanistan.
In short, should things continue on this path, the situation may well get worse before there is any hope of it getting better.
I can think of no more frightening phrase uttered in a time of crisis. With thanks to Bush's adventurism we now have a situation where the American military is spread a mile wide and an inch thick. The worst part is everybody - that being the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Saudis, and al-Qaida - know it. Whoever wins the White House is sure to have their resolve tested in 2009 at a time and place of our enemies choosing.
Johnny Cash
The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
September 2, 2008
By George Friedman
The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:
The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.
In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan (and above all to Iran) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.
The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.
On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):
First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”
The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.
The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”
Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy. These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.
This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.
The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany’s defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.
The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option, in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black, Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.
But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.
More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.
In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad. This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia’s actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.
At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.
The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.
This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.
The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.
The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.
Four Broad U.S. Options
Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.
Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO. On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.
Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans. On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia’s re-emergence.
Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.
We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.
If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.
We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.
Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.
We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to Stratfor.com
