Obama Grants Interpol Diplomatic Immunity – Ruh Roh!

By Duane Lester
One of the stories that hit while I was on Christmas/Blizzard ‘09 Part II break concerned a December 17th executive order issued by President Barack Obama.

It reads:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

(Emphasis mine, as it is throughout this post.)

Steve Schippert at ThreatsWatch explains what this order does:

It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

It gets worse:

Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air suggests Schippert overreaches with his last argument and asks an important question:

American law does not consider people as “assets.” It does mean, though, that Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.

It also appears to mean that Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo. Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?

Here’s a better question: Why would he do such a thing? Why would he write an order elevating a law enforcement agency above the Constitution?

Andy McCarthy at The Corner may be onto something here:

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee also writes at Pajamas Media. He offers a look at what might be motivating this move:

If President Obama and his radical allies in the Democratic leadership have their way, American soldiers could presumably be brought up on charges as war criminals by enemy nations and marked for arrest and deportation by an international police force on American soil. They would face charges in a foreign land without the constitutional protections they fought and bled to protect. The White House seems to be on the bewildering path of giving al-Qaeda terrorists who murder innocent women and children more legal protection than the very soldiers that risk their lives trying to bring terrorists to justice. The asinine court-martial charges being brought against three Navy SEALs based upon the word of a terrorist they captured suddenly make a sickening kind of sense.

It also stands to reason that Obama’s seeming willingness to put American soldiers’ lives in the hands of a corrupt international community could also be brought to bear against his political enemies. Foreign investigators of dubious intent, and our own left-wing extremists, have long branded officials of the previous administration “war criminals” for actions they’d taken in the war on terror. It is entirely conceivable — perhaps even likely — that these same organizations and enemy governments that went after 25 Israeli government officials through INTERPOL and the ICC would quickly move to indict a wish list of current and former U.S. government officials for alleged “war crimes.” Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would obviously be at the top of such a list of politically motivated suspects, but such a list could just as easily include General David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressmen, and senators.

Rick Moran writes:

I would speculate that McCarthy has hit upon the reason; the president may solve the problem of “torture trials” by turning the whole thing over to the International Criminal Court. There are several hands in the Obama foreign policy shop who would support this move, while he would definitely get back in the good graces of his far left base.

But that’s just speculation. Perhaps it’s terrorism related. Maybe he’s just trying to please his European friends.

I’d like to see some others – like Eugene Volohk or Richard Posner – weigh in on this before hitting the panic button.

It’s the hesitance to hit the panic button that makes me mention this post by Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell:

Basically, the only thing Obama is changing is removing part of a sentence. That sentence refers to text that has to do with import duties on INTERPOL’s stuff they bring into this country and the withdrawal of the text gives them tax exemptions for income they earn here.

Yeah, it’s real riveting stuff. Let’s get outraged about things that are real – Lord knows, Obama does enough real stuff to get angry about.

By Pierre LeGrand
Apparently what is going on is the Thug In Chief and his bastard allies are attempting to remove our ability to question our accusers. After all how can one go about discovery when it is likely that both evidence and witnesses will be scooted behind a impenetrable wall? And who is likely to be the victims of these new International Law Enforcement Thugs in America? Well for sure our military but even worse all the Patriots here in the states. That is specifically against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution but hey what is a bit of paper to a bunch of thugs whose friends once had wet dreams about locking up large swaths of the public for having the wrong thoughts…don’t believe me? Check out this interview with Larry Grathwohl.

Boy is that a fun video or what? Yea Ayers did not get prosecuted, but it was because the left had gotten to the courts prior to these cases and weakened our laws so much that he was released on technicalities.

Obama and his allies are right this very moment attacking swiftly on all fronts…not with half measures designed to win your approval but with full on outright lawlessness that depends on your not believing it is happening. Based on the reaction of Republicans in Congress the left has their opponents pegged. I would like to say that the left has their enemies pegged but the mainstream Republicans are no one’s enemies. They want to be loved. Obama is at war and the Republicans want to be loved. Be scared.

The Health Care Battle, Monkeys, and wrenches

By Nan Swift
Even though Congress isn't in town this week, and many people using these normally carefree days between Christmas and New Year's to spend time with family and recharge batteries for 2010, we're hearing from many folks who want to continue the fight against the government takeover of healthcare right through the holidays!  Everyone is wondering, what can I do this week?  Here are three things you can do to keep up the pressure:

1. Visit: visit the local district offices of your Senators and Representatives.  Did they vote the right way? Excellent. Thank them.  They need your support.  Did their voting on healthcare reform trend socialist? Make sure they know you oppose the plan, you oppose rushing a decision of this magnitude, and that you will work for, fund, and urge your friends to vote for their opponent come election time.  This is a good group activity and you can bring hand written letters for the district office staff elaborating your opposition.  This could be the biggest thing that happens in that office all month and they won't forget any time soon.
2. Vigil: especially during such a slow news week, holding a candlelight vigil outside a district office or in a symbolic spot in your town could be big news and really help send home your message to your legislators. 
3. Letters to the Editor: Letters to the editor are a great way to communicate both to your legislators and to other people in your community.  Letters to the editor are among the top most frequently read parts of the paper and Congressmen read them to get a feel for what their constituents are thinking. 

And don't forget, when trying to organize something in your area, a visit, a vigil, a letter writing party - use the FreedomWorks Ning site to communicate with others nearby  who would love to get involved.
Thanks for all your hard work, but do take a moment for some hot chocolate.  The fight will still be there when you get back.

Why Iran Sucks: Iranian police vow to crush protesters with no mercy

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's police chief threatened Wednesday to show "no mercy" in crushing any new opposition protests and said more than 500 demonstrators have been arrested in the wake of this week's deadly clashes.

At least eight people were killed in street violence Sunday, the country's worst unrest since the aftermath of the disputed presidential election on June 12. One of those killed was the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who was buried Wednesday in a hastily organized ceremony.

Authorities had taken his body from the hospital earlier in the week in what was seen as an attempt to prevent the funeral from turning into another pro-opposition protest. Mousavi and other family members attended the funeral for Ali Mousavi, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Tens of thousands of hard-liner government supporters turned out for state-sponsored rallies Wednesday to try to show strength against the pro-reform opposition movement. At rallies in the cities of Shiraz, Arak, Qom, Tehran and several others, they chanted "Death to Opponents" of the Islamic establishment. The government gave all civil servants and employees a day off to attend the rallies and organized buses to transport groups of schoolchildren and supporters from outlying rural areas to the protests.

Police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam made a harsh threat to protesters to stay off the streets.

"In dealing with previous protests, police showed leniency. But given that these opponents are seeking to topple (the ruling system), there will be no mercy," Moghaddam said, according to IRNA. "We will take severe action. The era of tolerance is over. Anyone attending such rallies will be crushed."

He said more than 500 protesters who took part in Sunday's demonstrations have been arrested but the number may be higher since hardline Basij militiamen and intelligence agents may have apprehended more people on their own.

There are increasing fears Mousavi could also be arrested, following detentions a number of prominent activists and the sister of Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi.

The government has also limited the movement of a leading opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi, by refusing to protect him when he leaves his home.

Karroubi and Mousavi were the two defeated reformist candidates in the disputed June election, which set off the worst unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Authorities are also tightly restricting media coverage of street rallies, Internet access in the country is sporadic, as are cellphone and text messaging services.

Sunday's deadly protests coincided with Ashoura, the most solemn day of the year for Shiite Muslims. The observance commemorates the 7th-century death in battle of one of Shiite Islam's most beloved saints, and it conveys a message of sacrifice in the face of repression.

Hard-liners are especially furious that some of the protesters insulted Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, casting aside a taboo on personal criticism of the leader. The government has said the protesters are a tiny minority, and accused the U.S. and Britain of organizing the opposition.

The hard-line criticism has become increasingly vocal, with some activists threatening to take the law into their own hands.

The arrests, along with the tough criticism of the U.S. and Britain, added to rising tensions with the West, which is threatening to impose tough new sanctions over Iran's suspect nuclear program and has criticized the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters.

On Wednesday the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged the government to keep security forces from using excessive force. She said she was "shocked by the upsurge in deaths, injuries and arrests" and stressed the people have the right to peacefully protest without being beaten and thrown into jail.

China shows no tolerance for dissidence

BEIJING, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- China may have deservedly earned all the international accolades for its dazzling economic achievements, but two recent developments show its Communist regime is nowhere near winning similar praise for tolerating political dissidence or challenge to its authority in any form.

In the first instance, China, going against pleas and urgings from around the world, handed an 11-year prison sentence to Liu Xiaobo, the country's widely respected ardent supporter of democracy and freedom of speech.

In an equally disturbing move, China convinced Cambodia to deport 20 Uighurs who had fled to that country for political asylum to escape the crackdown on their fellow Turkic-speaking minority members by Chinese authorities for the ethnic riots last July in the far northwest Xinjiang-Uighur region.

The 53-year-old Liu's trial in a Beijing people's court last week on subversion charges lasted only about three hours. His wife and foreign diplomats were not allowed to attend the proceedings, which preceded his Friday sentencing on charges of "inciting subversion of state power."

The charges against Liu, who has been politically active since the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protest in Beijing, resulted from articles posted on the Internet and jointly authoring the "Charter 08" petition against one-party rule and urging human rights and free speech.

The Washington Post, quoting a relative, reported that at the trial, Liu's lawyers were allowed only 14 minutes of speaking time.

"Liu has been engaged in agitation activities, such as spreading of rumors and defaming of the government, aimed at subversion of the state and overthrowing the socialism system in recent years," according to a police statement reported by China's state-run Xinhua news agency.

Human Rights Watch in New York said Liu, a prolific writer, has been detained, arrested and sentenced repeatedly for peaceful political activities since the late 1980s.

HRW's Sophie Richardson, calling the trial a "travesty of justice," said its only purpose was "to dress up naked political repression in the trappings of legal proceedings" against non-existent crimes.

China's response was that the international calls for Liu's release were "gross interference" in its internal affairs. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said those expressing such concerns should respect the country's judicial sovereignty.

Commenting on the former university lecturer's prison sentence, Rebecca MacKinnon, a fellow at the Open Society Institute and co-founder of GlobalVoicesOnline.org, told the Post: "It certainly seems to reflect a high level of sensitivity and very low level of tolerance."

There had been expectations among other Chinese dissidents that some of the reforms in recent years would lead to political modernization in step with the country's economic modernization, the Post report said.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was quoted as saying: "As far as we can tell, this man's crime was simply signing a piece of paper that aspires to a more open and participatory form of government. That is not a crime."

In the incident relating to the Uighurs' deportation from Cambodia, China also said it was an internal matter as the 20 Uighurs were suspected of committing criminal offences, and urged the outside world not to make irresponsible remarks, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the "Chinese citizens" had broken the laws of both China and Cambodia by illegally crossing the border and that Cambodia had acted according to its immigration law.

"China is a country under the rule of law. Judicial authorities will deal with these people's illegal criminal activities in accordance with the law and safeguard their legitimate rights," Jiang said.

It is not clear what fate awaits the deported Uighurs, but last Friday a Chinese court sentenced five more people to death, bringing to 22 the total condemned to die for the July ethnic riots. The five were part of a new group of 22 suspects tried by a court in Urumqi, capital of the region where the July riots killed about 200 people. The others were sentenced from 10 years to life in prison.

The July riots involved the minority Muslims Uighurs and the majority Han Chinese. Chinese officials have said most of the victims were Han Chinese. Tensions between the two groups have been simmering for a long time as the Uighurs resent being ruled by the Hans.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang, commenting on whether the deportation of Uighurs was linked to China's assistance to Cambodia, said both countries have maintained a comprehensive and cooperative partnership. "We provide assistance to Cambodia in line with our own capacity and without any strings attached," Xinhua quoted her as saying.

However, two days after the 20 Uighurs were deported, China signed 14 business deals with the Cambodian government worth about $1 billion, The New York Times reported.

15 Dead in Iran, Ol Bammy Plays Golf in Hawaii

Posted by Gregory of Yardale
Doesn't it just suck how those inconsiderate Iranian pro-Democracy demonstrators keep getting murdered? Don't they know that Obama is trying to have a nice family vacation? Don't they know that smart diplomacy is working?
Stop dying, you cowards! You're making Dear Reader look bad!
Update: Obama read a brief statement off a Teleprompter criticizing the Iranian regime. Now, off to the gym Golf Course.
Update: Dear Reader springs into action:
6a00d8341d896453ef0120a7873bc0970b-800wi.jpg

A half-hour after President Obama vowed to catch the terrorists behind a plot to blow up a plane on Christmas, he arrived at 10:40 a.m. at the Luana Hills Country Club, where a golf course winds through a rain forest, the pool reports.

But that's all right. I mean, it's not like anyone ever criticized the president for playing golf as America was at war with terrorists.
Yeah, they're a bunch of effin' hypocrites.

Flight 253 Plotters Were Released from Club Gitmo in 2007

Posted by Gregory of Yardale

Ruh-Roh.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

Yeah, let's move those poor innocent victims of American oppression to Illinois and give them civilian trials with full Constitutional Rights. That'll teach Al Qaeda to mess with us!

Obama's Image: What a Difference a Year Makes

By Ed Lasky
Almost a year has passed since January 20, 2009 -- when the waters of the ocean no longer rose and America began to heal from the depredations of Republicans. Barack Obama has been our president for that long, and the people have started to wise up.

The light that shines on Barack Obama as president has reflected back an image that bears very little similarity to the iconic visage that floated above us all in 2008. Why has Barack Obama betrayed so many allies, broken so many promises, thrown so many pledges and people under the bus?

One simple aphorism (paraphrasing Winston Churchill) can explain it all. Barack Obama is no longer a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Much about his past remains murky, but faced with the need to govern, he has given the American people plenty of evidence of his nature...if only they will look.

Obama is a cynic wrapped in a hypocrite inside a bully.

This comes as a shock to many, who are dismayed to find that he is "just a politician," as Reverend Wright, Jr. (who knows him so well) called him back in 2008. But Wright was being all too kind and generous to his future former parishioner (Wright followed a long and ever-growing line of people trampled by Barack Obama's rise.)

But Barack Obama is far more than just a politician. We all swallow a lot from politicians; we know that many pander and narrowcast, changing their message to suit their audience. But Obama expressly campaigned as a man who would not do this. He was the candidate of hope and change -- he would bring a big broom to sweep clean the Augean Stables known as Washington, D.C. He called forth the better angels of our nature (hat tip: Honest Abe Lincoln, one of the truly honest politicians from Illinois) and tapped into a deep yearning for the rarest of the real things: an honest leader.

A cynic

Obama defined his campaign with high-sounding rhetoric that "[his] rival in this race is not other candidates, but cynicism." The line resonated and soon became his mantra.

He later asked us to fight cynicism and revealingly told us that cynics believe they are smarter than everyone else. To this it could be said that Obama knows what that is like.

Could there be anything more cynical than to look upon Americans as being too forgetful to remember all the broken promises Obama made?

These include -- but are not limited to -- a promise that there would be no health care mandates (there are); that he would take a scalpel to the budget and bring down the deficit (headed towards the stratosphere as he rewards his own special interest groups); and that he would end earmarks (his spending bills are polluted by them; he is, after all, a Chicago politician).

He promised to close Gitmo -- not a done deal, and like many deadlines he promised, no one is sure when or if this will happen.

He promised the end of partisanship, but he has stoked it to a roaring blaze with his refusal to work with Republicans. He promised to end our wars, but now he is sending more forces into Afghanistan.

He stated that he would fight the gay marriage ban, but instead he ended up supporting it, in effect, by defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

He promised the most transparent administration in history, but instead he imposes layers of secrecy and invokes executive powers to cloak his administration from scrutiny (e.g., his use of executive privilege to protect Desiree Rogers, his social secretary, from questioning regarding the WhiteHouseGate-crashers).

We were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill under Barack Obama's presidency, then the unemployment rate would drop below 8% by now -- and here we are, during Christmas season, cruising along at a solid 10% (17% if we include the underemployed and those who left the workforce because they saw no prospects of landing a job).

We were promised that the anti-Bush would restore respect for America around the world and bring international comity. Instead, he has alienated our allies and empowered our adversaries -- a dynamic that has brought all but zero benefits to America (very little cooperation in Afghanistan, on "climate change," or on Iran's nuclear program). While he may have snagged himself a Nobel Peace Prize, the leaders of the world are increasingly treating him, and America, with disrespect and contempt.

The betrayals are so breathtaking and widespread (all of his promises have an expiration date) that all one can surmise is that the ultimate cynic is the One who campaigned against cynicism.

We can sense that Obama is a cynic by referring back to his own definition: someone who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

We have abundant evidence of this derisive attitude.

I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm gonna think I'm a better political director than my political director.

Obama had the ego to think he was better than the key experts playing roles in his victory: He is apparently smarter than his policy directors and political directors, and he's a better speechwriter to boot.

We know how Obama feels about small-town Americans: They are bitter yokels who cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment. But he has additionally demeaned a wide range of other Americans (doctors, cops, Special Olympics contestants, and many more, as you can see via the Insulter-in-Chief). And how many of us are the "typical white person" he derided in the not-so-distant past? Patriots who wear flags on their lapels? They are among the great unwashed.

We also know how Obama feels about people living in suburbia. He has no use for those people in the gray flannel suits. He said, in an un-teleprompted remark: "I'm not interested in suburbs. The suburbs bore me."

As Barack Obama has intoned, words matter.

Yes, they do Mr. President, especially in the days of YouTube, Google, and the internet. These are the tools the common folk can tap to remember your promises -- and your breaking of them.

These are the videos we can watch instead of the redacted versions put out by your pals and accomplices in the media --those versions scrubbed clean of your malapropisms, mistakes, stammering, evasions, and most importantly, your broken promises. Only a cynic would think of us as being too forgetful or ignorant to recognize the Big Lie.

Only a certifiable cynic would consider the American people so unperceptive as to not recognize the wide gap between the image and the reality, the promises made and broken, the differences between the smiling visage on the Shepard Fairey posters (themselves a fraud -- how symbolic!) and the hectoring, finger-pointing, vengeful curmudgeon we now have in the Oval Office.

A hypocrite

The hypocrisy knows no bounds, either.

A hypocrite decries the role of money in politics and then breaks his promise to accept public financing for his presidential campaign (because he could see the money rolling in) while his challenger kept his promise to abide by the campaign law he himself created. Was there a certain degree of cynicism displayed there by Obama, knowing McCain was hoisted on his own petard?

A hypocrite preaches that he will bring us together as a people and heal our wounds when he wants our votes -- but after he wins, he practices the politics of polarization and declares that he wants not "to quell people's anger," but to channel it.

Only a hypocrite would campaign on a platform of bringing us together ("we are one people," "this was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation," "there is no red America, there is no blue America," etc.) and then stoke the very polarization that he promised would end in the Age of Obama. His guru, Saul Alinksy, would be happy that his Rules for Radicals has become the blueprint for how the president can run, and ruin, a great nation.

Only a hypocrite would engage in as many baldfaced lies as our president has over the past few years. The end of lobbyists? Balderdash. In fact, as a Politico headline noted, "Lobbyists are on pace for a record year."

And what is a lobbyist? What is the meaning of the term when Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, is such a frequent visitor to the White House that he might as well sublet some space in the Lincoln Bedroom? Does anyone think Andy Stern is there to talk about the weather? A lobbyist by any other name is still, in the end, a lobbyist.

Barack Obama has also countenanced the buying of votes (payoffs to states to get senators to sign on Harry Reid's health care reform bill) in the Senate to get ObamaCare passed.

Obama decried the politics of fear during the campaign and then employed the same as president -- as he did when he had the audacity to predict the "bankruptcy" of America should ObamaCare not pass. Or, before that, he augured the collapse of the economy should the stimulus bill not pass. When every bill becomes a do-or-die proposition, is that not playing the politics of fear?

Is it hypocritical to tout that tax dollars are not "monopoly money" and that we "can't continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences" while engaging in irresponsible profligacy that would make Nero blanch? (Obama has a history of problems with his own credit standing, but now he is playing with our money.)

Does he think others are too stupid -- the belief that most defines a cynic -- to realize that his deficit-plagued budgets are a sure way to penury for us and our children and grandchildren?

Decrying fat cats while calling up a jet for a trip to Manhattan and a stroll down the Great White Way of Broadway? Taking jaunts to Copenhagen to try to snag the Olympics for his hometown pals in Chicago, who, no doubt, were hoping to snag some lucre? That's the Chicago Way. One could go on.

A bully

All this cynicism and hypocrisy is wrapped up and empowered by the other notable feature of Barack Obama: Our president is a bully.

Among the many examples: demeaning "fat cats" and telling Wall Street bankers that he is the only one standing between them and the pitchforks; telling a recalcitrant Democratic Congressman that they'd better toe the line because "we are keeping score, brother"; belittling allies, such as the Israelis, by telling them they need to be more self-reflective; trying to impose a left-wing lunatic dictator wanna-be on the innocent people of Honduras; dissing Eastern Europeans by not giving them a respectful warning that he was going to break a promise to them regarding missile bases in their nations; and forcing British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to grovel in a kitchen in order to have a few words with the President of the United States. (This treatment is attributable, speculates the Wall Street Journal, to some personal bad will between Great Britain and some Kenyan ancestors of Barack Obama. The man knows how to hold an ancestral grudge -- even if it means the rest of America suffers from slighting one of our formerly most treasured allies).

A bully is someone who can justify his actions by bragging that "I won." Whatever happened to the slogan "Yes we can"? Whatever happened to the "new kind of politics"? Well, they're so 2008.

A bully is someone who taunts, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

A bully is someone who runs roughshod over not only his opponents (politics can be a blood sport, after all), but also the Constitution -- as Obama has from almost day one of the One. Here are just a few examples of his inclination to ignore our most sacred document: czars exercising power without being approved by the Senate; violating the property clause by ignoring bankruptcy law -- as he did with the auto bailouts and attempted to do with mortgage "cram-down" plans; the chilling of free speech by threats against Fox News and by bringing back the threat of regulation affecting talk radio. Even health care reform has come under scrutiny for violating the Constitution.

There is a cliché in Washington: that all one needs to know about politics can be learned on the playground. But perhaps Obama's street-smart education was learned on the basketball court -- where height reigns (and there is no higher office in America), and where trash-talk is used to demoralize and defeat.

A cynic wrapped in a hypocrite inside a bully.

Iran: A Dying Tyranny

The Iranian revolution is older than most Iranians and the sclerosis is starting to set in. The Ayatollahs are increasingly out of touch with the Iranian people. Their current president is clearly not playing with a full deck. Even his international supporters can’t keep on ignoring his dumb moves and provocations. The Iranian economy has been bad for years and is getting worse. This whole ramshackle structure might just collapse, maybe with a little nudge.

Iranian protesters are murdered but protests continue
Public protests related to the death of dissident cleric Hossein Ali Montazeri show that the opposition is alive and even stronger than it was after the stolen elections and they are getting bolder. When the regime tries to stir them us with the tired old “death to America” chants, the protesters shout back “death to the dictator.” The government is feeling pressure. In an unprecedented move, they have even admitted that they tortured to death three student protesters. This kind of admission is a big deal for a regime like this.
You can see on the poster nearby some of the young Iranians murdered by the regime in recent months. Protesters are dying but in some places they are taking over the streets.

The American nation is Greater than the American government; the Iranian nation is much greater than the Iranian regime. 
The hard part is what to do next. President Obama’s neglect or maybe what we can call the Peter Sellers "Being There" strategy, saying things that sound profound and are interpreted in different ways by others, works only so long. The Iranian leadership is trying hard to provoke us and we face a persistent danger that they could develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian people are the best antidote to the tyrants that rule them. We need to walk the narrow path between smacking the Iranian regime while helping the Iranian people. The American nation needs to engage the Iranian nation and to a large extent we are. The great thing about the communications revolutions of recent times is that the U.S. government doesn’t have to do all the heavy lifting.
This is lucky. President Obama is no Ronald Reagan. He probably doesn’t have the gravitas or the charisma to do what Reagan did in the 1980s to disrupt the teetering communist tyrannies. But maybe his softer approach is more appropriate here anyway. Millions of Americans reaching out to millions of Iranians is much harder for the tyrants to stop or exploit. Beyond that, the Soviet Union was a peer competitor, in many ways an equal adversary. Ahmadinejad is by no means an equal of an American president. It is better not to elevate him by making the contest us against him.

Sanctions are tricky
The Obama Administration must push for smart sanctions. Sanctions are tricky. Rotten regimes insulate themselves from the punishment and pass it along to the people. Beyond that, it is very hard to get the international community to agree to sanctions. Most non-western countries don’t care much about human rights, but they do like Iranian oil. Nevertheless, they also don’t want to get too close to a weak regime that may not be able to keep promises or pay its bills. We should exploit these doubts & uncertainties.

President Obama has a lot of advantages in doing this. He still enjoys widespread good will around the globe. But the President also needs to be careful not to too accommodating to the Iranian regime, or too forgiving. We should not make pointless threats, but there is also no point in making concessions that will never be reciprocated. It is just as bad to cozy up to this regime as it is to threaten and we do owe it to the Iranian people to let them know that we support them in their struggle for freedom. Think of the Iranian President for what he is - the unbalanced leader of a weak and nearly bankrupt tyranny, a local menace and a supporter of terrorism, but not an existential threat in the way the Soviet Union was. Don't let's make him more than he is. The Iranian regime has spurned our President’s tentative advances. They ignore the world’s deadline. They think President Obama is weak. But they are the ones who are oppressive and weak.

Some things don't change ...
 This Iranian regime will never live up to agreements or promises it makes to limit its nuclear program. They have been playing their deceptive game for a long time and they are good at it. The only thing that keeps them from developing their programs faster is their lack of abilities and the only thing that will keep them from achieving their goal in the future if the current regime leaves power. But the tyrannical Iranian regime is teetering. The regime is cruel and ruthless and it appears firmly in command, but so did the Shah, so did the communists in Eastern Europe. Tyrannies are naturally hard but also brittle. When the people see that they can stand up to the tyrants, the crumble. The Iranian people are protesting more and more openly. The regime is murdering scores of them and arresting, torturing and raping many more, but fear is giving way to anger. Anything can happen. But it is clear that we will not face the same Iran much longer.

... other things do

We recall that none of the experts accurately predicted the rapid collapse of communist tyrannies. These things rarely happen gradually. The U.S. should be ready to take advantage of whatever comes. The Iranian theocracy has been the source of much suffering and oppression over the past generation. A regime change there would make the world a better place. Maybe we are are seeing the death agony of a thirty-year tyranny. Things might develop better for us than we anticipate. Some might say better than our policy deserves.

Structural Flaws Will Limit China's Rise

John Lee World Politics Review

On Oct. 1, the People's Republic of China celebrated the 60th anniversary of its founding, most notably with an air show and military parade along Beijing's Orwellian-sounding Avenue of Eternal Peace. The event showcased China's arsenal of indigenously made fighter aircraft, tanks and newer-generation Dongfeng missiles, capable of delivering nuclear warheads to targets over 11,000 kilometers away. This was hardly the first time an authoritarian government has used a military review to impress its citizens and outside observers. And China has used non-martial events to display its national pride, confidence and strength. In many ways, last year's Beijing Olympics served the same function. But the parade left little doubt that China, the 2009 version, is surely very different from the one Mao Zedong left behind when he died in 1976. Since 1979, its economy has been doubling in size every 10 years, and growth in 2009 will likely surpass 8 percent -- remarkable in the context of the current global environment. Obviously, economic strength underpins political and military power, and if current linear trends continue, the Chinese economy will surpass that of the U.S. in absolute size before the middle of this century. But does that mean that China will inevitably become a genuine economic and military superpower -- the next East Asian success story, like Japan or South Korea, but on an unprecedented historical scale? Major economic and social problems stand in the way of such a scenario of China's continued rise. But while many analysts recognize that these problems exist, most tend to represent them as Beijing's "to do" list, reflecting the assumption that the PRC's leadership simply needs to identify the appropriate policy solutions and then implement them. But such an approach ignores the ways in which China's problems are structural and becoming worse, and why solving them without the prospect of enormous turmoil will be difficult and even unlikely. China's Two Distinct Reform Periods China's modern reform period began under Deng Xiaoping in December 1978. Because the Chinese economy has been growing constantly for the three decades since then, it is commonly believed that China has been gradually but steadily reforming into a free market economy over the past 30 years. In fact, though, there have really been two distinct reform periods driven by two distinct reform philosophies since 1978: the pre-Tiananmen period from 1978-1989 and the post-Tiananmen period from 1991-present. Prior to 1989, the unplanned, spontaneous explosion of private initiative in rural China -- fueled by limited land reforms -- was encouraged by officials and even supported by government policy. Yasheng Huang called this period the "entrepreneurial decade." Farmers were encouraged to make their own decisions for how they wanted to use their plot, even if the land itself was still owned by the state, and were allowed to sell their produce at market prices after having met their production quotas. A happy accident of the limited land reforms were the spontaneous rise in rural China of small-scale businesses, known as "Township and Village Enterprises," which provided meaningful employment for over 100 million Chinese peasants. Significantly, during this decade, mean wages and incomes were rising at the same rate or faster than GDP growth, leading to the emergence of an independent "middle class" in China. Indeed, 80 percent of the poverty alleviation that occurred since 1979 was achieved during this 10-year period. After the Tiananmen protests in the spring of 1989, China deliberately and decisively changed tack. The Tiananmen protests -- which actually saw thousands of protests involving millions of people spring up in hundreds of cities across the country -- brought the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to its knees. During the "Tiananmen Interlude" that followed the bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square, the CCP nervously watched the fall of the Berlin Wall, followed by the implosion of the Soviet Union. It realized that authoritarian regimes become irrelevant at their great peril. To preserve its relevance, the CCP expended extensive efforts to retake control of the major levers of economic power. This control today is at the heart of an economic structure that entrenches the role and status of Party officials and members in Chinese economy and society. The story of China's economic rise since the 1990s is mainly the story of the rise of the Chinese "corporate state" and the emergence of the "state-led" model of development -- not the flowering of China's private sector. Unfortunately, it is now the CCP's determination to hold on to political, economic and social power that is behind many of China's most serious problems. That is also why these problems are becoming worse. Behind China's Current "Economic Miracle" Even before the current global financial crisis, at the National People's Congress in March 2007 (the annual meeting of the state's highest political body), current Premier Wen Jiabao offered his country a warning, declaring that "the biggest problem with China's economy is that growth is unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable." This was all but reiterated by President Hu Jintao at the five-yearly Congress in Beijing in October 2007, and was repeated again this year. In fact, similar warnings have been issued since the late 1990s. Although economic growth remains robust, growth tells only a small part of the story of how China is faring. Serious flaws have been emerging in the Chinese economic growth strategy, particularly since the 1990s. Indeed, in recent times, China's high level of growth is somewhat symptomatic of the problem. How has China achieved growth since the 1990s? Most Western commentators focus on the spectacular success of China's export sector and the emergence of China as the "world's factory." But a greater contributor to Chinese growth is actually domestically funded fixed investment, which constituted over 50 percent of GDP in 2008 and over 40 percent of growth in that year. In 2009, due to the massive stimulus order by the government, between 80-90 percent of growth will be a result of capital investment. To put China's growing addiction to loans from state-owned banks in perspective, its banks lent out $150 billion in 2001, $380 billion in 2003, $750 billion in 2008, and $1.13 trillion in the first 7 months of 2009 alone. In other words, growth is largely the result of state-controlled entities pouring money into fixed investment projects. But it is not just the high reliance on fixed investment that is striking. It is where the capital goes that is all-important. China is unusual in that bank loans -- drawn from the deposits of its citizens funneled into state-controlled banks -- constitute around 80 percent of all investment activity in the country. Even though state-controlled enterprises produce between just one-quarter and one-third of all output in the country, they receive over 75 percent of the country's capital -- and that figure is rising. State-controlled companies received well over 95 percent of the recent stimulus monies lent out in 2008-2009. The Chinese state sector owns over two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country. This is the reverse of what occurred in China during the first 10 years of reform, when private sector businesses received over 70 percent of all the country's capital. The massive bias toward the state sector would not be so problematic if the 120,000 state-controlled enterprises and their countless subsidiaries could learn to innovate and adapt. Unfortunately, except for a handful of centrally managed state-controlled enterprises, this is not the case. According to one expert, 19 percent of state-controlled enterprises were unprofitable in 1978. That number had grown(.pdf) to 40 percent in 1997, and by 2006 had reached 51 percent. By a conservative estimate, 40 percent of bank loans to these entities are extended on a "policy" rather than a "commercial" basis, with most of those loans made at artificially low interest rates. Banks are effectively fulfilling the political priorities of the government through their "policy lending" function: to maintain jobs for state-controlled enterprise workers who are the party's most loyal supporters, to maintain support for state-controlled enterprise managers who are core party members and supporters, and to maintain growth in "middle class" and urban areas at any cost, since the party needs the continual support of the new and emerging middle classes to survive. As Zhang Hanya, a senior researcher at Beijing's National Development and Reform Commission's Investment Research Institute, put it in 2007, a full year before the global financial crisis, China needs to keep fixed investment growth levels at around 25 percent per annum just to maintain present levels of employment. This is all leading to a worsening "bad loans" problem, which has been manifest since the early 1990s and threatens to bring down the Chinese financial system. Worryingly, China's main banks have been technically insolvent for over a decade, weighed down by non-performing-loans (NPLs). Even back in 2006, accounting firm Ernst & Young estimated the total value of NPLs in the Chinese financial system at $911 billion -- about 40 percent of GDP. The balance sheets of these banks are superficially healthy, but they are only able to operate due to periodic bail-outs by the government, in which bad loans are transferred to "asset management companies." Meanwhile, bad loans are removed from balance sheets only due to stipulations that maturing loans be "rolled over" since they cannot be paid back. Banks remain liquid mainly due to the high savings of the population, deposited into their accounts because few other options besides state-controlled banks exist in China. Recent instances of economic reform have been largely tactical, designed to plug obvious holes, rather than comprehensive. Despite overwhelming evidence that heavily protected state-controlled enterprises use capital poorly, they continue to receive a constantly rising share of the country's wealth. As a result, most of China's 40 million to 50 million private businesses remain small and heavily hamstrung by lack of access to capital. Importantly, these private enterprises use capital between 2-3 times more efficiently, and are twice as efficient in generating employment. Nevertheless, because the CCP refuses to dilute its economic power, support for the ongoing rise of the corporate state will continue despite the enormous cost to the country. Even the piecemeal reform that has occurred runs into the enormous problem of poor or non-existent implementation. Western experts visiting China generally leave impressed by the competency of its senior officials. But functional authority in China is largely decentralized. Around 45 million provincial and local officials -- compared to less than 1 million central officials -- operate in a largely unaccountable environment, due to the lack of effective institutions for public accountability within the one-party system. These local officials oversee, regulate, and administer almost all economic and enforcement activity in the country. As a result, China's central leaders have consistently run into problems in terms of enforcing the central government's mandates and regulations. This also leads to the enormous problem of corruption, which is systemic (particularly at the local levels), profound and embedded throughout every level of the Chinese economy and society. Estimates put the value of direct theft of state resources at around 2 percent of GDP each year, while the indirect economic cost of corruption is estimated by various Chinese researchers to represent up to 17 percent of GDP. Moreover, while it is true that China's well-known environmental problems are the result of rapid growth, these problems are also significantly caused and exacerbated by poor adherence to even minimal environmental standards and edicts on the part of local officials -- who are rewarded for achieving growth, no matter the cost. Given the lack of institutions and other mechanisms of accountability, standards imposed by Beijing are regularly ignored.

Yet, China's central leaders have little choice but to continue to support local officials in order to prolong the survival of the CCP as the country's ruling party. In a vast country of 1.3 billion people, Beijing relies on the 45 million local party officials to represent its authority and preserve the CCP's interests. At the same time, local CCP leaders have a huge informational advantage over the central leadership: The latter have few alternate sources of information other than what local authorities reveal. Importantly, national law, economic policies, social order policies, and even centrally instituted fiscal policy are all necessarily executed by local officials.

These are all problems that go to the heart of whether the Chinese model of economy growth is sustainable. Beijing itself is aware of the problems, having warned that its economic model is becoming dangerously dependent on ever-increasing levels of inefficient capital investment to achieve growth. To solve that problem, greater support must be given to China's 40 million to 50 million private businesses. That would result in the much more efficient use of capital, the creation of more jobs, and a rise in private -- rather than just state -- wealth. That, in turn, would increase domestic consumption -- currently at around 30-35 percent of GDP, the lowest of any major economy in the world -- in order to re balance the economy and reorient its growth model toward a more sustainable approach.

However, such a policy would jeopardize the party's ability to concentrate its hold on power. Instead, leaders from Deng Xiaoping onwards have used "tactical reform" as a mechanism to retain power, insisting that the Chinese "corporate state" grow stronger rather than weaker. In this context, the pursuit of growth at all costs, far from alleviating the shortcomings in the Chinese economic model, is actually worsening these shortcomings. The problems are not just cyclical, nor are they only temporary hitches as China confronts the enormous task of development. They are serious, chronic, and systemic.

Rich and Strong State, Poor People and Weak Civil Society

One major problem for China is that too heavy an emphasis on state-led development tends to exacerbate inequality as the economy expands. Since the state dispenses the most valued business, career and professional opportunities, a relatively small group of well-placed and well-connected insiders benefit, while opportunities to prosper are denied to the vast majority. Unlike the pre-Tiananmen period, mean wages and income throughout the country have been rising three to four times slower than economic growth.

This is a serious problem for Chinese society. Its Gini coefficient -- a measurement of income distribution, where 0 means perfect equality and 1 means absolute inequality -- rose from around 0.25 in the 1980s to around .38 in the 1990s. It is now around 0.5, which is the highest in Asia. Worryingly for China, despite enormous GDP growth, about 400 million people have seen their incomes stagnate or decline (.pdf) during the past decade. Another study by the World Bank suggests that the income of the poorest 10 percent of China's population had declined by 2.4 percent each year at the beginning of this century. Since 2000, absolute poverty has actually increased, as has illiteracy. Combined with the absence of social safety nets, such as healthcare, it is no wonder that at 30 percent of GDP, Chinese consumption levels are the lowest of any major economy in the world.

An obvious counterargument here is that inequality is inevitable once development takes off in a backward, agrarian society. However, this is refuted by the cases of South Korea and Taiwan from the 1960s to the 1990s, as well as that of China from 1978-1988, all of whose Gini coefficients (.pdf) hovered around 0.29-0.34, even as their economies were growing rapidly.

Significantly, the CCP has deliberately used vast resources to sponsor, co-opt, and, in many respects, create the privileged middle classes. The great lesson of the 1989 Tiananmen protests for the CCP was that the party was better off tying the future of the middle classes to the future of the CCP, than it was isolating them. It is from the urban middle classes, after all, that any impetus for political reform is likely to come. So it is no surprise that the party's heavy capital investment bias is slanted toward urban China. Enormous national resources are directed toward nurturing the middle class in China's cities, making them the great beneficiaries of China's state-led development model.

This is reflected in the composition of the roughly 70 million CCP members -- of whom a third are businesspeople and entrepreneurs, a third are college students, and a quarter are professionals. Meanwhile, a massive underclass of up to 1 billion people represents the downside of this strategy. It is not surprising that while middle class support for the CCP remains robust -- so long as economic growth is strong, that is -- numerous internal party studies show that support for the CCP in the poorer rural areas is extremely poor.

A second problem facing China's continued rise is the lack of robust institutions needed by all strong economies and societies. The CCP's political imperative of retaining power severely impedes the building of the soft institutions needed for successful economies: enforceable property rights, independent courts and the rule of law, and independent financial and administrative organs. For example, while judges are appointed by the CCP, party officials are explicitly given the right to veto court decisions at all levels of the Chinese judicial system. The Property Rights Index released by the Heritage Foundation gives China a dismal score of 20 (the same rank as countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Uzbekistan), while South Korea and Taiwan rate reasonably well at 70. All land in China is still owned by the state, although individuals may own and transfer long-term leases. But as the report observes, China's judicial system is weak, and even when courts try to enforce decisions regarding land rights, local officials ignore them with impunity. Over the past decade alone, an estimated 40 million households have had their land illegally seized or been offered inadequate compensation for it by local officials, usually in collusion with land developers.

The massive misallocation of China's wealth combined with the entrenched corruption of officials is having very real economic and social effects. For example, independent studies suggest that unemployment and severe underemployment is around 10-20 percent in urban areas and 20-40 percent in rural areas.

But if finding jobs is a problem now, finding enough young people to work will be a problem in the future. In 2015, more people will be leaving the workforce than entering it. An enormously critical juncture will be reached in 2030, when a quarter of the population -- around 350 million people -- will be older than 60, compared to just 10 percent today. Unlike in Western societies and countries like Japan, China will undoubtedly get old before it gets rich. To make matters worse, China's "pay as you go" pension pools -- which cover less than a quarter of its population -- are most likely bankrupt, as the funds have been misused by state-controlled banks and other financial bodies.

Furthermore, reported instances of "mass" social unrest directed against the government -- defined as involving 15 or more people -- have grown from a few thousand in the early 1990s to 90,000 instances in 2006, according to official figures. (A Hong Kong-based study believed that the figure in 2003 was closer to 300,000) Ominously, Beijing has since stopped revealing these figures annually. The vast majority of these protests are directed toward local officials for grievances over such things as illegal land seizures and taxes, mismanagement of the local environment -- either because of incompetence or collusion with well-connected industries -- and the misappropriation of public funds for personal use.

Conclusion

It is true that China has come a long way since Mao died in 1976. But the reform period that began when Deng Xiaoping took power is nearing the completion of its 30th year -- exactly half the age of modern China. In fact, the reform period has already exceeded Mao Zedong's 27 years of terrible rule. After ordering the crackdown on protesters in 1989, Deng presciently warned that the CCP had around 20 years to "get China right." Unfortunately, the party has not found the authoritarian version of the "silver bullet": a successful reform program that can enhance, rather than dilute, the CCP's relevance and grip on economic, social and ultimately political power. Worse still, there is a direct and deepening connection between the CCP's efforts to entrench its place in Chinese economic and civil society, and China's growing economic and social deficits.

Both U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman have called the U.S.-China relationship the most important one in the world. But the bilateral relationship is almost always spoken about discussed in the context of the challenges America will face as China grows stronger and more confident.

As China's military buildup confirms, Beijing is undoubtedly an ambitious regional and global power. But domestic political and social order in China depends on spectacular rates of economic growth to keep the urban classes satisfied, and tactical initiatives to keep the unsatisfied rural classes at bay. Worryingly, continued growth is dependent on an unsustainable economic model that is highly resistant to reform. It is time to seriously consider the contingency of what it might mean for the United States if, instead of continuing its rise, China becomes increasingly overwhelmed and distracted by its core weaknesses.

Yemen arrests 29 al Qaeda suspects after raids

DUBAI (Reuters) – Yemen has arrested  29 suspected al Qaeda members since raiding the group to foil attacks on oil installations and foreign interests including the British embassy, national sec  urity chief Ali Mohammad Al-Ansi said.

Al Qaeda's presence in Yemen has grown over the past year, and Washington has said a Nigerian who tried to bomb a U.S. passenger jet on Christmas Day claimed he got help from al Qaeda militants in the impoverished Arab country.

Ansi said on the defense ministry website that al Qaeda had been planning to attack Yemeni government institutions as well as the UK embassy in Sanaa.

"Until now 29 persons have been arrested and authorities are still following up and pursuing the remaining terrorists," he said in the remarks published on Monday.

Ansi made no comment on the attempted Christmas Day bombing of the U.S. jet, which has put a spotlight on Yemen.

Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulm  utallab, who is charged with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane as it approached Detroit, has been linked to the country.

In U.S. questioning Abdulmutallab claimed al Qaeda operatives in Yemen gave him with an explosive device and trained him on how to detonate it, a U.S. official said.

Yemen has staged two major raids on al Qaeda this month.

Last week, Sanaa said it had killed more than 30 al Qaeda members in an air raid. The dead possibly included the top two leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and an American Muslim preacher linked to a man who shot dead 13 people at a U.S. army base.

The earlier raid on December 17 raid killed about 30 militants in the eastern province of Abyan and in Arhab, northeast of the capital Sanaa, the government said.

The United States and Saudi Arabia, which borders Yemen, fear al Qeada will use instability in the country to stage attacks in the world's top oil exporting region and beyond.

Apart from al Qaeda, Yemen is also grappling with a Shi'ite revolt in the north and a separatist movement in the south with both complaining of social and economic discrimination, a charge the government denies.

On Monday, the ministry also said 13 senior Houthi rebel commanders, part of the Shi'ite rebellion, had been killed, according to the website.

The conflict in northern Yemen drew in Saudi Arabia last month when the rebels briefly occupied some Saudi territory, prompting Riyadh to launch an offensive against them.

(Additional reporting by Mohamed Sudam in Sanaa)

(Reporting by Ulf Laessing; Editing by David Stamp)

Dems Pessimistic About Public Option

By CALVIN WOODWARD, AP
WASHINGTON – House Democrats aren't optimistic that a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, will survive negotiations with the Senate.

While insisting "it's not dead," Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said Sunday he recognizes realities in the Senate, where Democrats had to scrape up every vote from their side to pass a bill — even one without a government plan to compete in the private insurance marketplace.

"Before the House was to give up the public option, we would want to be persuaded that there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums," said Van Hollen. "We've got to make sure that the final product is affordable."

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and one who had appealed to President Barack Obama not to yield on the public plan, set out conditions for yielding himself.

"We want a public option to do basically three things: Create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies, and to contain costs," Clyburn said. "So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence."

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., underscored the divisions Democrats will need to bridge when negotiators from the House and Senate meet next month to reconcile the two bills. He said there will need to be more give on the House side than the Senate, which took weeks to find the 60 votes needed for passage.

"If we are going to have a final law, it will look a lot more like the Senate version than the House version," Menendez asserted.

The Senate's Christmas Eve achievement brought the nation closer than it's been for generations to a new order in health insurance. It would eventually require nearly all Americans to get coverage, help many pay for it and restrict onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing sickness.

But nothing will change for anyone until the House and Senate can settle on common legislation, pass it and send it to Obama to sign.

The high stakes have both parties hoping they can find a few converts from the other side. Nearly every Republican in Congress has opposed the measures.

"If some of the Republicans would come forward with suggestions — offer a vote or two, or three or four — to take away the need to have every last one of the 60 Democrats, you'd have a much better bill in accordance with the tradition of the Congress, especially the Senate, on bipartisanship," said Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, himself a party switcher.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina voiced similar hope, to opposite ends: "a few Democrats to stand up in the House that maybe didn't before and help us stop this thing."

DeMint, Van Hollen, Menendez and Specter spoke on "Fox News Sunday." Clyburn was on CBS' "Face the Nation" and CNN's "State of the Union."

North korea Weapons Smugglers Left Trail Around World

Thai authorities' high-profile inspection of 35 tons of North Korean weapons was nearing completion Friday, as clues emerging around the world shed light on the business of arms trafficking — and the lengths smugglers take to hide their identities.
Two weeks after Thai authorities impounded the aircraft and arrested its five-man crew, the key questions of who organized the shipment and where it was headed remain unanswered.
But a trail of companies and fake addresses from New Zealand to Barcelona has illustrated how the traffickers bounced around the globe to lightly regulated countries to disguise their movements. Over the past few months, they created a complex web of holding companies that facilitated the flight in an apparent effort to evade U.N. sanctions on North Korea.
The Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane was intercepted during a Dec. 12 refueling stop in Bangkok, thanks to a tip from the United States. Its crew — four from Kazakhstan and one from Belarus — has denied any knowledge of arms aboard the plane, which Thai authorities say included explosives, rocket-propelled grenades and components for surface-to-air missiles.
Pending more investigations, a Thai court Friday ordered the crew members to remain in prison 12 more days.
Police Col. Supisarn Bhaddinarinath, acting chief of the Crime Suppression Division, said in a telephone interview that investigators expect to finish their report on the types of weapons seized "within a week." The crew has been charged with illegal arms possession, but the charges are expected to be stiffened once the investigation wraps up, he said.
The plane's chief pilot insisted in an interview published Friday that the aircraft's final destination was Kiev, Ukraine, though arms trafficking experts published a report last week saying it was bound for Iran. Thai authorities have said there is no evidence to support that assertion.
"We were to fly to Ukraine," the pilot, Ilyas Isakov of Kazakhstan, told Russian news agencies ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti in response to written questions. "I don't know what the cargo owners intended to do next, but we were hired to fly it to Kiev's Borispil airport."
He said the crew was hired by a Ukrainian air freighter called Aviatek to pick up 35.8 tons of cargo in Pyongyang, North Korea — which included 25 tons of oil-drilling equipment and other cargo in sealed wooden boxes. He said the flight path included refueling stops in Bangkok and Sri Lanka.
It was not immediately clear how Aviatek fit into the network of companies linked to the plane's journey.
A spokesman for the Ukrainian Transport Ministry contacted Friday would not say if a company called Aviatek is in the ministry's registry. The search engine of the global aviation registry — http://www.aerotransport.org — had no listing for a company by that name.
The aircraft was registered in the former Soviet republic of Georgia but owned by a company in the United Arab Emirates.
It was leased to a company in New Zealand, which then chartered the plane to a company in Hong Kong, according to a report published last week by the nonprofit groups TransArms in the United States and IPIS of Belgium, who obtained flight plans and documents, some of which could not be independently verified. The report was funded by the Belgian government and Amnesty International.
Associated Press reporters around the world found that some of the companies exist only on paper. Some list fake addresses or post office boxes, while at least one firm didn't exist until a month ago.
The plane was registered to Air West, a cargo transport company set up in September, according to the Georgian transport administration.
Air West's owner Levan Kakabadze told AP he was unaware of the plane's final destination. He said he had leased the plane last month to the SP Trading company and could bear no responsibility for what happened next.
SP Trading Limited was founded July 22, 2009, in Auckland, New Zealand, according to a national registry site. In New Zealand, known as an easy place to set up and register new companies, anyone without a criminal record or history of bankruptcy can create a company quickly online for minimal fees.
New Zealand officials are conducting inquiries into the flight "in a number of countries," James Funnell, a spokesman for New Zealand's Foreign Ministry, told AP. He said the investigation included New Zealand links to the flight, notably the SP Trading, "one of a number of different companies linked to the plane."
On Dec. 4, SP Trading leased the plane to Hong Kong-based Union Top Management Ltd., according to the arms trafficking researchers report. The company's certificate of corporation shows it was created on Nov. 2.
But there is no Union Top office at its Hong Kong address. Instead, there is a company called R & G Management Consultancy, according to a woman who answered the door. She said Union Top is a client but she doesn't know how to reach anyone at the company, nor did she know a man called Dario Cabreros Garmendia — who signed Union Top's incorporation in Hong Kong last month.
Garmendia listed Barcelona, Spain, as his address on another document related to the set up of the company. But AP reporters asked four people living next to the location and none had heard of him or the company.
The plane, according to the researchers, was owned by Overseas Cargo FZE, based in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates where the plane also made a landing. Officials at the company did not respond to repeated requests for comment and the extent of its physical operations in Sharjah was also unclear. It has a post office box in the Sharjah free zone — one of several similar sites around the UAE that permit firms to operate with limited fiscal oversight from local authorities.
In recent years, Sharjah's international airport has become a hub of many small charter and cargo carriers serving Asia, Africa and the former Soviet republics.

Watch The Decline: The Media Lowlights Of 2009

By K. Daniel Glover
The tea party movement exposed the bias of liberal journalists to start the year, and ClimateGate did the same to end it.
Climate "scientists" are about as trusted as used-car salesmen or congressmen these days thanks to the beating their profession has taken in the "ClimateGate" scandal. But give the alarmists their due: They know how to hide the decline.
Their friends in the media, on the other hand, are not quite so skilled at chicanery. The press practices plenty of sniper journalism, the kind that kills unaware readers and viewers from afar. But journalists attack in the open often enough that Americans can watch the decline of the Fourth Estate in all of its embarrassing glory.
They had a lot to watch in 2009 -- a year marked by the media's anointed leader moving into the White House, liberals ascending to one-party control of Washington and, to hear journalists report it, an angry mob of dangerous extremists daring to reject the hope-and-change narrative.
There were so many media lowlights that it's a challenge to pick the best of the worst for a year-end recap, but here goes:
"Teabaggers" everywhere! The mainstream media's abysmal coverage of the "tea party" movement wins the award for media bias of the year hands down.
The movement started with a small protest against the pork-laden stimulus in Seattle on Presidents Day in February but quickly snowballed into a nationwide phenomenon that is still going strong. Journalists diligently suppressed the story for weeks, but when the movement grew despite the attempt to kill it with lack of publicity, the media coverage turned ugly. The most unprofessional, unethical and utterly embarrassing moments included:
-- Susan Roesgen of CNN berating tea partiers rather than interviewing them during a live report on the Tax Day Tea Party event in Chicago. "Why do you say he's a fascist? He's the president of the United States," she scolded one protester. Her rants were so biased that a former CNN star said Roesgen "crossed a journalistic line." Three months later, she lost her job.
-- Anchors and media celebrities embracing the term "teabaggers," a vulgar reference to oral sex, as a descriptor for Americans protesting runaway government spending, regulation and inevitable taxation. The Media Research Center documented that episode of decline, including one MSNBC segment where the term was used 51 times, in R-rated detail. Anderson Cooper of CNN issued a phony apology for using the term, but journalists regularly repeated it all year.
-- MSNBC manipulating video footage of a gun-toting protester to insinuate that the town halls of summer were inciting violence by racists who hate America's first black president. Why edit the video? Because the man toting the gun was black, a fact that would have undermined the story. Journalists largely ignored reports of actual violence by liberal protesters, including the beating of Kenneth Gladney and the finger-chomping of William Rice, for the same reason.
Global warming games. The tea party movement exposed the bias of liberal journalists to start the year, and ClimateGate did the same to end it. E-mails and other documents showed that for years, leading climate scientists had been manipulating scientific data, suppressing research, and playing politics in the peer-review system.
Major news outlets largely ignored the story, and green-friendly environmental reporters like Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, who later took a buyout from the newspaper, worked hard to spin the news as insignificant. The coverage continued a pattern of quashing inconvenient news that also was apparent when the Society of Environmental Journalists cut the microphone of a global warming critic questioning Al Gore.
Only one U.S. newspaper, the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald, had the weakness of editorial character to sign a multinational, multilingual editorial urging a global agreement for "overcoming climate change." But American journalists proved time and again that they largely agree with the idea behind the editorial even if they didn't sign it.
Obamania. The occasionally critical press coverage that President Obama has garnered may mislead news consumers into thinking that the media have reported on him objectively, but they have not. The media's Obama worship of Campaign 2008newsroom swoon when Obama visited The Washington Post a few days before inauguration serves as an apt symbol for the first year of his presidency. continued into 2009. The
The adulation that began on Inauguration Day -- Michelle Malkin tracked the clichéd coverage -- continued unabated for months. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, for example, literally compared Obama to God soon after publishing a fluff piece about him. The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism confirmed the obvious in a study -- that Obama garnered far more positive press in his first 100 days than his predecessors. Even liberal journalists noticed the bias.
The fascination with Obama was on display at most of his nationally televised press conferences, as reporters repeatedly lobbed softball questions to him.
"Palinoia." The media's contempt for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is as strong as its love for Obama. Their animosity for Palin spawned a new term in political discourse -- "Palinoia" -- and journalists had bouts of the disease on and off all year.
One episode occurred in the summer, when Palin made a figurative reference to "death panels" being part of the Democratic health-care plan. Journalists interpreted her comment literally so they could call Palin a liar. Just last week, the supposedly objective fact-checking organization PolitiFact and its sheep-like audience declared "death panels" the "Lie of the Year."
In the fall, attention turned to Palin's best-selling book, "Going Rogue." Associated Press was so determined to embarrass her that it assigned 11 fact-checkers to review the book, and Newsweek ran hit pieces illustrated by sexist photos. MSNBC, meanwhile, had to apologize for using fake photos of Palin in one of its stories.
The media's penchant for attacking Palin also led to two unprofessional encounters at one book signing in Grand Rapids, Mich. NBC's Andrea Mitchell had to be restrained"gotcha" moment with a teenage Palin fan. (starting at the 1:40 mark of the video) while trying to question Palin, and MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell staged a
Van Who? What ACORN videos? Ignorance may be bliss, but in the news business, it's also bias. Fortunately, the low barriers to journalism in the information age give conservatives the ability to break news on "the fringe" and force the "professionals" to stop neglecting their duty.
That's how Van Jones lost his cushy job as Obama's "green jobs" czar. No matter how radical Jones' political beliefs or how insulting his behavior, establishment journalists scoffed at the suggestion that they should care. As a result of their willful ignorance about Jones being unfit to serve the country, their reputations took a hit.
Rather than learn from the mistake, however, the media quickly repeated it by tuning out another scandal involving the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Undercover activists caught ACORN officials on tape professing a willingness to enable child prostitution and tax fraud, among other offenses.
ACORN's sins were outrageous by any standard, but Charlie Gibson of ABC News laughed and said he "didn't even know" the Senate had voted to cut funding to the group. When The New York Times reluctantly covered the story, it chastised conservatives for their investigative tactics and refused to admit that liberal bias explained the paper's lapse in news judgment.

Canadian Physicist Blames Fluorocarbons for Global Warming Predicts 50 Years of COOLING

A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist doesn't blame global warming on man and CO2, he blames it on a combination of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons. You remember those fluorocarbons, every aerosol can used to be loaded with the stuff until we found out they were putting a hole in the ozone layer. The fluorocarbons were removed and since 2002 the ozone layer has been closing and the earth stopped warming. Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo took a look at the interaction between cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons and predicts that global warming has disappeared, maybe for the next 50 years

This peer-reviewed paper was published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Lu says the world has been cooling since 2002

"the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

..Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000.Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

But wait, does that mean those fine people at the CRU were wrong? Those emails show that they were really believed in that man-made CO2 theory. That's why they repressed any evidence that would prove it wrong. Please don't tell Phil Jones or Michael Mann about the study below, it may upset them:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming


Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.


In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.


"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."


His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.


"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."


In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.


As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.


In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.


The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.


In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."


New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

Centrists set strict guidelines for Senate-House healthcare talks

By Alexander Bolton
Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate.

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.

They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks.

Centrists have said they will not vote for a healthcare reform bill that imposes a tax surcharge on the nation’s highest income earners or reduces the tax burden on so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, which are held by many unionized workers.

They have also threatened to vote against the bill if it includes a government-run health insurance program, a proposal that liberal Democrats in Congress acknowledge has little chance of winning inclusion in the final bill.

Lawmakers in the House will have to accept the Senate legislation with little change if a final bill is to muster 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles and make it to President Barack Obama’s desk, the centrists say.

“There’s very little room for this bill to change,” said Landrieu. “The framework really has to stay basically in place.

“It’s not just me,” Landrieu added. “There are probably two-dozen Democratic senators who feel very strongly about the framework.”

Landrieu said she would not support the final legislation if negotiators tinkered with the Senate proposal for taxing high-cost insurance plans.

“I can only support a bill if the Cadillac plans are taxed at the level they are in the Senate [bill,]” said Landrieu. “It’s not because I’m thrilled about taxing those plans, which I’m not, but it is the No. 1 cost-containment measure in the bill. It’s what is going to drive costs down over time.”

Nelson said he would not support the final bill if it included the House proposal to impose a tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million.

“I’ve already said that would be a deal-breaker,” said Nelson.

Lincoln also said she has great concern. “If it moves very much at all from where we are, it’s going to be hard,” she said.

That’s not to say the centrists will not accept any concessions to House negotiators.

Landrieu said she would prefer the implementation date for health insurance exchanges set by the House. The exchanges would offer people a variety of plans to choose among.

The House bill sets up these insurance marketplaces by 2013; the Senate bill does it by 2014. Advancing the implementation of the insurance exchanges by a year would add an estimated $100 billion to the cost of the Senate bill.

Lincoln said she supported a provision in the House bill — not included in the Senate version — that would set up automatic health insurance enrollment for infants.

Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson proved to be among the toughest holdouts Reid had to deal with in an effort to unify the entire Democratic Conference.

But other centrists have drawn similar lines.

“I’m going to be reluctant to vote for any significant changes to the Senate bill,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). “There are a number of members who feel that way.”

Reid declined to discuss publicly his plans for bicameral negotiations in the run-up to the final passage of the Senate bill on Dec. 24.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said this week that leaders would begin planning immediately for conference talks with the goal of getting a final bill to President Barack Obama by his State of the Union address.

White House officials have tried to downplay expectations by warning that final passage of the bill may not happen until February, after Obama’s address.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who has played a central role in Senate healthcare talks, said lawmakers needed a rest after the end of one of the longest Senate debates in recent history. The Senate was in session for 25 consecutive days after Thanksgiving, the longest stretch since 1917.

A Democratic aide said staff would take off between Christmas and New Year’s and begin working on merging the Senate and House bills in January. The aide predicted lawmakers would begin talks in earnest during the second week of next month, making it difficult for Obama to sign a bill by the State of the Union.

Baucus, however, said lawmakers would begin discussing ways to merge it with the House legislation immediately after Senate passage.

“We’ll be working on it as soon as it passes,” Baucus said.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said Senate staff has already begun preparing for conference.

But liberals acknowledge there is not much room for negotiations.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), a leading liberal who expects to participate in conference talks, said there would be “very little” room to change the Senate bill because the defection of a single Democratic centrist would stall progress.

“We can’t stray one vote from 60 since there’s nothing on the other side,” Rockefeller said in reference to the lack of any Republican votes for the Senate measure.