Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

As much as China and Russia have demonstrated their opposition toward ’sanctions’ against Iran’s nuclear pursuits more impotent reaction appears forthcoming from the security council at the United Nations. As noted below, a ‘fourth round’ of UN sanctions indicates previous provisions have accomplished nothing.

If Iran sends uranium to Turkey and Brazil for further enrichment with the stated medical purposes expressed a minimum of several questions come to mind. What is to stop others from intercepting and/or advancing enrichment to weapons grade? What value can sanctions have if they have not worked to date and Iran’s nuclear pursuit advances unchecked?

Spokespersons from Iran and Turkey have offered political rhetoric on the topic. Western nations have expressed a real concern that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Also in the report below readers are reminded of frequent expressions from Iranian leaders that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel.

And the past and current situation with Iran has done nothing to resolve these issues. But it has allowed Iran to continue unimpeded. It is long past the time for an effective response to Iranian nukes. And all that sending uranium around the planet achieves is higher risk that the material will be used by rogue states or terrorists supported by them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday.

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of “seeking excuses” to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could “spoil the atmosphere” and lead to an “escalation” of statements that might “provoke” Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.

President Obama persuaded 46 countries Tuesday to sign on to a plan to put the world’s nuclear material beyond the reach of terrorists within four years, but the commitments are voluntary, and experts said reaching the goal will be difficult.

Let’s be realistic. Even if everyone attending the bomb summit (preceded much earlier by the beer summit and nearly as silly) was sincere four years is a ridiculous timeline. It demonstrates the ‘experts’ view that ‘reaching the goal will be difficult.’ Attendees are either unwilling or unable to account for all their nuke material and secure it. That means it is not going to happen. Hence, the understatement the agreements are voluntary. Likewise for the commentary here describing the affair as silly.

“This is an ambitious goal, and we are under no illusions it will be easy. But the urgency of the threat and the catastrophic consequences of even a single act of nuclear terrorism demand an effort that is at once bold and pragmatic,” Obama said at a news conference.

Betrayed by his own words President Obama once again displays his ignorance or suggests you are buffoon for believing him. The UK Foreign Secretary is no newcomer to bonehead quotes either and he proves it with the following ‘rubbish.’

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said Obama’s summit should be seen in a broader context that includes the recent signing of a U.S.-Russia arms-reduction treaty. “What they’ve done is break a culture of cynicism” about nuclear issues, Miliband said.

The Brit wit is wrong again too. In case he missed it President Obama offered Russia a meaningless ‘pact’ that was nothing more than a gesture to pander for support of sanctions on Iran’s nuke program that will accomplish no more than they have to date.

If you read the rest of the WaPo report a long list of senseless commentary from various sources including bomb summit attendees confirms the little get together was worthless. The only worthwhile commentary comes from Senator John Kyl. This blog is no fan of the Senator. But for this particular Senator it is true even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

“The summit’s purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communique that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a prominent critic of Obama’s nuclear policies.

But then, this epiphany from a member of the GOP is not breaking news. Anyone with half a brain can draw the obvious conclusion. Could it be those who are feeling buyer’s remorse in voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 US Presidential election have realized how serious their error was? Probably not and they would likely not admit it publicly anyhow. They bear more responsibility for any damage done by the community organizer than the rest of us. Especially if they continue to deny the danger.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trade deals have been reported as the ’stimulus’ behind the release of a man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am’s Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Jubilation was the reaction in Libya. Not so for those who mourn the tragedy and deaths of passengers, crew and residents on the ground. But believe it or not Scotland’s Justice Secretary claims it was all in the name of mercy for the convicted bomber.

Lockerbie Bomber Released From Prison

The man convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been granted release from prison on compassionate grounds. The former Libyan intelligence agent is dying of prostate cancer, but news of his release has sparked very mixed reactions.

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill carefully outlined the legal options and the process involved in coming to a final decision. He condemned the 1988 bombing as an heinous crime, and said he supported Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi’s conviction. He said, while it is important that justice be served, mercy must also be shown.

“For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmeit al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die,” said MacAskill.

The question from this blog added to all those being raised now is this. Does al-Megrahi really have prostate cancer? So you say we will know that in a matter of months. Do you suppose a fake funeral could be arranged in Libya? Since the government there popped for the luxurious accommodations where al-Magrahi’s family resides, according to reports in the news, how tough would it be for them to fake a funeral and provide a luxurious secret lifestyle for the released convict?

Links to reports about reaction in Libya, trade deal claims and pressure on Britain are provided below

Britain under pressure amid Lockerbie release

Release of Lockerbie terrorist linked to trade deal

Gaddafi embraces Lockerbie bomber

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Brits are getting a bit testy about US criticism of the NHS. But do they really believe their system is better?

National Health vs. USA

Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
PORTADOWN, Northern Ireland

For the past month, I have watched British media report and comment on the American health care uproar. American cable networks also are available here. The back-and-forth reporting and commentary resemble a replay of the War of 1812, this time with verbal salvos.

Conservative American politicians and commentators fire at the British National Health Service system, and the British fire back, sometimes on the same program, repeating the Democrats’ mantra of how 47 million Americans are “uninsured” and how medical treatment in the United States depends on how much patients, or their insurance companies, will pay. Here, they say, health care is “free,” thanks to taxpayers, a minority of whom (i.e. the successful) bear ever-greater amounts of the burden.

In the last line above it is funny but sad that someone would characterize a taxpayer funded program as ‘free’. Obviously if taxpayers are funding a program it is not free. Oh, wait a minute, those who don’t pay taxes would see it as free. The idea that if everyone pays into a program they have a stake in keeping costs down is certainly on point in any discussion of government expenditures. And the healthcare issue is no exception.

The British media are conflicted. They patriotically defend the NHS while simultaneously acknowledging its serious shortcomings. One example: A recent Daily Mail editorial praised the NHS for its free care and universal availability but then added, “Our survival rates for breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancers are among the worst in Europe, despite huge additional expenditure.” Free is nice, but best is better.

And yet those defending the NHS are quick to charge the US system is substandard. As the talk show hosts love to say, then how come so many come to the US for healthcare?

Anyone wishing to revise America’s medical system and model it after the systems in Britain and Canada ought to thoroughly examine how those health care systems function before plunging into the same pool. A reasonable conclusion is that these systems require long waits and treatments (if you can get them) that are inferior to what’s available in the United States, based on government “guidelines” that frequently approve care only if the patient is deemed “worthy of the investment.”

This again leaves us with the reasonable alternative to current proposals for so-called healthcare reform. If this is not in fact a liberal powerplay for more control over citizens then there is no reason to quickly pass legislation and enact laws to control healthcare. The current public debate is a good thing. Continuing with it until a consensus of citizens not leaders points the way to solutions is worthwhile.

Britain defends its health system from criticism in US

By Alice Ritchie (AFP) – Aug 14, 2009

LONDON — British leaders united Friday to defend the country’s state-funded National Health Service, as it comes under fire in an increasingly heated debate in the United States over healthcare reform.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition Conservative leader David Cameron both supported a campaign on the micro-blogging website Twitter in support of the NHS.

Set up in 1948, the tax-funded NHS has grown up to become the largest publicly funded health service in the world.

It is also one of the world’s biggest employers, along with the Chinese army and the Indian railways.

While Britons love to grumble about its flaws, most are fiercely defensive of free-to-access healthcare.

But for many critics in the United States, it represents a bureaucratic, costly nightmare under which patients have no real choice and receive a poor quality of care.

The article above points to some of the reasons Obamacare would be a disaster. A large bureaucracy that would continue to grow and cost more and more requiring less and less in services provided. In both reports (above and below this line) Brits are reported as staunchly defending the NHS. But then isn’t that just like the couple who continuously criticize each other and their marriage? If anyone else adds a critique the couple quickly defends their relationship.

Britons Outraged Over US Conservatives Criticism of British Health Care

By Sonja Pace
London
14 August 2009

Britons are outraged and speaking out in response to comments among Conservatives in the United States attacking Britain’s national health care system as socialist, evil and Orwellian.

Average Britons are usually quite vocal about what they see as the shortcomings of their national health care system, the NHS. But the vehement critique by some conservatives in the United States of the NHS has sparked an outpouring of support here in Britain.

It would be fair to say that those who have experienced no outcome due to lack of a need for healthcare or a good outcome would respond favorably to questions about healthcare. Those with the opposite outcome would be quick to criticize. And it is also fair to say those who favor Obamacare see it as a benefit for their own situation. Most likely meaning they make money on the deal or expect to continue having their healthcare for free. None of which is a good thing in the first place. At least not a good reason to pursue the current healthcare proposals.

Finding free market solutions to healthcare and individuals taking more responsibility for health outcomes is a much better choice than government run anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the 2008 US Presidential election campaign many noticed the personal history of candidate Barack Obama appeared cloaked in secrecy as little was uncovered about his earlier days growing up or attending college and the candidate was not offering any clarity on the topic. Surprisingly, the NY Times is offering an account of at least one aspect of student Obama’s thinking on nuclear arms. And Jennifer Rubin offers a report expanding on the concerns that President Obama may still hold these youthful idealistic notions. Unfortunately, Mr Obama may be operating without benefit of the practical realities that typically guide world leaders through the dangerous territory of foreign affairs.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.

With Iran, North Korea and surely others pursuing nuclear weapons arsenals and Russian leaders expressing concern over US missile defense proposals leading up to current arms negotiations the Obama mindset may be of concern to you. Especially if the new President has an obsession with youthful idealism.

Obama Has Gotten It Wrong for Twenty-Five Years

Jennifer Rubin - 07.05.2009 - 8:31 AM

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement.

The line below from the Rubin piece should feature prominently with any US position on arms negotiations.

And really, what excuse is there for Obama’s ludicrous worldview? Unlike student Obama, President Obama knows how the Cold War ended. And it wasn’t by disarming America.

The impotent ‘international community’ has done nothing to stop rogue states from pursuing an arms race in a time ideally suited for such a collective effort. That alone should raise suspicion about the intentions of those courting the US on disarmament. Other recent reports are offered below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia Still Opposes US Plan for Missile Shield in Eastern Europe

Russia Wants Deeper Cuts in Numbers of Nuclear Warheads

Next Round of US-Russian Arms Talks Set for June 23

Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms

Russia, US Begin Talks Over New Arms Control Pact

Russia, US Work on New Missile Pact

Are U.S.-Russian Relations Warming?

Clinton, Russian FM Agree to Improve US-Russian Relations

Resurgent Russia Poses Challenge for Obama Administration

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This month President Barack Obama caused the eyes of many to glaze over with his wandering message expressing an interest in a world free of nuclear weapons. Those who applauded the announcement were from one of three groups. Those who share membership in the not so exclusive nuclear club of planet Earth or wannabees who are delighted the new American President will try to disarm the US. Or uber liberals with reality issues who still believe surrender and appeasement will bring peace to the world. Or really nice folks who thought it impolite not to applaud the person on stage accepting blame for everything on behalf of the country he represents.

Yo Barry. Here’s a heads up for you. Most people accept the events in history that led to the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France being the original, and for a time only, members of the group known as the Nuclear Club. Well, except maybe for France, but that’s another story. They’re the same ones who support the US strategy in Afghanistan but won’t send troops or ones that can fight. Oh ya, and they’re the ones like some others in the EU who support the G20 idea of providing a trillion in stimulus but are fine with the US contributing more than their share. And apparently, Mr Obama, you agree.

In addition to the original members of the Nuclear Club are India and Pakistan. Just like Iran and North Korea now, no one had a clue how to prevent these two countries from joining. And there are about a dozen other countries included in discussions of who has the ability to go nuclear. (Israel’s ability is assumed but not declared ) So the number is at or approaching a couple of dozen. Are you following this so far, Mr President?

If you understand the previous few paragraphs then why the hell are you making these public statements about a nuclear free world? This is one time most Americans would hope you are offering another promise you will break. Otherwise one can only assume the pressure is getting to you and you’re losing it. If the problem was so simple to solve and all the people of the planet could get along as you and your followers believe, don’t you expect it would have been achieved by now? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the problem has not been corrected is that no one has the answer yet? It is fair to assume that what was once feared as the ultimate fate of a nuclear armed Earth still remains.

But a likely alternative expectation, given the UN’s typical failure to respond to the DPRK’s missile launch, is that with proper handling avoiding catastrophe can be achieved in much the same way as it was in the past. All parties will be attracted to their nuclear power of choice while the nuke powers will maintain a balance still based on mutual assured destruction if the worst would happen. At some point thereafter this game will be exhausted and other circumstances yet to arrive will cause nations of the world to abandon this stupidity. Not because we will then be wiser but some other equally scary threat will require extraordinary cooperation between all the people on this planet in order to survive. And no, Mr Gore, it’s not Global Scamming Warming. It’s those peaceful Muslims carrying suitcases. (hint, hint)

We may then have a taste of peace long enough to become addicted to its benefits. But it won’t happen due to some idealistic fantasy that we can all get along because that is the way ti is supposed to be. That may come within time but for now you are trying to put the cart before the horse at best or transforming the human race to an endangered species at worst. Starting with the United States for whom you took an oath. It may be time for you to read it again for the first time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There are two links at the bottom of this post if you need more scary liberal talk than comes out of the link just below from a liberal heaven. The mention of global governance, progressive thinkers and ‘alleviating the plight’ of ‘most affected’ should scare you right down to your conservative roots. There are 20, count ‘em, 20, libs talking world domination at the link below. The G20 meet so they come up with 20 Marxists to promote socialism for the planet.

Progressive policies for the G20, new ippr publication
01 April 2009

A coordinated global fiscal stimulus, measures to alleviate the plight of those most affected by the recession, an overhaul of the system of global governance and the establishment of public banks are just some of the solutions proposed for the G20 by a group of eminent international progressive thinkers.

The Institute for Public Policy Research is the UK’s leading progressive think tank, producing cutting edge research and innovative policy ideas for a just, democratic and sustainable world.

You might not have expected the Financial Times to offer a headline like the one below. Cannot determine if they are applauding a new world order or making a joke. You know, that rare brand of Brit humor.

The first bricks in a new world order
April 2 2009 19:31

Some useful progress, but still a way to go. That must be the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit in London. Gordon Brown, UK prime minister and chairman of the meeting, set out a six-point plan to save the world. This reflected some real achievements: a generous increase in funding for the International Monetary Fund, a new issuance of special drawing rights and a boost for trade finance. He sounded disappointingly thin on other key areas – notably cleaning up banks and future fiscal stimulus. More detail would have been reassuring.

Here are the links mentioned at the top of the post. Enter at your own risk. Watch out for the body snatchers.

http://g20.org/
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/

Again, for those who dismiss the threat of socialism as a wild conspiracy theory get someone to read this post and references for you and explain it to you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If the reports below are any indication of what can be expected from the G20 summit in London this week anyone skeptical of good news resulting will not be disappointed. It is likely the optimistic expectations suggested by President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain will not come to fruition.

Apparently those in charge of releasing a collective statement for leaders in attendance are having difficulty deciding what to say. After embarrassing leaks and reports of numerous revisions this may demonstrate the feeble performance yet to appear from the world’s, ah hem, leaders.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Times understands that the money will come in three separate packages.

The first are new lines of credt worth more than $100 billion to encourage countries to trade more.

The second is a possible tripling to $750 billion in the resources held by the International Monetary Fund to rescue struggling economies. The extra money will come from Japan, the EU, China and others.

The third is a one-off allocation of “special drawing rights” that enable countries to swap their own currencies for IMF backed resources.The effect is to give those countries more confidence to deplete their reserves and expand.

The report above is from the Times and the one below from the Telegraph (UK)

A version that surfaced in Germany last week appeared to show that leaders are still not agreeing on what to say about “fiscal stimulus” measures to boost economic activity by borrowing.

British officials have insisted that that the German leak was out of date and failed to reflect the intense negotiations carried out by “sherpas” and other officials ahead of the actual summit.

In fact, the text being circulated in London today commits leaders only to make “the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth” and contains no detail about the size and type of stimulus countries should undertake.

For a little entertainment you may wish to follow the link from the excerpt below.

The G20 protests

Wagging the dog

Apr 2nd 2009
From Economist.com
On the barricades and behind the cameras in London

OUR day of covering the protests starts with a failure: the Whitechapel Anarchist Group, whom we had emailed about interviewing, fail to answer their phone (too busy preparing to spread mayhem if other press reports are to be believed, though their blog huffily decries these accounts). At 7am, the City is quiet. Work traffic is light for a weekday, and my camera-wielding colleague and I are keen to get shots of the City prepared for protests, so set off looking for banks and offices that have shut for the day. HBOS and Halifax both sport locked doors, but security guards prevent us from filming. Frustrated, we head toward London Bridge where one of the marches is due to start.

Seriously: “Send in the Clowns” on Queenzbop playlist (Michelle Malkin)

Obama is pushing for a two state solution to conflict in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians. Syria may have expressed there is a possibility of peace with Israel but the condition still hinges on the Palestinian question so what has really changed? A report indicates the US will not talk to Hezbollah as Britain will. Iran backs Hezbollah (among others) and the report below indicates Hezbollah will never recognize Israel.

Israel, a tiny country surrounded by a vast geographic expanse of Arab countries. Some of the problems have been centered on access or ownership of areas of religious significance but that seems to be more of an excuse to continue fighting than an honest grievance. The ‘bad blood’ between the two sides has a long history and to the casual observer it would seem much of the problem stems from violence through recent history more than any long standing disagreements.

Arab countries have held ’summits’ to address their own problems with each other. Could it be some would like to take advantage of a new leader from Israel’s most staunch ally, the US, and come to some sort of equitable solution? Even if that were true how do you keep all the parties in line that feel they have some sort of stake in this?

It really is not a simple problem to solve. But it seems the strategies offered or attempted over many years are merely repeats of failed attempts from the past. What is needed? Those directly involved, Israelis and Arabs, must find a way to put aside the anger and hate to do the right thing. Anything short of that will not work since a solution requires all involved to stop the madness. That is why this blog’s author is not optimistic this problem will be solved in our lifetime.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group said Friday his movement will never recognize Israel.

In a speech marking the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed, Hassan Nasrallah said he rejected American conditions for dialogue, including recognition of the state of Israel.

The United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization and has called on the Shi’ite group to renounce violence.

During his speech, Nasrallah also welcomed Arab reconciliation efforts and called on Arab nations to show support for Iran, which backs Hezbollah.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt held talks with Syria in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, this week, in a bid to mend rifts.