Trinker

Jan. 8th, 2010 | 10:03 am

Tim Geithner’s Federal Reserve Bank of New York urged AIG to remain silent on $105bn of payments made to banks in the financial crisis
The New York Fed, under Mr Geithner’s leadership until he was appointed US Treasury Secretary in January 2009, instructed the troubled insurer to withhold details of the payments from the American public, which bailed out AIG by as much as $182bn at its financial nadir.

According to a series of emails obtained and made public by Congressman Darrell Issa, AIG had planned to inform investors in a regulatory filing published on December 24, 2008, that it had paid counter-party banks owed money at a rate of 100 cents on the dollar. The banks were owed the money for credit-default swaps they had entered into, mainly on behalf of clients.

SOURCE:CNSNEWS
Related Articles
US unemployment benefit claims fall to 15-month low
Tim Geithner vows to get US economy back on track
Just how did Goldman Sachs manage that?
Hank Paulson begs banks to rescue Lehman Brothers
Barclays mulls bid for Lehman Brothers as Hank Paulson begs banks to deliver a rescue
Global market rally ends as lack of bailout details unsettle US investors
However, according to the emails, an official from the NY Fed crossed out the reference ahead of publication, and there was no mention of the payments, which came to light five months later, in the filing.

“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information,” said Congressman Issa.

Publication of the potentially embarrassing emails comes two months after it emerged that it was the New York Fed that was behind a decision to pay the banks in full, rather than at a discounted rate.

“Our position has always been that if AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” said a spokesman for the New York Fed.

BUT I WILL NOT HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL OBAMA FIRES HIM!

Friday, December 11, 2009

First let me say that I have voted in Presidential elections for 59 years. So you could call me an old, senile fa*t, or someone who has witnessed a lot and drawn conclusions that are worth listening to.

If you are of a mind to believe the former description of my state of mind –stop reading now!

I have voted Republican in every Presidential election but one. I was proud to cast my vote for Senator John Kennedy, whom I thought had served our country well in the Navy and in the U.S. Senate. Maybe I was a little biased, because I too was a Navy veteran. But never the less, I believed he was a better choice because of his fiscal policy and I pulled the lever for him!

I voted for George W. Bush also, but during the last two years of his second term I looked at him as though he was possessed by the “evil one” who promotes the destruction of truth. It was as if he had been replaced by his “evil” identical twin, and he had secretly retreated to his ranch in Texas! His acceptance of Congressional spending was out of character for the man I voted for twice, and the result was putting our country in fiscal irresponsibility.

I know some will say the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the impending banking and mortgage crisis were the cause of his signing into law Bills that spent more money than our GDP produced.
What ever the reason, he was responsible for as the Deamoncrats say,”taking the surplus inherited from Clinton to a deficit. I acknowledge that!!

But now to the thrust of my blog. I believe the 10 months of President Obama’s first term, and I hope only term, has illustrated to me that we have the most progressive, Marxist leaning occupant of the Oval Office in the history of this great country.

His economic policy if fully enacted will certainly destroy the dollar, and the free-market economy that we had until he took office. The health Care Bill, Cap and Trade, multiple stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, bail-outs and unending increase of taxation is a prescription written by someone who deliberately has set out to destroy our Free market economy and replace it with a massive Federal government that controls its citizens from cradle to grave.
Either Obama is an eloquent puppet whose strings are being pulled by the likes of George Soros, and Andy Stern, or he is a slick Harvard and Columbia educated lawyer who hates capitalism and is determined to destroy it and substitute his brand of Marxist Socialism.

Unprecedented deficit spending for unsustainable entitlements, and accumulation of national debt, now at more than $12 trillion, poses an enormous threat to our economic future. Obama’s proposals will add $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years.

There are only three ways to cut that debt: Raise taxes, inflate the dollar or cut government spending.
The first two will destroy any semblance of economic recovery. Only the latter will strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs.

In order to avert the deep depression that we are headed for. Obama should instruct the Democrat controlled Congress to hold the line on discretionary spending and enact spending caps enforced by a balanced budget amendment. This was first proposed by President Reagan, but blocked by Democrats every time it comes up since his administration.

I believe Obama and his ilk are all devoted socialists, and they believe government is the solution, not the problem.
But when has government actually made money? Government runs on the backs of the workers that pay taxes,fees and when in doubt by printing worthless money 24 hours a day!

He and his leftist cronies believe,or at least say they believe, that we must “spend our way out of this recession.”!! When has spending ever reversed a deficit economy? Try this in your own business or your household and you will end up in bankruptcy court!

Investor’s Business Daily analyzed cabinet posts of administrations over the last century and determined that prior to Obama, Kennedy and Carter had the lowest number of appointees from the private sector, about 30 percent in each administration.
Only 8 percent of Obama’s key appointees are from the private sector, precious few of them have actually created or understand how to create real jobs.And his Czar cadre is filled with socialists who have little if any experience in running a business.
Unprecedented deficit spending for unsustainable entitlements, and accumulation of national debt, now at more than $12 trillion, poses an enormous threat to our economic future. Obama’s proposals will add $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years.

There are only three ways to cut that debt: Raise taxes, inflate the dollar or cut government spending.

The first two will destroy any semblance of economic recovery. Only the latter will strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs.Government is an extremely inefficient consumer of wealth, with up to 70 percent of income-transfer program (a.k.a., welfare program) budgets going to bureaucratic overhead

Source: Patriot Post and Mark Alexander

Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Guardian newspaper printed and published on the internet an article written by billionaire George Soros that details his idea of how to pay for the redistribution of the wealth of so-called Developed Countries to Developing countries in Africa and the various islands that are included in the organisation called the Group of 77.

The following post includes quotes directly taken from the published article written by Soros and my comments on the absurdity of this Marxist , elitist ideas.

“It is now generally agreed that the developed countries will have to make a substantial financial contribution to enable the developing world to deal with climate change.(No it is not. Perhaps among the jet setting elites who don’t give a damn what the voters think but among real people who have to pay real bills every month this is not generally agreed at all. And any politician that actually did,t can look forward to a being replaced when the facts come out!)

Funds are needed to invest in new low-carbon energy sources, reforestation and protection of rainforests, land-use changes, and adaptation and mitigation. But there is no similar agreement on where the money will come from.
The developed countries are reluctant to make additional financial commitments. They have just experienced a significant jump in their national debts, and they still need to stimulate their domestic economies. This colours their attitudes. It looks like they will be able to cobble together a “fast-start” fund of $10bn a year for the next few years, but more does not fit into their national budgets. This is unlikely to satisfy the developing countries.
I believe that this amount could be at least doubled and assured for a longer time span. Developed countries’ governments are labouring under the misapprehension that funding must come from their national budgets. But that is not the case. They have the money already. It is lying idle in their reserve accounts at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Spending it would not add to any country’s fiscal deficit. All they need to do is to tap into it.
In September 2009, the IMF distributed to its members $283bn worth of special drawing rights (SDRs), arcane financial instruments that essentially constitute additional foreign exchange. They can be used only by converting them into one of four currencies, at which point they begin to carry interest at those currencies’ combined treasury bill rate. At present, the interest rate is less than 0.5%.

Of the $283bn worth of recently distributed SDRs, more than $150bn went to the 15 largest developed economies. These SDRs will sit largely untouched in the reserve accounts of these countries, which don’t really need any additional reserves.
I propose that the developed countries – in addition to establishing a fast-start fund of $10bn a year – band together and lend $100bn worth of these SDRs for 25 years to a special green fund serving the developing world. The fund would jump-start forestry, land use, and agricultural projects – areas that offer the greatest scope for reducing or mitigating carbon emissions, and that could produce substantial returns from carbon markets.
The returns such projects could generate go beyond addressing carbon emissions. Returns from land-use projects, for example, could also include the potential to create more sustainable rural livelihoods, enable higher and more resilient agricultural yields, and generate rural employment.

This is a simple and practical idea, and there is a precedent for it. The UK and France each recently lent $2bn worth of SDRs to a special fund at the IMF to support concessionary lending to the poorest countries. At that point, the IMF assumed responsibility for the principal and interest on the SDRs. The same could be done in this case.
I further propose that member countries agree to use the IMF’s gold reserves to guarantee the interest payments and repayment of the principal. The IMF owns a lot of gold – more than 100m ounces – and it is on the books at historical cost. Thus, at current market prices, it is worth more than $100bn over its book value. It has already been designated to be used for the benefit of the least developed countries. The proposed green fund would meet this requirement.
This means that the developed countries that lend the SDRs would incur no interest expense and no responsibility for repayment. There are some serious technical problems involved in offsetting the interest income against the interest expense, particularly in the United States, but the net effect would be a wash. These technical difficulties stood in the way of previous attempts to put the SDRs to practical use, but they do not apply to the proposed green fund.
There are three powerful arguments in favour of this proposal. First, the green fund could be self-financing or even profitable; very little of the IMF’s gold, if any, would actually be used.
Second, the projects will earn a return only if developed countries co-operate in setting up the right type of carbon markets. Establishing a green fund would be an implicit pledge to do so by putting the gold reserves of the IMF at risk.
Finally, this money would be available now, jump-starting carbon-saving projects.

For all these reasons, the developing countries ought to embrace my proposal. The key point is that it is possible to increase substantially the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world by using the existing allocations of SDRs, with interest payments on them guaranteed by the IMF’s gold reserves.
All that is lacking is the political will. The mere fact that tapping SDRs requires congressional approval in the US ensures that nothing will happen without public pressure – including pressure from the developing countries. Yet it could make the difference between success and failure in Copenhagen”.

It is good to know that one of the main supporters and financial backers of our President is in lock step with Obama’s international thinking, as if there was any doubt about why he is making a massive effort to destroy our free enterprise system by spending and taxation that will if not checked WILL lead to insolvency of this Country. Then we will have to turn to international ,aka UN, control of our government and it’s people!
THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
The massive lending the Developed World made to the Third World in the 1970s and 1980s could have been self-financing too. Even profitable. It was in South Korea for instance. It was not in Congo or the rest of Africa, it was not in Peru or Argentina. I wonder why that is? Now having lent them hundreds of billions and watched their Governments waste it all, you want us to give them more so they can p**s it away against the same wall? Really. How fascinating.

Second, the projects will earn a return only if developed countries cooperate in setting up the right type of carbon markets. Establishing a green fund would be an implicit pledge to do so by putting the gold reserves of the IMF at risk.Why in God’s Green Earth should Americans do this if you and your “ecobozos” consider China and India developing Countries when they produce more good and services presently than we do here in the USA, and pollute the air while doing it with your” blessing”!

Earlier Soros wrote:
“I further propose that member countries agree to use the IMF’s gold reserves to guarantee the interest payments and repayment of the principal”.
So let me get this right – we have a large number of countries in the world who have been indifferently blessed with mostly kleptocracy Governments to whom we lent hundreds of billions in the 1970s and 1980s. That money all magically disappeared and virtually none it was paid back – and it had no particularly beneficial or even obvious effect on the borrowers. So now you want to lend them a few hundred billion more – but this time, and this is the bit I really hate!
We guarantee their interest repayments? So if their Governments steal all our money again, as they almost certainly will, we will get the joys of paying ourselves back with our own gold? Oh joy! What a Christmas present for the USA!

But there’s more, the repayment from the Third World would, in theory, rely on us further destroying our economy, imposing massive costs on everyone and spending billions more we don’t have to buy permits from people who don’t need them – all for a so far, unproven and non-existent problem? It just doesn’t get any better than that as a policy proposal. I suggest your buddy Obama go to the electorate with this. You think Tea Partys were loud and radical, try putting this over on the already mad electorate!

Finally, this money would be available now, jump-starting carbon-saving projects.You Mr. Soros and Al Gore stand to make billions on his Ponzi scheme!
So they wouldn’t have to wait? Just when I thought it couldn’t get any better. Why bother with due diligence?

For all these reasons, the developing countries ought to embrace Soros proposal.?
Offer me a few hundred billion now and more later for which I have to do nothing, pay back nothing and generally steal as much as I liked and I would embrace it too. Embrace it? Hell, I’d make cart wheels all down Pennsylvania Avenue!

WAKE UP AMERICANS THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!!

Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and
to his credit, started trying to get us out. Though, mostly he gave money to Wall Street bankers.

In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he and the country ran out of money.So then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous spending on the war effort of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. The spending was for jobs that lasted four years building airplanes, tanks and guns. This change the economy from depression into overdrive.It was not the WPA or a myriad of other make work programs that Roosevelt fostered. It was the building of a sustainable industrial base that employed millions of people for decades.

Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn’t know it). But then he began to cut taxes and let the companies and the people keep more of their hard-earned money and the economy boomed!

We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you itf you have a false hope that Obama can fix it because he is spending money with the help of an elitist Congress that is only too anxious to “bring home the bacon for his constituents.You are sadly wrong!!

The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can’t blame business for this. It’s just a vicious cycle that the economy gets into. And you can’t blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, is for the government not to spend, continue to pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people that only last for one year.
It is to cut taxes and extend the tax brakes the president Bush signed into law that will expire if not extended before they expire in 2010.
Obama should stop saving the Wall Street bankers, and just let those who perform poorly fail. There is only one thing that is too big to fail, and it is the USA!!

One of the charts above is showing government debt as a percentage of GDP by Curious Cat Investing Economics Blog, Creative Commons Attribution, data from OECD, March 2009.

The USA federal government debt is far too large, in my opinion. We have been raising taxes on future taxpayers for several decades, to finance our current spending. Within reason deficit spending is fine. What that reasonable level is however, is not easy to know. One big problem with the past few decades is that during very prosperous economic times we spent money that we didn’t have,and despite the warnings from economists who are not in the hip pocket of Obama, Congress continues to spend!!

This will only transfer to our children and grand children trillions of dollars of debt that will have to be paid or this country will become a “banana republic” very soon!

By not even paying for what we are spending when times were prosperous we put ourselves in a bad situation when we have poor economic conditions – like today. Even if we did not pay down debt, just by not increasing the outstanding debt while the economy grew the ratio of debt to GDP would decline. Then when times were bad, we could afford to run deficits and perhaps bring the debt level up to some reasonable level (maybe 40% of GDP – though it is hard to know what the target should be, 27% seems within the realm of reason to all but Obama sycophants. But today we have the debt to GDP ratio at 98% when you count in the unfunded guarentees that are included in entitlements!

There is at least one more point to remember, the figures in the chart are based on reported debt. The USA has huge liabilities that are not accounted for. So you must remember that the actually debt is much higher than reported in the official debt calculation.I mentioned them in the previous paragraph.

Now on to the good news. As bad as the USA has been at spending tomorrows increases in taxes today, compared to the OECD countries we are actually better than average. The OECD is made up of countries in Europe, the USA, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The chart shows the percentage of GDP that government debt represents for various countries. The USA ended 2006 at 62% while the overall OECD total is 77%.Most probably because of the financial debacle in Greece. A subject I will discuss later in this post.

In 1990 the USA was at 63% and the OECD was at 57%. Japan is the line way at the top with a 2006 total of 180% (that is a big problem for them). Korea is in the best shape at just a 28% total in 2006 but that is an increase from just 8% in 1990.And rember just 50 years ago they were involved in a War with North Korea and China that many of our brave men and women died to keep them from become Communist!

Iin Europe, Greece has already accumulated a mountain of debt that will be difficult if not impossible to pay off. The government has borrowed more than 110 percent of the country’s economic output over the years, and if investors lose confidence in the bonds, a meltdown could happen as early as next year.

Although this is a country far away we should learn from their experience that spending money you do not have and “fudging” the debt numbers can result in a similar outcome here at home!

When the government borrowers in Athens will be required to refinance €25 billion worth of debt — that is, repay what they owe using funds borrowed from the financial markets. But if no buyers can be found for its securities, Greece will have no choice but to declare insolvency — just as Mexico, Ecuador, Russia and Argentina have done in past decades.Will the USA be far behind?

This puts Brussels the seat of the European government and monetary system, in a predicament. European Union rules preclude the 27-member block from lending money to member states to plug holes in their budgets or bridge deficits.If only we had a law against bailing out States like California and New York!

And even if there were a way for the EU to circumvent this prohibition, the consequences could be disastrous. The lack of concern over budget discipline in countries like Spain, Italy and Ireland would spread like wildfire across the entire continent. The message would be clear: Why save, if others will eventually foot the bill? It says a lot about the future we are preparing, or I should say Congress and the Obama administration is preparing for our future generations with the tax and SPENDING running unchecked!

Central bankers in the euro zone are already speculating, behind closed doors, what would happen if the Greeks started printing euros without ECB approval. There is no answer to the question, and that makes central bankers from Lisbon to Dublin even more nervous than they are already.

The Greeks managed to increase their official gross national product by a hefty 25 percent, partly because they included the black market and prostitution in economic output. This brought down the deficit rate — on paper, at any rate — to 2.9 percent.

Three weeks ago, the government in Athens received a rebuke from Brussels, followed by another one last week. So far, however, the Greek government has shown little inclination to take any significant steps. It does intend to reduce the deficit, but only to 9.1 percent next year. This is far too little for many European foreign ministers. As the new Greek finance minister, Giorgos Papakonstantinou, recently announced, the country will need at least four years to get its deficit under control “without jeopardizing the economic recovery.” If only we here in the USA could predict that we could get the deficit under control in four years!

With the debt approaching 13 trillion over the next ten years there is a good possibility that we will become insolvent and our money will be worthless if the brave few that oppose BIG government can succeed in stopping the Health Care Bill and Cap and Trade bills, but I am afraid it is a fait complete!

But by then the government deficit will have reached about €400 billion, or about 150 percent of GDP. Servicing that amount of debt, even at current interest rates of about 5 percent, will make up at least one-third of government spending.

A London investment banker is betting on the continued decline of prices for Greek bonds in the short-term, while simultaneously waiting for the right time to start buying the securities again. He jokes: “If someone has €1,000 in debt, he has a problem. If someone has €10 million in debt, his bank has a problem. And the bank, in this case, is Europe.”Source: Telegraph uk.com

WILL THIS BE OUR FUTURE?

NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, Va. — Two Navy SEALs accused in the mistreatment of an Iraqi suspect in the 2004 slayings of four U.S. contractors were arraigned in military court Monday, and one SEAL said he was gratified by support from the public and some members of Congress.

The judge scheduled courts-martial next month for Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe of Perrysburg, Ohio, and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas of Blue Island, Ill. A third SEAL will be arraigned later.

The SEALs have received an outpouring of public support on the Internet, and a California congressman has led a campaign urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to intervene. About three dozen protesters, including the mother of one of the slain contractors, stood outside the Norfolk Naval Station gate Monday morning holding signs of support.

McCabe is accused of striking the detainee in the midsection, dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard the detainee, and lying to investigators. He deferred entering a plea until his Jan. 19 trial.

McCabe told reporters he was confident he would be exonerated.
“I feel very good about it,” he said as he made his way through the crowd of supporters, shaking hands and thanking them. “The support is phenomenal. It makes us feel better, all these people being behind us.”

While this travesty was being perpetrated in North Carolina at Camp LeJunne
The nation’s highest-ranking military officer told soldiers and Marines Monday that the insurgency in Afghanistan has grown in the last three years and he expects casualties to rise next year as additional U.S. troops pour into the war.

“This is the most dangerous time I’ve seen growing up the last four decades in uniform,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told about 1,000 Marines at Camp Lejeune.(and I believe it is the most dangerous time that our brave men and women have gone into battle because they have been ordered, as they were told by Mulle yesterday, that if we kill a dozen terrorist Taliban but also kill one or two civilians during the fir fight . It is not a victory! We have to protect the civilians!
My question is this. Admiral, how do we determine that people who mostly wear robes that can contain underneath an AK-47, that those among the ones shooting at our men and women, are not potential killers?

Many attending Mullen’s talks at Camp Lejeune and Fort Campbell, Ky., will be sent to Afghanistan after this Christmas in President Barack Obama’s plan announced last week.

After the first of the year, the Marines will begin sending an additional 6,200 from Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, Calif., the Pentagon announced Monday. The Army will also begin sending in the first of its forces in the spring — a training brigade with about 3,400 soldiers from Fort Drum, N.Y. Three brigades from Fort Campbell’s 101st Airborne Division are also heading to Afghanistan and about 4,100 support forces from various places will deploy early.

“We are not winning, which means we are losing and as we are losing, the message traffic out there to (insurgency) recruits keeps getting better and better and more keep coming,” Mullen said. “That’s why we need the 30,000 and in particular, and you are the lead on this, getting in there this year, over the next 12 months, almost in lightning bolt fashion.”

Mullen told 700 soldiers at Fort Campbell that military leaders believe they have 18 to 24 months to reverse the insurgency, in what he expects to be a tough and bloody fight.

“I am sure we will sustain an increase in the level of casualties, and I don’t want to be in any way unclear about that,” he told troops at Fort Campbell. “This is what happened in Iraq during the surge and as tragic as it is, to turn this thing around, it will be a part of this surge, as well.”
“I expect a tough fight in 2010,” Mullen said. ( what he did not say to the Marines, was that they only have 18 months to accomplish the mission. Then the President has promised he will withdraw!!
Many questions from soldiers and Marines focused on the role of Pakistan and America’s NATO allies in containing al-Qaeda and the Taliban and on the July 2011 withdraw date.

Mullen said the 2011 date is not an end or withdrawal date.Not exactly what Obama said when he gave his speech to the cadets at West Point!it
“In the long run, it is not going to be about killing Taliban,” Mullen told the Marines at Camp Lejeune. “In the long run, it’s going to be because the Afghan people want them out.”( never in my life have I heard a senior officer say war was not about killing the enemy! McArthur and Eisenhower have been be making back flips in their graves!
Just why this aristocratic admiral is the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces is evidentially because he believes as Obama does that we can win over our enemies by being nice to the civilians. Forget about the axiom “kill or be killed”. As Winston Churchill said in 1944: “No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.”

Mullen also said, “in the long run, we are anxious to get at al-Qaeda and the leadership that resides in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Strategically the way you do this in my view is to bring pressure from both sides.”So he expects the Pakistani military to help the Marines, but all the reports(and there are few) about the location of Osama bin Laden are that he is hiding in Pakistan with full knowledge of the Pakistan government who either cannot locate or will not capture him. I would not expect too much co-operation from them!

The thrust of this post is that it appears to me that we are sending brave men and women, all volunteers, into HARMS way with orders to give Miranda rights to any one they capture and to not shoot until they are shot at. NO WAY TO WIN A WAR!
Source:Beitbart.com

, December 07, 2009

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!…Winston Churchill

Before and after US President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday, NATO allies — and Germany, in particular — were expecting to get the call to commit more troops to the fight in Afghanistan. But instead the US government says it will not pressure Germany to send more combat troops, and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the German business daily Handelsblatt on Thursday that the US wanted “political commitments, rather than numbers” from its NATO allies. (Since when do politicians defeat the enemy)
Holbrooke added: “Britain has already announced an additional 500 troops; other countries are preparing their own contributions. What’s crucial is that there is cooperation within NATO.” Source:Der Spiegel

There are currently roughly 4,300 German soldiers in Afghanistan, and Berlin says it won’t consider increasing that figure until after an international conference in January. Holbrooke, in turn, has insisted that the US is not disappointed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

In contrast to that report in the German paper, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that alliance members would send at least 5,000 troops to back the newly announced US increase of approximately 30,000 soldiers. Washington has asked Germany to provide 2,000 more troops, France and Italy 1,500 each, and Britain 1,000, according to French officials.It woul appear the right hand does not know what the left is doing! A bad thing in war!

On Thursday, Italian Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa confirmed that Rome would send around 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, raising its presence to roughly 3,700. La Russa told the Corriere della Sera newspaper that the previously reported figure of 1,500 extra soldiers was “a maximum quota which we would never reach.”

NATO officials say several other nations have announced plans to send more troops, including Georgia (900), Poland (600) and Slovakia (250). Portugal is keeping the pledge it made earlier this year to send 150 troops from its “rapid deployment” force to join 100 military trainers already in Afghanistan, according to Defense Minister Augusto Santos Silva.

Similarly, following the Obama speech, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin was prepared to increase the number of police trainers it sends to Afghanistan, and France has also stressed its commitment to building up local police forces. Turkey also says it is looking at whether it should boost its training role in Afghanistan. However, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul has made it clear that Turkish soldiers will not be part of any combat operations.
It appears to me that we will continue to fight the Taliban by ourselves! Since the European governments appear to be more interested in Nation building than in fighting the Taliban!

Obama’s talk of a timeline for withdrawal was a misjudgment in my opinion. From USA’s experience in Bosnia, I remember how the Dayton Agreement that supposedly ended the Bosnian war committed Nato to just a one-year mandate. The people were not impressed. As many of Bosnians asked in December 1995: “Why should we support you, if in 12 months’ time you will have gone?” So we must not fall into the same trap this time in Afghanistan.
And, unfortunately, we still have troops in Bosnia to this day!

For our Armed Forces, the immediate task is to complete our mission in Afghanistan. o kill the Taliban and al Qaeda! Just in the last few days, the International community has sort of renewed its determination to succeed . And succeed we must, because defeat is not an option for the USA! Any other outcome would give a huge boost to al Qaeda and the radical Muslims who seek to change our values and our way of life, through terrorist tactics..

Talk now of a withdrawal or troop reductions in Afghanistan is premature. We must show first that we are succeeding. In particular, the World media must believe we are succeeding, and report comprehensive progress as it develops. Maybe our Mass Media will be different than they were in the Vietnam era, but I will not hold my breath until they do!
The current fixation on casualties runs the risk – if over-reported – of eroding our national will to continue. This would be a tragedy. Wars kill people on both sides. If we are not committed to killing the enemy we should bring the troops home now!

Patience is difficult for a liberal (left leaning) Democracy, but impatience, with an eye on the domestic ballot box, is what the enemy always counts on. We must not fall into that trap. For the people of Afghanistan, and the people of this country, the stakes are too high.

Obama and the NATO people say we need to win the hearts and minds of the people. But perhaps more critically, we also need to win the hearts and minds of the people of this country, too. The biggest threat to our success in Afghanistan is not the Taliban, but a loss of will by the people at home to see this vital task through. We must maintain the will to win, and break the will of the Taliban to continue.
Talk of withdrawal only emboldens the enemy!!

——————————————————————————–

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

DOES OBAMA PLAN ON AFGHANISTAN BEING OUR NEXT VIET NAM?
A DEAL WITH EVIL WILL LEAD TO CATASTROPHE
THE NAIVETE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, OR IS HE?
Trouble in Afghanistan: Wither NATO?

Thursday, December 03, 2009
What if on December 8th, 1941, President Roosevelt said to Congress instead of the following words, the speech that Obama gave at West Point?

Roosevelt said: “ Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God!”.

Now compare these words that President Obama said to the Nation on television and to the West Point cadets who will be graduating in the spring and sent to fight the war in Afghanistan.

“As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We’ve failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars”.

FDR spoke in the middle of the Great Depression, but he unlike Obama was not mixing the will to defeat an enemy that attacked the USA and killed thousands of Americans with his ability to Socialize the USA economy. His message(Roosevelt) was we need to defeat this enemy at all costs!

Only a man with no military experience and a mind-set that was formed while being a Community Organizer would equate paying for the fight to defeat an enemy who attacked us with the economy that he hopes to socialize!
Not only does this send a defeatist message to the enemy , but it a demoralizing effect on the troops in the field of battle.

What Obama said can only be interpreted as we have to spend only what we can afford to support the war, but we can run the printing presses in the basement of the Treasury Department 24 hours a day to pay for pork and social/welfare programs!

If FDR had put this type of language in his message to Congress the Day after Pearl Harbor. The whole of Europe and England would be speaking german and we would probably have been subject to the rule of the Japanese Emperor!

Tags:

For the first time,(and the first time in our countries history) the president set a timeline on America’s military involvement in the country it invaded in October 2001. He told the World including the Taliban that he will support the war effort until 2011 and then withdraw. There was no reference to our winning and eliminating the Taliban.That is after all the reason we went into Afghanistan to defeat and elimate those who attacked NewYork and Washington in 2001, not to build schools and roads!

The White House hopes that the addition of 30,000 US troops, which will begin almost immediately, ( If you consider sometime in the summer of this year immediately! I calculate a  7-8 months delay until the Marines go to Afghanistan  sometime next summer, when our heroic volunteer force is fighting and dying and need help now!)combined with the pressure of the new deadline, will spur the government of Hamid Karzai into action.
(What action he expects from the Karzai government, he did not elaborate on. It leaves a lot of wiggle room for him to reverse his decision on witdrawl, and bring troops home sooner if he gets too much pressure from his anti-war supporters)

He did not even tell the leaders of Countries that he spoke to before his speech at West Point what the details of his plan were.
News agencies  report that Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan — minus many specifics — for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

During the speech, which to me sounded like a political speech more than a war declaration of support for our troops. He never once mentioned the words Islamist extremist,or Jihadist. In fact he even said that he wanted to be friends with the Taliban after we withdraw in 18months! This President  in my opinion is the first Commander in Chief giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Obama said that “these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011″.
He continued: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul”.

“But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”
(If this is not a clear message to the Taliban to hide low until 2011 when they can take over the country as they did when the Russians withdrew!)

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Saturday, November 28, 2009

If the American public had any doubt where the loyalties of the Obama administration were before yesterday. There is no doubt about it today.

As you will recall when we had the controversy over the government take over of General Motors less than a year ago. During the GM process the issue of bankruptcy for Chrysler was not allowed, by Obama’s Car Czar, to go through the normal bankruptcy process, but a “special” government bankruptcy was pushed through by the Car Czar that was in direct violation of the Constitution!

This travesty ignored the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees that the bond holders are prime recipients for any payment that results from reorganization. But in the Chrysler manipulation, the CAR CZAR appointed by, and beholden to only Obama, decided that the bond holders came last and the workers of the auto union came first. A direct violation of the Constitution! In fact Obama called the Bond holders unpatriotic because they were not willing to accept 20 cents on a dollar for their bonds and had threatened to sue to get what they thought they were due !

Now the issue of contracts between the government and ACORN has been addressed by the Attorney Generals office.The issue is, should the government pay monies owed ACORN for services that were contracted(arranged) before the President signed a Bill forbidding the payment of taxpayers money to this corrupt organization.

Remember that when they were contracted to register voters they not only registered dead people, they registered Mickey Mouse!!

In a direct contrast to the Chrysler bond holders deal, the Attorney General’s office ruled that ACORN must be paid because the contracts were in force before Obama signed the Bill forbidding payments to ACORN

The following is an excerpt from an article on the internet written by Charlie Savage.

“Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote”.

The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

Of course he would and so should all the recipients for the government (tax payer funded) bail outs including the Wall Street bankers, Brokerage houses(AIG,etc.) and other Obama supporters who helped elect Obama, and now are being paid back!

The decision by the acting assistant Attorney General reminds me of the testimoney of Bill Clinton when he was questioned whether he had sex with “ML”. He said it all depends on the meaning of the word is, is? Of course I am paraphrasing his words, but the result is the same. The parsing of words using Semantics to confuse the issue.

Here is what the AAG said: “Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts”.

I believe the reason why Obama and Democrats are pushing so hard for Health Care reform to be rushed through Congress is to reward large Unions and AARP and other ilk who will gain from Socializing 1/6th of our GNP. Not to cut the cost of health care or provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it!

Wake up Americans !! How long will this corrupt adminstration go without Americans marching in the millions on the Capitol screaming enough already!!

Posted by BILL at Saturday, November 28, 2009