Cartoon by Michael Ramirez at International Business Daily:
I suspect that it will be the same for "Abenomics", except the reason (aka excuse) is not going to be the weather but the "pacifist Constitution" that restricts the prime minister from freely selling arms and sending the Self Defense Force to places where the US troops are (i.e. practically everywhere on the planet Earth).
Japan's tabloid daily Nikkan Gendai has an article with leaked information from Prime Minister Abe's ministers who anonymously shared their (and supposedly Prime Minister Abe's) disappointment over US President Obama, who was in Japan on a state visit.
While the US reporters accompanying the president on his Asian excursion asked tough questions like "Did you like green tea ice cream?" Nikkan Gendai's reporter wrote up an article condemning the Abe administration of complaining about Mr. Obama.
If what Nikkan Gendai reported is true, President Obama, instead of trying to foster personal ties with the Japanese prime minister on the occasion (private Sushi dinner at a sushi bar in Ginza, Tokyo where the minimum charge is $300 per person), dutifully represented the US multinational corporations who demand TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, or NAFTA on steroid, as if he were a working-level negotiator.
From Nikkan Gendai (4/26/2014; part):
...安倍首相は２５日夜、麻生財務相や菅官房長官らと東京・銀座の高級ステーキ店で会食。「（オバマとは）仕事の話ばかりだった」と愚痴をこぼした。２３日夜のすし外交の席ではこう切り出されたという。
Prime Minister Abe was joined by Finance Minister Aso and Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga on April 25 evening for a dinner at an exclusive steak restaurant in Ginza, Tokyo. Mr. Abe complained that "it was all business (with Obama)." According to Mr. Abe [as leaked by a participant to Nikkan Gendai reporter], Mr. Obama said to Mr. Abe on the sushi diplomacy on April 23 evening:
「安倍内閣の支持率は６０％台、私は４０％台だ。シンゾーは政治的に安定しているから、ＴＰＰ交渉で譲歩してくれ」
"The approval rating of the Abe administration is in 60s, mine is in 40s. Shinzo [Mr. Abe's first name] is more stable politically, so please make concessions in the TPP negotiation."
安倍は「日本では僕よりケネディ大使の方が人気がある」とジョークでかわしたが、オバマは豚肉・牛肉などの関税率をスラスラとそらんじて、譲歩を迫り続けた。
Mr. Abe tried to deflect with a joke, saying "In Japan, Ambassador Kennedy is more popular than me." However, Mr. Obama kept pressing for concessions, citing the tariff rates for pork and beef.
「首相は『ＴＰＰのビジネスディナーだった。大統領って、冗談を言わないんだよ』と軽口を叩くと、出席者一同、『あの人はビジネスライク』『波長を合わせるのは難しい』などと言いたい放題だったようです。会食後に出席者のひとりがその様子を待機していた報道陣に漏らすものだから、瞬く間に首相の発言が広まった。米側の機嫌を損ねなければいいのですが……」（外務省関係者）
"Prime Minister jokingly said, "It was a business dinner on TPP. President Obama didn't crack a joke." The dinner participants chimed in, saying "He is business-like," and "It is difficult to be on the same wavelength with him." One of the participants leaked the words to the press waiting [outside the restaurant], who quickly spread the Prime Minister's remarks. I hope those words won't offend the United States..." (according to a source in Foreign Ministry)
The sushi dinner was reportedly $300 a person (minimum), which is not particularly expensive at all in an exclusive restaurant in Ginza. Mr. Abe and his ministers dined on $500 steaks, says Nikkan Gendai.
President Obama was in South Korea on Friday, telling the Korean president what she wants to hear on Korean "comfort women", just as he told Prime Minister Abe what he wanted to hear on Senkaku Islands.
The Abe administration is not pleased with Mr. Obama, who made the issue of "comfort women" into a political/diplomatic issue.
If China were on his itinerary, then, Mr. Obama would go on to condemn Japan over Senkaku Islands, following the pattern of saying what the host wants to hear.
(UPDATE 9/5/2013) To preserve credibility of POTUS and by extension of the world, the US military is preparing not only Tomahawk cruise missile attacks but also intense aerial bombing by B2 (stealth bomber) and B52. See my new post.
==================
To preserve credibility, President Obama wants to bomb Syria, while backtracking on his infamous "red line" threat.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the modified resolution full of holes by 10 to 7, with one Democrat voting "present".
The majority of Americans remain opposed to any military attack on Syria, and even President Obama's support base is overwhelmingly against it.
So will they do it anyway? President Obama and his Secretary of State have said so a number of times already. The US-trained and armed "Syrian rebels" are marching into Syria, according to the president himself, says UK's Telegraph (9/3/2013), "newspaper paper of record".
Why is this mad rush to attack a small country which has been already decimated in 2-year civil war, with 20% of its population as refugees? To preserve Mr. Obama's credibility?
From Policymic.com (9/4/2013):
Latest Syria War Justification is the Worst One Yet
Michael Luciano
Did you hear? Apparently, the United States needs to take military action against Syria – not because it poses an actual threat to the United States (it doesn’t), not because it’s undermining the vital interests of the United States (it isn’t), and not because a strike will topple President Bashar al-Assad (it won’t), but because the U.S. must preserve its “credibility” in the international arena.
The argument goes something like this: Last year, President Obama made an off-the-cuff remark about a “red line” in Syria, and said if Assad used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, that would “change my equation” vis-à-vis his approach toward Syria, even though Obama never explicitly threatened military action. Now that Assad has used chemical weapons, it is incumbent on Obama to strike to make good on this earlier, vague threat.
Or as the hacktacular David Ignatius recently explained in the Washington Post,
“Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit ... [Obama] needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’”
Although Ignatius says that the main reason for a strike “should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons,” the fact is, the “credibility” argument pervades his thinking, just as it does Obama’s.
Here’s Obama speaking in Sweden on Wednesday:
“The international community's credibility is on the line ... And America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because (otherwise) we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”
(Full article at the link)
It looks like Washington Post remains the cheerleader of the administration in war, despite the ownership change. (Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com owns the paper, who says "Put readers first not advertisers, don't write to impress each other.")
And here's MoveOn.org, on all-out campaign to stop the war, from Daily Caller (9/4/2013):
MoveOn.org announced its opposition to military action in Syria on Tuesday after conferring with supporters.
The left-wing organization called on supporters on Tuesday to decide the liberal advocacy group’s position on whether the U.S. should use military force to respond to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
On Wednesday, the results were in — 73 percent of MoveOn.org respondents said the outfit should oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.
“History has shown again and again that even a ‘limited’ military engagement can quickly become a slippery slope to seemingly endless war. But stopping this war is within reach,” MoveOn.org wrote in an email to supporters.
“So we need to unleash the power of our more than 8 million member community right away to make it clear to Congress that we oppose military action in Syria,” the organization said. “Congress will vote on the authorization to use military force as soon as next week, and members of Congress are making up their minds right now, so we need to act fast.”
MoveOn.org, which also opposed the war in Iraq, is encouraging its members to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on the use of military action in Syria.
“President Obama is proposing a military strike that raises the specter of another Iraq War—and we’re still dealing with the costs of that war today,” MoveOn.org wrote. “It’s critical that every one of MoveOn’s 8 million members pick up their phones today to let Congress know plain and simple: We oppose a military intervention in Syria.”
Republican Congressman Matt Salmon says he has received 500 calls from his constituents, and only 2 were in support of military intervention in Syria.
Senator Rand Paul says he will filibuster to stall the Senate vote on the war resolution, like he did on the Defense Appropriation Bill over the Obama administration's use of drones.
Maybe he could alert more Americans that the US government has been funding and training "Syrian rebels" who are members of Al-Qaeda affiliates and many of whom are not even Syrians.
AP article (8/9/2013) from Friday's press conference that Mr. Obama kindly gave, before he goes on his summer vacation (emphasis is mine):
Obama: New oversight but no change to spying power
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama made clear Friday that he has no intention of stopping the daily collection of phone records from millions of Americans, but he promised "appropriate reforms" to how such surveillance is carried out.
In an afternoon news conference, the president acknowledged the domestic spying has troubled Americans and hurt the country's image abroad. But Obama blamed the damage on misinformation stemming from leaks to the news media.
"Understandably, people would be concerned," the president said. "I would be, too, if I weren't inside the government."
But he assured Americans that the surveillance is not being abused, and he described the phone program as "an important tool" that keeps America safe.
"It's not enough for me to have confidence in these programs," Obama said. "The American people have to have confidence in them as well."
(Full article at the link)
Have to have confidence in spy programs. That's rich, coming from a supposed constitutional scholar.
According to President Obama, NSA spying is bad because it was leaked.
By the way here are some choice words from former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden (who looks like a space alien in The Guardian's article from 8/6/2013), dissing the hackers (whom institutions like NSA and CIA depend on):
The former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA speculated on Tuesday that hackers and transparency groups were likely to respond with cyber-terror attacks if the United States government apprehends whistleblower Edward Snowden.
"If and when our government grabs Edward Snowden, and brings him back here to the United States for trial, what does this group do?" said retired air force general Michael Hayden, who from 1999 to 2009 ran the NSA and then the CIA, referring to "nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twentysomethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years".
(UPDATE) "Investigate" they will. "Shoot The PRISM-Gate Messenger: Obama To Launch Criminal Probe Into NSA Leaks", says Zero Hedge headline, with eyes on details like (emphasis is original):
Reuters reports that "President Barack Obama's administration is likely to open a criminal investigation into the leaking of highly classified documents that revealed the secret surveillance of Americans' telephone and email traffic, U.S. officials said on Friday."
And how did Reuters learn this: from "law enforcement and security officials who were not authorized to speak publicly."
============================
I forgot to mention who wrote that Guardian article on the top-secret NSA program called PRISM. It is Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.
Greenwald, who used to write for Salon.com, a progressive constitutional lawyer and strong advocate for civil liberty, appeared on the US news media and blasted the US government. He is also one of the few who continue to write about Bradley Manning and his treatment by the US government under the Obama administration.
From Politico (6/7/2013; part, emphasis is mine):
Glenn Greenwald: U.S. wants to destroy privacy worldwide
...“There is a massive apparatus within the United States government that with complete secrecy has been building this enormous structure that has only one goal, and that is to destroy privacy and anonymity, not just in the United States but around the world,” charged Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for the British newspaper “The Guardian,” speaking on CNN. “That is not hyperbole. That is their objective.”
“So whatever the Justice Department wants to do, they can beat their chests all they want,” he said. “People like Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss can have press conferences threatening people for bringing … light to what it is they’re doing, but the only people who are going to be investigated are them. It’s well past time that these threats start to be treated with the contempt that they deserve. That’s certainly how I intend to treat them moving forward, with more investigation and disclosures.”
“The Obama administration has been very aggressive about bullying and threatening anybody who thinks about exposing it or writing it or even doing journalism about it, and it’s well past time that come to an end,” he said.
“What the Obama administration is doing in interpreting the PATRIOT Act is so warped and distorted and it vests themselves with such extremist surveillance powers over the United States and American citizens that Americans, in their words, would be stunned to learn what the Obama administration is doing,” he said on CNN’s “The Lead.”
Speaking with MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell, Greenwald dared lawmakers to investigate how information about the Verizon phone records leaked, as Feinstein has said should happen.
“Let them go and investigate,” Greenwald said.
He added, “There is this massive surveillance state that the United States government has built up that has extraordinary implications for how we live as human beings on the earth and as Americans in our country, and we have the right to know what it is that that government and that agency is doing. I intend to continue to shine light on that, and Dianne Feinstein can beat her chest all she wants and call for investigations, and none of that is going to stop and none of it is going to change.”
(Full article at the link)
It looks Glenn Greenwald has declared his war.
Unlike other liberal/progressive commentators who almost completely stopped criticizing the federal government once their idol became the occupant of the White House, Greenwald has continued to criticize the government for what it does, regardless of who is at the (nominal) top.
Unlike Greenwald, New York Times folded in mere two and a half hours or so after they dare published an editorial condemning the Obama administration and President Obama. They "modified" it, they say.
The "communication companies" that have been aiding the NSA turn out to be (no surprise here) Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. In addition, NSA has been obtaining the records from credit card companies. No surprise there either, particularly the issuing companies are big Wall Street banks who were bailed out by the federal government at the expense of small people who were made to foot the bill.
Drudge Report page image (4/2/2013)
Mr. Obama wants to use more executive orders, bypass the Congress and create sweeping gun-control legislation. Mr. Obama's supporters urge him to do so.
I guess there is nothing better to do for these people.
Meanwhile, town of Nelson in Georgia passed the law requiring the head of each household to own a gun to keep crime down.
It is very interesting that in the both sides of the Pacific Ocean (the US and Japan) the current administrations are eager to trash their respective Constitutions.
In case of Japan, members of LDP want to ditch "inalienable fundamental human right" in their Constitution, and replace it with certain rights as long as citizens fulfill their obligations. They want to ditch the Article 9, so that they can send the Self Defense Force to wars being fought by Japan's allies (i.e. the US).
After LDP and its coalition partners win majority in the Upper House election in July (it's a given, because of the disarray of the remaining opposition), "amending" the Constitution will be the first thing they will do. Shintaro Ishihara, who says he's recovered from a minor stroke, and his sidekick boy-wonder mayor of Osaka who looks increasingly tired and petulant will be more than happy to cooperate.
The "Act" is actually the Section 735 of H.R. 933 "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013" which enables the US government to fund itself without passing any budget until the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2013):
Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
As CBS News (3/28/2013) puts it:
Critics slam Obama for "protecting" Monsanto
There's no love lost between Washington and the American public, it seems, five days after Congress for the first time in years managed to handle a budget-related issue without reaching the brink of crisis.
Protesters have descended on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House this week, enraged at a potentially health-hazardous provision they allege lawmakers inserted surreptitiously into a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year. The bill sailed through the Capitol on Friday; President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday.
Opponents have termed the language in question the "Monsanto Protection Act," a nod to the major agricultural biotech corporation and other like firms geared at producing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption.
Food safety advocacy groups like Food Democracy Now, which collected more than 250,000 signatures on a petition calling for the president to veto the CR, argue not enough studies have been conducted into the possible health risks of GMO and GE seeds. Eliminating judicial power to halt the selling or planting of them essentially cuts off their course to ensuring consumer safety should health risks emerge.
Seeking a "balance" to the newly minted law, Food Democracy Now has shifted its tactics to encouraging supporters to sign and send letters to Mr. Obama, chiding him for signing the legislation despite that refusal to do so would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week.
Part of the template for the letter reads: "In an effort to balance this violation of our basic rights, I am urging you as President to issue an Executive Order to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, something that you promised farmers while on the campaign trail in 2007. It is urgent that the U.S. government rectify the 20 year old politically engineered loophole and allow for open and transparent labeling of genetically engineered foods," the letter continues, "a basic right that citizens in 62 others countries already enjoy."
Other groups have aimed their ire toward the more worthy target, criticizing Congress for slipping the language into a must-pass bill without review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The International Business Times reports that the Center for Food Safety is putting in the hot seat Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, for not giving the amendment a proper hearing. According to Salon, many members of Congress who voted to approve the bill were unaware the language existed.
(Full article at the link)
Seeking a "balance"? It's amusing that Food Democracy Now is urging the president to use an Executive Order to mandate GMO labeling. As if campaign promise is something that any candidate should fulfill once in office. As if the president cares, when his food safety czar is a former vice president of Monsanto. And an Executive Order?
I'd love to know who put this section into the bill, though.
CBS says "refusal to do so [sign the bill] would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week", as if it is a really bad thing. Very funny.
The proposition that would have required GMO labeling in California was soundly defeated in the November 2012 election by an extremely well-funded, out-of-state industrial lobby headed by Monsanto.
Speaking of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 (reference to the previous post), the Team Obama has a great plan for you, which probably will be forced on to you via the presidential executive order.
It'll be for the interest of people in the United States, they will say, just like the deposit theft in Cyprus will be in the interest of people in Cyprus. (By the way, Russians may have already transferred their money out of Cyprus, leaving Cypriot citizens and businesses to pay for their own bail-out, I mean bail-in. 100% haircut? More like a decapitation.)
If you look at the players - US Treasury, IMF, G-20, World Bank (who cites Iran as success), you know they are up to no good.
Just like so-called housewives (employees of TEPCO PR subcontractor) shaping the "more electricity and more nuclear power are good for you" message for naive fellow housewives and their kids, they suggest a clever way to make people feel good about being taxed and having the standard of living lower while their money goes to bureaucrats in foreign countries:
call the carbon tax an “offset” instead of a “tax,” and downplay economic costs to “focus on framing green policies as a way to reach an ambitious and positive social goal
How they take us for fools.
From Fox News opinion page, by Phil Kerpen (3/21/2013; emphasis is mine):
Here comes Team Obama's carbon tax
The Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy has finally begun to turn over documents about its preparations for a carbon tax in response to transparency warrior Chris Horner’s Freedom of Information Act request. The documents provide solid evidence that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have every intention of implementing a carbon tax if we fail to stop them.
The Office of Environment and Energy, if you’ve never heard of it, is housed in Treasury’s Office of International Affairs and exists principally to wait for authority to administer the revenue from a cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax. And, apparently, to trick Americans into supporting the tax to provide it the money. So the documents they’ve reluctantly released are worth a careful look.
There’s the G-20 report titled “Mobilizing Climate Finance,” which pegs the price tag at $2.1 trillion “of investment requirement” in a “global carbon market.”
There’s the helpful IMF report from Ian Parry of the Fiscal Affairs Department on “Public Sources of Climate Finance.” Parry’s stated goal for the United States is “raising revenue and putting it to good use.”
He suggests a $25 per metric ton carbon tax – right in the middle of the range suggested by the discussion draft legislation recently released by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee – and noted that $25 billion a year could be sent abroad “for climate finance.”
He singles out aviation and maritime fuels as “under-taxed” and suggests new taxes on fuels or directly on aircraft and ship operators. Parry notes that this “will harm developing countries” – for the simple reason that it’s economically harmful -- and concludes “compensation needed for fairness.” (Obama recently asked Congress to OK another $65 billion in increased IMF dues, no doubt so we can receive more of this kind of advice.)
By far the biggest document is from the World Bank. It’s titled “Inclusive Green Growth: The Pathway to Sustainable Development.” The document itself is posted on the World Bank website, but that doesn’t mean its use at the U.S. Treasury Department doesn’t require scrutiny. The report notes that “some observers, mostly in high-income countries, have argued against the need for more growth, suggesting that what is needed instead is a redistribution of wealth.” It seems this “remains more relevant for high-income countries” like the United States.
The report goes on to outline how a carbon tax could be used to drive a massive redistributive scheme based on – believe it or not – Iran as a model of success: “The political economy of reform will likely require compensatory transfers to the middle class. In the Islamic Republic of Iran… 80 percent of households received significant transfers—no doubt contributing to the success of the reform.” It continues: “In the end, the redistributive impacts of a carbon price scheme depend on how revenues from the scheme are used.”
Such a redistributive scheme is a key element of carbon tax proposals from Waxman and from Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
It’s easy to foresee a “gas stamps” program much like food stamps that would provide a taxpayer-funded gas purchasing card to people up to some multiple of the federal poverty level. Much like ObamaCare, a policy driving up costs would be paired with a huge new welfare program that would foster government dependency and political loyalty.
The World Bank paper also advises Treasury on how to convince the public. It says to call the carbon tax an “offset” instead of a “tax,” and downplay economic costs to “focus on framing green policies as a way to reach an ambitious and positive social goal (such as becoming carbon neutral by 2050 or becoming a leader in solar technologies).”
This advice helps explain why an administration so heavily invested in implementing a carbon tax attempts to deny any such thing is going on.
What else are they hiding? At least 10,000 emails from 2012 alone. Horner has filed suit, and Treasury can only stonewall for so long.
One thing that’s already clear is that the preparations to pursue a carbon tax are very much proceeding in earnest.
We need to be ready to fight back.
Why? Because she has been a staunch supporter of Mr. Obama.
I'm positive the Japanese will be thrilled. They like famous people just because they are famous for whatever reason.
Ambassador to the Court of St. James's will be the chair of Mr. Obama's presidential campaign. Ambassadors to France and Germany will be heads of investment firms who were instrumental in fundraising.
From Bloomberg News (2/27/2013):
Caroline Kennedy Said to Be Candidate for Envoy to Japan
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, is a leading candidate to become President Barack Obama’s nominee as U.S. ambassador to Japan, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Kennedy, 55, would replace Ambassador John Roos, a former technology lawyer and Obama campaign donor, as the U.S. envoy in Tokyo, according to the people, who asked for anonymity because the decision hasn’t been made official. While the president has signed off on Kennedy’s nomination, her vetting for the post hasn’t been completed, said one of the people.
An early backer of Obama in his 2008 run for president and a co-chairman of his 2012 campaign, Kennedy is one of several Obama political supporters and donors being reviewed for ambassadorships to top U.S. allies.
The president is considering John Emerson, the president of Capital Guardian Trust Co. as U.S. ambassador to Germany, said the people. For the U.S. embassy in France, the leading candidate is Marc Lasry, the chief executive officer of Avenue Capital Group LLC, who helped unite the fundraising networks of Obama and former President Bill Clinton.
After considering Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue, as envoy to the U.K., Obama is leaning toward Matthew Barzun, finance chairman of Obama’s presidential campaign, for the job, officially known as ambassador to the Court of St. James’s.
For those who say, "Oh that's what every president does", Bloomberg article continues:
Obama has drawn ambassadors from the political ranks at a higher rate than the historical average of 30 percent, according to the American Foreign Service Association. In his first term, Obama nominated 59 ambassadors, including 40 fundraising bundlers, who lacked experience in the diplomatic corps.
(Full article at the link)
Avenue Capital Group is a private equity firm and hedge fund, specializing in distressed securities, with $12 billion asset under management.
Capital Guardian Trust is part of the Capital Group Companies with total group asset of over one trillion dollars.
Ms. Kennedy serves on the board of many non-profit organizations.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali come finally to the US mainland.
From Zero Hedge (2/10/2013; emphasis is original):
Update: this just in - Authorities offer $1 million reward for information leading to arrest of ex-LAPD officer Christopher Dorner
We were hoping to evade coverage of the latest mass distraction du jour, that of the former LAPD officer Chris Dorner who recently went rogue following a three man murder spree and who has vowed to kill again as per his 6,000 word manifesto, but the US government had made it impossible following confirmation
that the search for Dorner is now the first official drone-hunt in US history.
The Express reports:
Yesterday, as a task force of 125 officers, some riding Snowcats in the rugged terrain, continued their search, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.
A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”
The use of drones was later confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began.
He said: “This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement. That’s all I can say at the moment.”
And once Dorner is found by remote-control, it will be again up to drones to secure his "elimination." If for no other reason than to perform a ground test of just how the recently enacted drone-facilitated extermination of US citizens sits with various instances of the US judicial system.
Washington Post has a short editorial on the Japan-Sino row over the Senkaku Islands, gently suggesting both sides to cool it so that the Obama administration doesn't need to choose between the two alternatives - defending Japan as per the security treaty between the US and Japan, or a "climb-down".
Well I don't think Prime Minister Abe is counting on the latter...
From Washington Post (1/25/2013; links are original, emphasis is mine):
GIVEN PRESIDENT Obama’s preoccupation with ending what he calls “a decade of war,” it’s hard to believe that the United States could be dragged into a military conflict in the western Pacific over a group of tiny, uninhabited islands claimed by both Japan and China. Probably, it won’t be. Yet thanks to a disturbing confluence of events in those countries and Mr. Obama’s own commitments, the chance that it will happen is rising.
The Senkaku Islands, called the Diaoyu by China, have been under Japanese administration since 1895; for decades, China agreed to leave its claim to them on a back burner. But Japan’s nationalizationin September of three of the islets — undertaken in an attempt to head off an attempt by a nationalist politician to gain hold of them — provided China’s military and Communist leadership with a pretext for rabble-rousing.
In recent weeks Beijing’s provocations have escalated from dispatching surveillance ships to the islands to scrambling warplanes in response to Japan’s. China’s state-controlled media have been whipping up something like war fever, with one paper declaring that a military fight is “more likely” and the country “needs to prepare for the worst.” Disturbingly, this provocative and dangerous campaign has been overseen by the new Communist leadership under Xi Jinping, which has ample motive to divert attention from domestic problems.
The political climate in Tokyo, too, gives cause for concern. The new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is a nationalist who has packed his cabinet with politicians who share his aims of boosting Japanese defense spending and standing up to China. Japan has refused negotiations over the islands, declaring that there is nothing to discuss.
The Obama administration has been trying to defuse the dispute, dispatching a senior State Department official to Tokyo last week to call for “cooler heads to prevail.” But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has also reiterated a position the administration first adopted two years ago: A security treaty binding the United States to defend Japan against attack applies to the islets. That public stance may have been intended to deter China from provoking a crisis, but it also magnifies the stakes for Washington. Should China attempt to seize control of the territory, Mr. Obama could have to choose between backing Japan in a military confrontation and a climb-down that would undermine the “pivot to Asia” he has placed at the center of his foreign policy.
Fortunately, there were signs of a cooling-off this week. Mr. Abe dispatched an emissary to Beijing with a letter for Mr. Xi. The Japanese leader, who has been invited to Washington for a meeting with Mr. Obama next month, should be looking for ways to ease tensions without rewarding Beijing’s belligerence. With U.S. help, it ought to be possible to return the issue of the Senkakus to the back burner, where it belongs.
"Pivot to Asia"? What is that? I've never heard the phrase in the US media but I've seen it mentioned numerous times in the Japanese media and tweets as some kind of a big turning point for the US. From the search results, even the US mainstream media is rather dismissive of Mr. Obama's strategy. Council of Foreign Relations calls it "unnecessary and counterproductive".
I'm sure the news will be followed by female soldiers declaring they are so ready.
Personally, I don't think this is the way to achieve so-called "gender equality", but that's how it goes under the president who just has had his "second coming", as Newsweek magazine calls it.
From Bloomberg News (1/23/2013):
Combat Ban on Women to Be Lifted, U.S. Defense Official Says
The U.S. Defense Department plans to lift its ban on women serving in direct combat roles, a Defense Department official said today.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the decision to lift the ban on the recommendation of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the official, who asked not to be identified in advance of a planned announcement. The Associated Press reported on the decision earlier today.
The site has always been very good at portraying TPTB in the most unkind light, and today is no exception.
The link under Stalin's portrait ("FLASHBACK: Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props...") goes here, the source for Hitler's and Stalin's portraits. The site also has pictures of China's Chairman Mao, North Korea's Kim Il-Sung, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (who looks like he's about to eat these kids).
It's not the first time, but still.
From AP (1/15/2013):
US taps pension fund to avoid passing debt limit
Geithner says gov't will borrow from federal employee pension fund to avoid passing debt limit
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the government has begun borrowing from the federal employee pension fund to keep operating without surpassing its debt limit.
Geithner says in a letter to congressional leaders that the move will free up $156 billion in borrowing authority while Congress debates increasing the $16.4 trillion debt limit.
The government reached its borrowing limit on Dec. 31, but began using bookkeeping maneuvers to keep from surpassing it. Geithner has told congressional leaders that Treasury expects to exhaust those measures by mid-February to early March.
The latest action has been taken by other Treasury secretaries and will not put in jeopardy any monthly pension payments. Geithner said he will replace the funds removed from the pension account after the borrowing limit is raised.
Banana Republic. Or Banana Empire/Kingdom. The mighty administration simply sends letters to the representatives of the citizens, informing them of what the administration has already done, after the fact.
Timmy "Turbo-tax" Geithner will be out by the end of January anyway.
President Obama must be laughing all the way back to his Hawaiian vacation, as he vows more tax increase.
House Speaker John Boehner voted Yes;
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor voted No;
former VP-candidate Paul Ryan voted Yes.
Paul Ryan is surprising. So is Eric Cantor. (Good for Cantor.)
=====================
House Republicans fold. What's next for them to cave on? (Zero Hedge's Tyler says spending, and just about everything else. I agree.)
The so-called "deal" will mean 77% of the US households will see tax increase, while the tax breaks will go to all sorts of places from Hollywood to Virgin Islands, to NASCAR to algae growers.
CBO says the "deal" will add further $4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years.
From ABC News (1/1/2012):
‘Fiscal Cliff’ Deal Also Doles Out Millions for Hollywood, Railroads, Rum Producers
The “fiscal cliff” compromise has been heralded as a saving grace for middle class taxpayers, their families and the unemployed.
But buried in the fine print of the 150-page deal are also some lesser-known New Year’s gifts to some of Washington’s favorite industries.
Under the plan, the federal government would eat nearly $100 billion in forgone tax revenue over the next two years by extending special tax credits for select businesses that had been set to expire.
While the provisions themselves are not new, and are often extended as part of major bills, their inclusion amidst a tumultuous year-end debate over deficits and debt did raise a few eyebrows.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget listed the so-called “tax extenders” as a “bad” part of the fiscal cliff deal because their cost is not offset, “setting a bad precedent for future extensions.”
The mix of tax perks covering the next year, but with budget implications for the next two years includes everything from incentives for employers to hire veterans to incentives for employers to invest in mine safety. But it also includes these:
$430 million for Hollywood through “special expensing rules” to encourage TV and film production in the United States. Producers can expense up to $15 million of costs for their projects.
$331 million for railroads by allowing short-line and regional operators to claim a tax credit up to 50 percent of the cost to maintain tracks that they own or lease.
$222 million for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through returned excise taxes collected by the federal government on rum produced in the islands and imported to the mainland.
$70 million for NASCAR by extending a “7-year cost recovery period for certain motorsports racing track facilities.”
$59 million for algae growers through tax credits to encourage production of “cellulosic biofuel” at up to $1.01 per gallon.
$4 million for electric motorcycle makers by expanding an existing green-energy tax credit for buyers of plug-in vehicles to include electric motorbikes.
*Note the price tags above reflect estimated forgone tax revenue if current credits – which have been due to expire – are extended for one year as included in the Senate bill, per Joint Committee on Taxation.
What about cuts? What cuts? Oh cuts, yes of course. Obama and the Congress will cut $15 billion in spending, against the tax increase of $620 billion. Tax and spending, unprecedented, first-in-the-history-of-the-republic-in-modern-times ratio of 41:1.
Dems gone wild.
Harry put it for voting, and Republicans in the Senate blocked the vote, for now. Barack and Harry's plan would have passed by a simple majority (51), which Democrats have in the Senate, to give Barack the executive power to unilaterally raise the debt limit.
Combine that with Ben's unilateral unlimited QE. (Move over, Abe.)
In the US Senate, there are 51 Democrats and 47 Republicans.
From Reuters (12/6/2012):
Senate Republican leader blocks debt limit vote
(Reuters) - Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday prevented a simple majority vote on a proposal to give Democratic President Barack Obama unilateral power to raise the debt limit.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought the measure to the floor for consideration at the request of McConnell. But McConnell refused to permit a vote after Reid said it could pass with 51 votes in the 100-member Senate. McConnell demanded 60 votes needed for passage.
The jockeying played out as Democrats and Republicans seek to end a stalemate on how to resolve spending and tax issues by year's end.
In the meantime, during his appearance in a TV show (CNBC), Treasury Secretary Timmy "Turbotax" Geithner said Obama would be "absolutely" willing to go over the fiscal cliff.
As Bruce Krasting at Zero Hedge says in his piece today (emphasis is mine),
Given that Geithner will be out of his job running Treasury soon, I’m sure that he went on TV with the blessings of Obama, and he had a scripted message from the President. There will be no negotiations on tax rates, the top rate is going to 40%, or we will be sailing off the cliff. What an idiotic bargaining position.
At this point, I don’t think there is any significant opposition to increasing tax revenue from America’s wealthiest folks; the question is how to achieve it. Raising marginal rates is one option; cutting deductions can accomplish exactly the same thing. Geithner and Obama will not consider adjusting deductions; the reasons are a mystery to me. It appears that the President wants to “punish” some folks rather than to find a compromise that achieves the desired results.
So I agree with Bartiromo, unless the President backs off, we are going cliff diving in 20 days.
I believe the President has started a war, No real bullets or sabers in this war, but there will be casualties none-the-less. The question is, “Who is going to get hurt?” The thinking by all of the pundits is that a fall of the cliff will fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. If they stand up to the Administration on tax rates, the Republicans will get slaughtered in the Congressional elections two years from now.
The facts force me to conclude that Obama is, in fact, using the cliff negotiations to bend Republicans over and force them into submission. The goal is to destroy the Republicans, and have the House, Senate and the White House all Democratically controlled in twenty-two months. Harry Reid would be in charge of the Senate, Nancy Pelosi would be running the House, and the President would have the last two years of his administration with the government controlled by “friendly” hands. A disaster in the making.
Mr. Krasting has said he voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. I don't know if he voted at all in 2012.
And if you think it will be only the so-called "rich" (household earning more than $250,000 a year), former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has a better idea. From Real Clear Politics (emphasis is mine):
The only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.
If Mr. Dean and his party are proposing the cutback of the Federal bureaucracy to the level last seen in the Clinton Era, that's one thing. Mr. Dean of course does not offer that, and instead threatens us with even more spending by the Obama administration. Which they will do anyway, as Obama's "cut" (for that matter, Republicans' "cut", with the exception of Ron Paul's) is nothing but decreasing the rate of debt increase. Instead of debt growing at 5% a year, for example, Obama would cut the growth rate to, say 3% a year, and call 2% a "cut".
Again, from Bruce Krasting (emphasis is mine):
I think the Republicans should call the President’s bluff. Lets take a walk over the cliff; see what happens when we get to the other side. It can’t be much worse than 50%+ tax rates in the most productive states in the Union. Will Republicans get hammered in the bi-elections as a result? Maybe. But one thing is sure, if the President gets his way on tax rates today, and we also have the Republicans lose the House in two years, it sets up the possibility for a return to a more conservative frame of mind for the country when the next Presidential election comes around. If Obama gets his way, the economy will pay the price. In the process, any legacy that Obama might have had will have been converted into something like Herbert Hoover’s. So who is bluffing whom?
Yes there are two bidders, and the shipping cost is 10 dollars.
From Ebay, after the news that Hostess, the company that makes twinkie, is firing 18,000 workers and shutting down business rather than being bullied by the labor union into extinction (that's CEO's view, diametrically opposed, predictably, from the labor union's view):
The seller says:
Due to unions kissing the fourth point of contact of the Democrat Party and because I must find a way to fund my portion of Obamacare, I am auctioning one pre-bankruptcy Hostess Twinkie. Hostess Brands closing for good due to bakers strike - Nov. 16, 2012
Condition: New, pristine, sealed, never-eaten.
* * * Note: I will not accept food stamps as payment.
His listing is a bargain. The highest starting bid on pre-closure twinkie is 3,000,000 dollars for 4 boxes of twinkies. If you can't wait, you can "buy it now", for 8,000,000 dollars. This seller generously offers free shipping.
But not to worry. Someone already set up a petition on the White House website, pleading Mr. Obama to save twinkies by nationalizing the company. 1813 signatures so far.
(Now it's down 160, with 40 minutes remaining on the regular session.)
Obama spoke to the press today, first in 3 months.
Hillary (Sec. of State) and Leon (Sec. of Defense) scooting off to Australia. (Herald Sun has an AP photo of them quite cheerfully laughing, looking very happy to be out of the US at the moment.)
Petaeus will testify on Benghazi after all.
Israel bombed and killed a Hamas leader in Gaza.
Obama is off to his first post-election trip to Myanmar.
(Myanmar?)
Or "Teleprompter Of The United States".
The photo is from from Reuters Gallery. I saw it on Drudge Report.
"A teleprompter obscures U.S. President Barack Obama as he speaks during a campaign event at Capital University in Cleveland, Ohio August 21, 2012. Obama is on a two-day campaign trip to Ohio, Nevada and New York. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque"
(Wow, Reuters... TOTUS got major.)
Join Amazon Prime 
Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals - Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Electronics
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
Tokyo Time
