What is the nation's future under the control of a belligerent new 'Dear Leader' who is not yet 30?
At least the world and the writer, Mr. Blair, sees Sonny Boy for what he is. Oh, no, wait:
Instead of being the world's last Communist state, North Korea is best understood as a murderous laboratory for the utopian fantasies of the fascist Right.
No, Kimmie and his generals are commies. Don't try to shift the blame. And fascists are communists, did you know that Mr. Blair?
But it's good to see that British leaders are more sober in their assessment. Oh, no, wait:
Apparently anxious not to write off the younger Kim before he has even taken office, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said: "This could be a turning point for North Korea. We hope that their new leadership will recognise that engagement with the international community offers the best prospect of improving the lives of ordinary North Korean people."
That is either put out for consumption by gullible journalists or it is damnably stupid on the part of Mr. Hague. Sonny Boy will do no such thing. His one hope of keeping power is to tighten the screws to their maximum.
But back to the ridiculous Mr. Blair:
So North Korea chose to become a nuclear-armed power in explicit defiance of China's wishes and, for all the expressions of mutual esteem, relations between the two powers are complicated by tension and mistrust.
No, North Korea is China's dog. It does precisely what China wants it to do. North Korea has developed nukes because it is in China's interests to have a crazy country on its border acting in such a way. China could curb its dog anytime it wants. It simply does not want to.
People like Mr. Blair and Mr. Hague are a good part of the reason why the West has no response to North Korea.
More evidence of my thesis: see the Weekly Standard piece on what the #3 person at Foggy Bottom thought of Kimmie. One wonders how she might be gushing on in the near future about Pudgy.
So who, exactly, is criticizing Holder because of his race? The Justice Department wont say. Is he talking about Darrell Issa? Or the 60 congressmen, two senators, Republican presidential candidates and two governors who have called on him to resign? Or the seventy-five congressmen have signed a House resolution for a vote of no confidence in Holder as attorney general? Or is Holder referring to people on the internet who have written about Fast and Furious, and criticized the Justice Departments role in that scandallike, say, me? Does he mean to include the 43% of voters who have an unfavorable opinion of him, compared to 19% whose impression is favorable?
Eric Holder has politicized the Department of Justice to a degree not seen in modern times. He also has been the administrations front man with respect to some very unpopular initiatives (e.g., trying to overturn voter ID legislation). And his department is up to its ears in a scandal of major proportions, involving hundreds of people who have been murdereda scandal about which DOJ has stonewalled Congressional requests for information, and now admits that it supplied false information to Congress. Frankly, if Holder cant defend himself against legitimate criticism without invoking utterly unsupported claims of racism, he isnt up to the job of being Attorney General.
If this website has a purpose if any conservative website or publication has a purpose it must begin with electing conservatives to significant public offices. We have the chance to nominate a conservative for president and win the White House in 2012. We can fumble that chance away by settling for a nominee we cant trust to pursue conservative policies in office, or we can make a stand for the best, most conservative potential president in the field. Thats Rick Perry, and we enthusiastically endorse him to be the 45th President of the United States.
2012 is a year of enormous opportunity for conservatives. The sitting president is deeply unpopular and discredited, the economy is mired in the doldrums, and the publics trust in Washington and its traditional ways is at an all-time low. Tea Party-backed conservative successes in 2010 show that the public is willing to embrace candidates who dissent from the bipartisan consensus a consensus that gives us an ever-growing federal government in general and too much federal interference and favoritism in the economy in particular. President Obamas deep unpopularity with independents, together with the growth of left-wing populist protest movements, shows that dissatisfaction with the status quo reaches far beyond the conservative base. But the failure of some Tea Party conservatives in 2010 is also a reminder that to win, we need candidates who are serious, experienced, and battle-tested. Thats Rick Perry.
The Most Conservative Candidate
Perry is the most reliable conservative in the race. He has made his share of missteps over 25 years in public life, as have all the candidates, but when you think seriously about which of the major candidates would govern in the most consistently conservative fashion, the answer is obvious. Perry hasnt zigzagged or flip-flopped his way through his career, and hes not overtaken by a new enthusiasm every week. Neither flights of fancy nor bipartisan consensus for its own sake are in his nature. His long record in office, and his base of support, place him well to the right of Mitt Romney and on the great issues of the day to the right of Newt Gingrich as well. Judging the men just by their records, Perry can be counted on to govern to the right of either.
A brief summary of examples of Perrys lengthy record tells the story of his conservatism:
-67 tax cuts for a total taxpayer savings of $14 billion.
-Fewer government employees per capita than when he took office.
-Perry has consistently scored a solid B rating from the Cato Institute on spending.
-Persistent action (not just words) on pro-life issues, ranging from breaking roadblocks to a parental notification law in 1999 to a groundbreaking defunding of Planned Parenthood in 2011.
-The Club for Growth: Pro-growth conservatives looking for a champion on the issue of tort reform will be hard pressed to find a candidate with a better record than Governor Perry.
The single biggest issue on which Perry has taken heat from the right is immigration. But there, too, Perry has been on the front lines. Perry is easily the most pro-border security Governor in U.S. history, having spent more than $400 million Texas taxpayer dollars since 2005 to do one of the few duties the Federal Government is obligated to do. Immigration is not the central issue of this election jobs and the size of government are far more important but Perry is comfortably in the center of the Republican Party on immigration, and he has consistently shown that he will take seriously the foundational task of securing the border first.
The Best Potential President
Perry is well-prepared by experience and temperament to take on the presidency. Hes the longest-serving Governor in the history of the nations second-largest state. Hes a calm, steady hand at the helm, with strong Christian faith and a stable family. Hes come up from humble, rural roots, served his country overseas in the Air Force, and made a living in the private sector as a rancher and cotton farmer. Perry is studious and deliberate in making decisions, and resolute without being unduly stubborn in carrying them out; when hes erred, as with the Gardasil controversy, hes backed down, but when hes right he sticks to his guns. Hes been tested by crises in office, including Hurricane Rita in 2005 and Hurricane Ike in 2008 (as well as the 300,000 refugees sent into Texas by Hurricane Katrina) and 2011′s wildfires. And hell appoint conservatives aplenty to his administration: a look at who he will owe his nomination to, if he pulls this out, tells us that. Armed with conservative convictions and surrounded by solid conservative advisors, Perry has the necessary experience and temperament to get the job done.
The one knock on Perry is that his poor debate performances and periodic campaign trail gaffes will open him to the same vulnerabilities in office as President Bush: an inability to respond to criticism or explain his own policies. Thats a fair concern, but it should not be overstated. First, Perrys reputation in Texas is very different from Bushs. Bush was all about bipartisan bonhomie; Perry has left the state littered with the political corpses of people who stood in his way. Remember Jim Hightower, the left-wing talker who coined the phrase the only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos? Perry ended his political career 21 years ago. Maybe Perrys not Demosthenes, but he knows how build a team that gets his message out and go after his foes.
Second, debating skill takes on outsize importance in the primaries, when candidates have to stand out on a stage crowded with 7 or 8 people who all agree with each other 80-90% of the time. All Rick Perry needs to do is step onstage and everyone will know how hes different from Barack Obama.
Third, the main job of the president is making decisions, not talking, and Alex Kaufmann makes a great point regarding how guys like Perry get things done:
Until yesterday, I wasnt completely sure why I liked Rick Perry so much. I have a list of reasons, but none of them really got to the root of why I like him.
Yesterday the reason finally dawned on me. I watched this wonderful 11-minute video from Ben Howe entitled The Rick Perry I Know
and I had a revelation: Rick Perry is just like my Dad.
Like my Dad, Rick sees the population of the world in three categories: Innocent people, and the good guys, who protect them from the bad guys. This sort of man has a profound and selfless love for the first group; a great admiration and willingness to work with the second; and if youre the third group God help you. A few people fall into the category of I havent figured you out yet, and are treated skeptically but fairly. This might be a simplistic worldview, but its an admirable and pragmatic one which has served our species well for a very long time.
Perry Can Win
Some will complain that Perry does not appear electable right now. But he can still win the nomination; this has been a wildly unpredictable primary season, and its not over yet. Romney can still be defeated there remain 75-80% of GOP primary voters who have been listening to Romney for five years and still are not sold on him as the nominee. Gingrich can still collapse he carries enormous political baggage of every imaginable kind, and lacks Perrys organization. The other candidates (Huntsman, Paul, Bachmann and Santorum) could still enjoy a surge in an early state, but lack the organization or broad base of support to advance to the top tier. If one of the two current front-runners crumbles, Perry is best-positioned to make this a two-man race that could last through June, like the Obama-Hillary slugfest of 2008.
And after Iowa and New Hampshire, the terrain shifts to turf that more naturally favors a Perry revival. The remaining two January primaries are in South Carolina and Florida. Arizona is one of just two primaries (in addition to several caucuses) in February. And if he ends up in a two-man race with Romney, 10 of the 23 states that vote in March controlling 60% of the delegates selected that month are likely to be distinctly friendlier territory for Perry than Romney: Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri and Louisiana. Perry should easily have the money to carry the fight through these states and take the lead in the race, if he can make his case.
Yes, Perry has fallen back in the pack. But he is not to be written off lightly: hes won more statewide elections than the rest of the GOP field put together, and has never lost one. Sure, Texas is a Republican state but it wasnt when Perry started running for office, and hes part of the reason that changed.
As for the general election, there is no reason to believe that either Romney or Gingrich would be a significantly stronger general election candidate. Both have multiple major vulnerabilities. In Romneys case, hes won one election in 17 years of running for office, hes transparently insincere and has flip-flopped on nearly every issue you could name. His signature achievement is Romneycare, a bill that drew Ted Kennedys approval and set the stage for Obamacare. Truthfully, the campaigns have only scratched the surface of his vulnerabilities arising from his wealth and business practices, something that will not be so easily looked over by the Obama campaign. In Gingrichs case, hes never held executive office or won a statewide election. He was not so long ago perhaps the most unpopular politician in living memory, and his marital and other problems are likely to dog him throughout the election. Are both men miles better than Obama? Yes. Could both win? Yes, against this president in this year. But both have such severe electoral vulnerabilities that preferring either to Perry solely on grounds that theyd run better in a general election is a fools errand.
The Jobs Governor For A Jobs Election
Perrys greatest asset is that he has a tremendous story to tell about the success of the Texas economy. When it comes to the Texas economy, it is important to start with what Governor Perry has not done. He has not micro-managed the Texan economy with a heavy hand. During his ten years in office, Gov. Perry has instead encouraged and protected the pro-growth and small-government policies and attitudes that are widely considered to have caused the record boom in the states population, not to mention a remarkably quick recovery from the recession that the rest of of the country seems to be still mired in. The Texas state budget is projected to have a surplus next year, thanks largely to increased sales tax and energy revenue (Texas has no state income tax); and has largely gotten back the jobs lost in the recession. Whether or not you credit the governor for the situation, consider this: Rick Perrys political experience has been in an arena where not interfering in the economy for the sake of interfering has been shown to work. This is a valuable trait all in its own.
And the Texas jobs record is impressive, swimming upstream against a nation where Washington has hemorrhaged money on shovel-ready rhetoric while the economy burns. Two graphs from Will Franklin tell the story more eloquently than words:
In Texas, Rick Perrys style of governance has gotten the jobs done. Conservatism is about what works. Texas, under Rick Perry, works. We owe America the chance to do the same. Rick Perry for President.
[Dawn] March 2, 2011 was one of the most unfortunate days in the history of Pakistain, when the minister for religious minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, was assassinated on his way to work, by unidentified gunnies, in Islamabad. He complained of receiving death threats from various religious lobbies for criticising the blasphemy law. The irony is that the culprits responsible for his untimely demise are still on the lam.
In a country where law and order situation deteriorates by the day and accountability measures are almost nonexistent, minorities live in fear of losing their lives and families for absurd reasons. Religious minorities are unable to practice their religion with full zeal and fervor due to various security reasons and threats. The vigils and religious festivities that remained the main components of Pak culture and signs of coexistence have vanished and what is left behind is only pessimism and a dreary outlook for the future.
There were times when Moslems and minorities, representing different faiths, lived congenially respecting each other's differences and religions. In fact, many of us have studied in non-Moslem institutions, which are still considered the epitome of prestige and dignity in Pakistain, known for educating topnotch business executives, entrepreneurs, politicians and social activists. Our leading healthcare facilities, including the only leprosy center working for the rehabilitation of lepers, are owned by non-Moslem social workers.
However, you can observe a lot just by watching... things have changed drastically over a period of time and bigotry/intolerance towards different faiths reign the country. Many non- Moslems have filed written complaints against the reprehensible state of affairs and claim that they have been forced to convert to Islam, which has resulted in their migration to the neighbouring countries.
Pakistain was created on the principle of empowering people and giving them an opportunity to profess their faith and beliefs. Clause 25 of Pakistain's constitution gives all minorities significant rights to practice their faith, in accordance with their respective holy doctrine. Simultaneously, the founder of Pakistain Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was known to emphasise on the importance of freedom of speech and religion.
Ms. Nuzhat, National President of Pakistain, For Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) said, "Time after time we have requested the government of Pakistain to stop calling us minorities. We are equal citizens of Pakistain and would appreciate if we are called "people of other faiths" rather than this hideous term which does not represent non-Moslems of Pakistain at all."
She said that YWCA works for the betterment of women on the lam and 88 per cent of it's beneficiaries are Moslem women, whereas only 10 per cent of the women are from various Christian communities. YWCA's work primarily revolves around empowering women through education, by encouraging them to enroll in adult literacy programmes and raising awareness about their rights as humans. "We advocate and represent women regardless of their caste, colour, creed and religion, considering them our responsibility," Nuzhat said.
She added: "it is not that we have not received positive response from the Moslem political and social factions. In fact, they have assisted and collaborated with us on various projects including flood and earthquake relief campaigns and we deeply appreciate their efforts."
If a handful of organizations are actively assisting people from different religious orientations then why can't we be more accommodating and reciprocate their sentiments positively? Shouldn't this serve as a cue to change the way we think and indeed build better relationships with people from other religions? Isn't it time to put our differences aside and think as one nation? Hasn't enough damage been already done to waylay the foundations of our homeland?
A "selected few" prevailing in our society have stigmatised our religious ideologies to an extent that many of us hesitate to even discuss the most apparent problems constraining our development and growth as a nation.
It is time to give back what we genuinely owe to the people belonging to different faiths, it is indeed time to restore their religious liberty, sense of freedom and security and time to correct our wrongs before it's too late for Pakistain.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Fact that is missed is Moslem countries and religion ARE Wormwood.
#2
For all intents and purposes, the Pak governments sole concern is that various Muslim sects don't start massively oppressing other, Muslim sect minorities, other than the hated ones who are seen as far enough out of the mainstream to be heretical, or are small enough to not matter.
[Dawn] WHEN `terrorism` is used to refer to certain groups or their actions, it risks straying into the realm of subjectivity.
The attacks of September 2001 and the terrorism associated with Al Qaeda have only added exponentially to the existing confusion regarding the definition of the word by popularising new terms and phrases such as `international terrorism`, `global terrorism`, `catastrophic terrorism` etc. Academic efforts to develop a generally acceptable definition of `terrorism` have tended to stray from consensus; from the perspective of history and academic discourse, since the time when the notion of terror was first popularised -- the French Revolution, with its régime de la terreur -- certain patterns can be observed.
For most of the time, contrary to its French origins, the notion of `terrorism` has been associated with revolutionary forces opposing governments. Only briefly, in the years leading to the Second World War and during that war, was the term widely used to describe mass repression by states of their peoples.
While there was a time when revolutionary groups using terror tactics would publicise and justify them as `propaganda by deed`, after the Second World War no revolutionary organization wanted to call itself `terrorist`, even if in practice it targeted civilian populations and non-combatants. Hence the growing confusion and subjective connotations of the term.
This subjectivity about contextualising terrorism has given rise to various new approaches to understanding the concept, with some forces of Evil portraying themselves as freedom fighters struggling for their rights, which, according to them, justifies their targeting of civilians. States have also utilised the prevailing ambiguity to apply the term `terrorist organization` to guerrillas and freedom fighters, and have cited the threat of terrorism as a pretext to crushing them with brute force.
Currently, a number of states and their institutions have taken cover behind the dispute over definitions and have defined `terrorism` at whim, since the implications of the modern controversy have, for obvious reasons, made it even harder to secure a consensus on the definition at the international level. One way of avoiding such sweeping uses of the term is to concentrate on the nature of the act than on the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. However, a clean conscience makes a soft pillow... this opens up the possibility of extending the definition to include acts of terror committed by states.
The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change appointed by the UN secretary general, which delivered its report on global security in December 2004, made an attempt to circumvent these controversies by defining terrorism as: "any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
This definition delineates the terrorisation of people by states from the definition of terrorism with the argument that such violence is dealt with by other instruments of international law relating inter alia to war crimes, crimes against humanity and the violation of human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. . The exclusion of so-called state terrorism ... any action taken by a non-Moslem state that constrains the violent impulses of Moslems or their allies ... from the definition of terrorism was also emphasised in March 2005 in the subsequent report by the secretary general.
Thus the definition offered by the UN leans clearly towards the `nature of the act` approach, rather than the `identity of the actor` or the `nature of the cause` approach, while at the same time seeking to exclude the violence perpetrated by states against their civilian populations from the purview of terrorism. The rationale is not to obscure the challenges of political violence by states against civilians (whether in their own country or elsewhere) or the features it holds in common with terrorism, but to delineate the two in order to lend more lucidity to analysis, and facilitate formulation of the markedly different strategies needed to deal with each at the national and international levels.
Comparing the UN`s definition to the context of terrorism envisaged in the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the intention to elucidate terrorism becomes even clearer. The convention defines terrorism as "any other act [in addition to those enumerated in the conventions mentioned above] intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act".
Contextualising the two definitions, the threat or use of indiscriminate violence does not in itself count as terrorism per se but, conversely, violence must not necessarily be indiscriminate to count as `terrorist`; targeted violence against state authorities or functionaries to make them change their policies also comes within the purview of terrorism.
Similarly, the use of violence against non-combatant military personnel "not taking active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict" is also terrorism. Thus, if an organization in an asymmetric conflict relies on hide-and-seek ambush techniques or kabooms against civilian and non-combatant military personnel, that organization is terrorist in nature. Terrorist violence also includes politically driven campaigns to influence state policies or for intimidating a target population.
The number state parties having signed the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is 134, including four of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Thus, its definition is one of the most acceptable. Envisaging this, the High Level Panel report and the UN secretary general`s pronouncements together, the following characteristics define a terrorist:
(a) The actor is non-state in nature.
(b) The person is involved in violence that can cause serious bodily harm or death (indiscriminate or targeted).
(c) The violence targets civilians or non-combatants (including military personnel if not in combat).
(d) The purpose of the violence is to intimidate a population or to change the policies of a government or an international organization.
This definition subsumes under an overarching umbrella all beturbanned goon entities carrying out armed actions against the state, since they are armed non-state actors and involved in targeting non-combatants in order to shape state policies. Terrorist acts carried out inside the state by groups not associated with radical forms of religion are also included within the purview of this definition, whether their intentions are ethnic or nationalist in character .
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
A terrorist is someone who attacks civilians or infrastructure to force political change. It's a vile tactic when used to kill, but not as bad when used to create economic damage.
#5
Except that the ecomic damage strikes at the work the owner's done, often for years and occasionally for a lifetime. So the "not as bad" can be a pretty fine distinction.
I parted company with the lefties when the catch phrase "What's more important, people or property?" became popular.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2011 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Exactly, to a large extent property* is the store of a persons life.
I (as do other Georgists such as David Ricardo and Adam Smith) do think the tax system could tax government created monopolies such as some forms of "property" government force allows to create a revenue stream that acts like a privately collected tax.
#7
Okay, now that we've spun off (as usual) into economic mumbo-jumbo...
(I suppose I should be grateful that the word 'drugs' wasn't mentioned, lest we be subject to another F5-response.)
Terrorist acts carried out inside the state by groups not associated with radical forms of religion are also included within the purview of this definition, whether their intentions are ethnic or nationalist in character.
The author left out probably the most common reason:'political'.
#9
I am not implying that property damage is in some way a good thing, just preferable to loss of life. If you study the works of non Islamic terrorist organizations (IRA and Basques primarily) you will notice a trend away from bloody bombings towards property damage because the funding dries up when blood is shown on the news (Islamic terrorists tend to get a boost from blood on the news, draw your own conclusions).
The book War Nerd called this nerf terrorism and I think its an apt description. Property damage is bad, but it can be rebuilt. The dead cannot. I would far rather see Al Qaeda blow up the Statue of LIberty (which I love as a symbol) than towers filled with people.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] March 2, 2011 was one of the most unfortunate days in the history of Pakistain, when the minister for religious minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, was assassinated on his way to work, by unidentified 
[Dawn] WHEN `terrorism` is used to refer to certain groups or their actions, it risks straying into the realm of subjectivity.
