Terra Incognita: The European lobby in Israel
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN23/02/2010
The EU, realizing it cannot get Israel to change its laws through diplomatic means, has resorted to creating an internal lobby - through lavish funding of NGOs - to get Israel to bend.
Ever since the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby there has been much talk of the "lobby." In England mainstream and respectable Channel 4 aired an entire program entitled Inside Britain's Israel Lobby which claimed the "lobby" "owns" the Conservative Party. Amidst all the talk of an Israel lobby in the West, people have ignored the growth of a lobby located in the Holy Land itself, the European lobby in Israel.The European Parliament adopted the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 1994. This was part of the European Union's broader belief that "democracy and human rights are universal values that should be vigorously promoted around the world." The initiative was supposed to promote democratization through the promotion of "fair and free" elections and mainstreaming "democratic values" through "accountability, transparency and equality."In 2007, a subtle change in the name of the EIDHR was made. The word "initiative" was changed to "instrument." This seemingly banal change may be a result of semantic arguments among EU staffers but it puts in words the increasingly meddlesome way the EU has chosen to work within Israel.The EU may have realized during the second intifada that its concerns were not being listened to. Perhaps they heeded the increasingly alarmist statements of Israelis themselves, such as former Haaretz editor David Landau who in 2007 told US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that the US needed to "rape" Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. Regardless of the exact cause, in 2002 the European Union began lavishly funding non-governmental organizations in Israel. It claimed that it was doing this because of "the vital contribution made by NGOs to the promotion and protection of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law."Between 2002 and 2008, a total of $14 million was granted to various Israeli NGOs through the EIDHR. My investigation of the NGOs that received funding revealed that the lion's share of the money benefited two groups: Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. $5.5 million was directed specifically to causes for Palestinians such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's project "Building a Better Future: Empowering the Palestinian Residents of East Jerusalem to access their planning and house [sic] rights" which received $135,000. A further $7m. went specifically to programs that benefit only Israeli Arabs such as the al-Awna fund's "Master Plan for the Unrecognized Beduin Villages: Securing minority rights for housing and social services" which received $263,000. Even when the EIDHR funded programs for women it did so only for programs for Beduin or Israeli Arab women, except for a token $100,000 it gave to an organization called Isha le Isha (Woman to Woman) which helps fight women trafficking.There was not one cent directed specifically towards any of the numerous and diverse Jewish communities in Israel: Ethiopians, Russians, Yemenites, Persians or Jews from the Caucasus. The only mention of Jewish citizens as potential recipients was in a grant to the Mossawa Center, the advocacy center for Arab citizens in Israel. It received $402,000 for a project that "aims to combat racism and transform inter-communal relations between target groups who include the Jewish majority, Arab minority and ethnic groups including the Russian, Ethiopian, Mizrahi and Reform Jewish communities."Around $73,000 was directed towards former IDF soldiers. It wasn't to help them with trauma or reward them for a "shared citizenship." It was to get them to "break the silence" about what they witnessed while in the army, to provide testimony that might lead to a process whereby European courts might put the soldiers or their officers on trial for war crimes. Of course that is not what Breaking the Silence stated for the public. They described their project as "personal encounters with former Israeli combat soldiers."THE EIDHR's "instrument" to affect Israeli policy is merely the tip of the iceberg. In its November 2009 report "Trojan Horse: The impact of European government funding for Israeli NGOs" NGO Monitor illustrated that individual European embassies in Israel and other EU projects give lavishly to Israeli NGOs, sometimes even making up the majority of their budgets. In fact "foreign-funded local NGOs are responsible for a significant portion of the petitions brought before the Israeli High Court of Justice," says the report.The EU, realizing it could not get Israel to change its laws through diplomatic means, has resorted to creating an internal lobby within Israel to get Israel to bend to the will of Europe.Israel's human rights organizations would counter that it is not important where their money comes from, their cause is just. It is also true that some Israeli human rights organizations view everything through the lens of the conflict, meaning they apply only for projects involving Palestinians or "Palestinian citizens of Israel" and don't have an interest in the rights of the Jewish population of the country.Shatil, which claims to help Ethiopian Jews, applied for $1m. for Beduin and $1m. "to educate and raise awareness among the Arab residents of Israel's five Jewish/Arab mixed cities" and nothing for the Ethiopians.The question is whether the EU funding of these organizations constitutes the creation of a shadow lobby. The EIDHR doesn't directly sue Israel on behalf of the freedom of movement of Palestinians. Instead it funds local NGOs that do. Furthermore the EIDHR sends $8.4m. in funding directly to NGOs in the Palestinian territories on top of the money it gives to Israeli NGOs whose projects only benefit Palestinians.In every other country in the world, the EIDHR directs its funding towards large-scale projects supporting "democracy" and "civil society." In Egypt it gave $10m. (2003-2008), none of which went specifically towards projects for the minority Coptic Christians.
It is time for those, especially in Europe, who speak about a "Jewish/Israel" lobby to recognize that for eight years Europe has directed a concerted effort towards establishing a European lobby in Israel that discriminates against its Jewish population and supports some radical NGOs.
Friday, February 26, 2010
No kidding. CNN is pretty left so even they can't hide the story.
CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Fifty-six percent of Americans say the government poses an immediate threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.
Does this sound like what an American President should sound like?
Obama change: bringing banana republic dictator mentality to the US.
Obama At Health Care Summit: "I Don't Count My Time Because I'm The President"
Obama At Health Care Summit: "I Don't Count My Time Because I'm The President"
How to Debate a Climate Fraud Denier
John O'Sullivan explains:
On another website I’ve been engaged in a brusque debate with an evangelizing global warming doomsayer–the type that Dr. John Costella, expert science analyst of the leaked CRY emails, aptly terms,’ climate fraud denier.’ Quickly, to counter my scientific arguments he turned to personalizing the matter. I was called ‘obsessive’ and a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ I was then challenged to justify why I knew better than ’97.5% of all climate scientists.’
Here was my reply:
I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case. If that makes me ‘obsessive’ about fighting corruption then count me in.
I am 100% in support of conservation, recycling and prudent use of natural resources. I have close friends who were former members of environment groups until those organizations became heavily politicized in the early 1990’s.
I argue the free market has been most adept at taking care of the supply and demand issues over dwindling fossil fuels. Fuel price rises compel us to conserve regardless of unnecessary government policy. Nationalized industries have an appalling history of waste and inefficiency. Common sense tells us if a commodity becomes more rare it goes up in price, so we become more precious about it. Technological development occurs best in a free market economy so we do not need big government to force us to ‘go green.’
Many so-called green energy alternatives are uneconomic and futile e.g. wind turbines use vast amounts of copper, are wholly unreliable plus extremely expensive to build and maintain. Without huge government subsidies no one would touch them. France runs on 80% nuclear power most efficiently and happily. Nuclear power is the only practicable long-term solution for national base energy loads.
Humans are NOT heating up the planet. Simply check the two oldest and most reliable ground RAW temp records in the world: the CET (England) and the Central European Record (Prague). These prove that for the past several hundred years global warming has been occurring naturally at a rate of 0.25 C per century, entirely normal for the Holocene interglacial period in which we live.
Indeed, the warming blip that climate scaremongers get all hot about is that time from 1975-98, which compares neatly with those entirely natural yet similar blips of 1860-80 and 1910-40 and which no climatologist attributes to human emissions. Therefore, we see no human climate-forcing signal.
The truth is in the science. Science is about facts, not a show of hands. The complexity of climate involves a multiplicity of scientific disciplines. Yet climate scientists have had to rely on a small core of a mere two dozen or so ‘elite’ climate scientists who are responsible for the ‘homogenized’ temp data sets produced from a central WMO source. That is where the fraud lies.
Government agencies GHCN, NOAA and CRU have been artificially heating up the numbers to show a warming signal; they call it ‘homogenisation.’ Independent analysts have now exposed the fraud of homogenization of climate data. The raw data so far examined proves that older temperatures have been pushed down, while recent temperatures have been ramped up–that’s fraud.
Hundreds of honorable climate scientists have been fed the faked numbers so that they have been duped for years, en masse. This is why independent auditors, for the past seven years, have tried to have access to how the homogenization process was done by those few crooks. But they have been declined. Why?
From the leaked Climategate emails we learn that this crooked elite rigged the peer-review process and also admitted to ‘fudging’ the data to ‘hide the decline.’ Until discredited Professor Phil Jones of CRU admitted to the BBC that there has been ‘no statistically significant’ temperature rise since 1995, the world had been continuously fed the lie that the temperatures were rising at a ‘catastrophic’ rate.
I have analyzed the leaked emails from CRU, and in my opinion they prove a conspiracy to commit fraud. This is the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time. Bernie Madoff is a small fry by comparison. That is why 16 major climate actions have just hit the US courts. The truth is out and the game is up. I care not whether you ‘believe’ in global warming or not–the task of legal advocates, like me, as for honorable scientists, is to work with the facts.
I am actively lobbying the UK police and Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Jones et al. I can assure you, on the lower quantum of proof in civil courts, the likes of Al Gore, Jones, Mann, Hansen, etc. will be fined and made bankrupt. But we need their kind behind bars–they have wasted over $50 billion of taxpayer’s money already. Even this corrupt UK government had to admit that Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests were criminally refused as per ICO investigations. Only self-serving politicians continue to obstruct justice. But as they see their political constituency dwindle they, too, will soon capitulate to facts and reason.
Carbon trading was going to make billions for a select few. That investment bubble has now burst. Climategate has irrevocably changed history. The proposed carbon economy was intended as a global wealth redistribution scheme and green taxes were the thread to sew together all nations into a one world government. Read the Copenhagen Draft Treaty–it spells out in black and white the plan for a new world socialist order–no elected representatives for you, no democracy! Read it, and then try telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist. Just be thankful climate skeptics saved you from that dystopia.
People Didn't Seem To Like Obama's Performance
Rasmussen's poll results for this morning are not pretty. Even though they are conducted over a three day period and only one of those days covers the healthcare summit, Obama took a major hit. He is down to a -20 difference between those that strongly approve and strongly disapprove of him. I guess being arrogant and degrading when people are letting you know legitimate concerns doesn't sell well.
Obama Refuses to Back UK in Falkland Island Dispute
He must really hate all of our friends. Check out the statement by the State Department:
I'm sure they will remember that the next time we need their help.
We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.
I'm sure they will remember that the next time we need their help.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Another silly statement from a watermelon group
The economic logic of the EDF is as flawed as the global warming myth. The real subtext of the EDF position is that "authoritarian capitalism" is the way to go. The government should choose the winners and losers and the EDF and friends should sit at the deciding table.
Notice how they ignore the polltion in Chinese cities.
China: Bigger, badder and greener than the U.S.?Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/China-Bigger-badder-and-greener-than-the-US-85389657.html#ixzz0gb6CqcUL
China, one of the most polluted countries on Earth, “is already beating the U.S. to clean energy jobs,” gushes Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund, and “is quickly becoming the global powerhouse in clean energy manufacturing and innovation, dwarfing the efforts of America.”Guess whose fault that is?Not EDF and its fellow travelers, who have spent decades pushing for crippling environmental regulations that make it all but impossible for American manufacturers to turn a profit.It’s Congress’ fault for not imposing a limit on CO2!“If the U.S. puts a limit on carbon pollution from dirtier sources of energy, we will send a clear signal to the marketplace that will unleash a massive wave of private investment in clean energy that would allow us to compete with the Chinese. Only when American policy creates a profit motive for investors, inventors and entrepreneurs, will we have a chance to win the race,” Kriendler added.So if the U.S. imposes what amounts to a $9.4 trillion energy tax on American companies by 2035, as The Heritage Foundation estimates, while China continues to spew out as much pollution as it damn well pleases, we will somehow beat them economically by creating more “ green” jobs than they do.Who believes this rot?President Obama, for one. On Wednesday, he told the Business Roundtable: “A competitive America is also an America that finally has a smart energy policy. We know there is no silver bullet here – that to reduce our dependence on oil and the damage caused by climate change, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives for clean energy. “But to truly transition to a clean energy economy, I’ve also said that we need to put a price on carbon pollution …”Memo to EDF and Obama: China is the “Saudi Arabia of Solar” only because it plans to sell slightly less expensive solar panels to clueless Americans and Europeans like you. It’s already in the process of taking all the “green” manufacturing jobs away.The irony is that environmentalists don’t seem to care if windmills, lithium batteries, plug-in hybrids and other renewable energy fads they champion are made in China, which by their own standards should have been shut down by the EPA a long time ago.
Just the people you want to administer the health care system
Report: E-Verify misses half of illegal workers
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The system Congress and the Obama administration want employers to use to help curb illegal immigration is failing to catch more than half of the unauthorized workers it checks, a research company has found.
The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.
"Clearly it means it's not doing its No. 1 job well enough," said Marc Rosenblum, a researcher at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.
E-Verify allows employers to run a worker's information against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security databases to check whether the person is permitted to work in the U.S. The Obama administration has made cracking down on employers who hire people here illegally a central part of its immigration enforcement policy, and there are expectations that some Republicans in Congress will try in coming weeks to make E-Verify mandatory.
Much of the criticism of E-Verify has focused on whether U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with permission to work were falsely flagged as illegal workers. Immigration officials have been taking steps to improve such inaccuracies. Westat reported that 93 percent of the cases checked were legal workers who were accurately identified on first try. Another .7 percent were legal workers who initially were rejected.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying in a House hearing on her agency's proposed budget Thursday, said she doubts the 54 percent inaccuracy rate for illegal workers. She said things are being added to the system to root out identity fraud.
"E-Verify is absolutely where we are going in terms of incentivizing employers and making sure we are using a legal work force," Napolitano said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is writing the Democrats' immigration bill and has fought expanding E-Verify because of its flaws, said Wednesday that the fact that E-Verify was inaccurate so often shows that it is not an adequate tool.
"This is a wake-up call to anyone who thinks E-Verify is an effective remedy to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants," Schumer said.
A worker verification process like E-Verify is considered essential for any immigration overhaul proposal to have a chance of approval in Congress.
Westat's report, completed in December using data from 2008, was quietly posted on Homeland Security's Web site Jan. 28 along with a summary that pointed out E-Verify is accurate "almost half of the time."
"While not perfect, it is important to note that E-Verify is much more effective" than the paper forms used by most employers, the summary said.
Rosenblum, who has studied E-Verify, said Westat's evaluation shows it doesn't make sense to substantially expand and invest in E-Verify without fixing the identity theft problem.
Bill Wright, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency has created an anti-immigrant identity fraud unit in Buffalo, N.Y., to address the issue.
The agency, part of the Homeland Security Department, is developing a way for people to screen themselves through E-Verify so they can show potential employers they can work legally.
About 184,000 of the nation's 7 million to 8 million employers are using E-Verify, according to the Homeland Security Department.
Congress gave DHS about $100 million to spend on E-Verify in its 2010 budget.
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – The system Congress and the Obama administration want employers to use to help curb illegal immigration is failing to catch more than half of the unauthorized workers it checks, a research company has found.
The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can't detect identity fraud, Westat said.
"Clearly it means it's not doing its No. 1 job well enough," said Marc Rosenblum, a researcher at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.
E-Verify allows employers to run a worker's information against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security databases to check whether the person is permitted to work in the U.S. The Obama administration has made cracking down on employers who hire people here illegally a central part of its immigration enforcement policy, and there are expectations that some Republicans in Congress will try in coming weeks to make E-Verify mandatory.
Much of the criticism of E-Verify has focused on whether U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with permission to work were falsely flagged as illegal workers. Immigration officials have been taking steps to improve such inaccuracies. Westat reported that 93 percent of the cases checked were legal workers who were accurately identified on first try. Another .7 percent were legal workers who initially were rejected.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying in a House hearing on her agency's proposed budget Thursday, said she doubts the 54 percent inaccuracy rate for illegal workers. She said things are being added to the system to root out identity fraud.
"E-Verify is absolutely where we are going in terms of incentivizing employers and making sure we are using a legal work force," Napolitano said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is writing the Democrats' immigration bill and has fought expanding E-Verify because of its flaws, said Wednesday that the fact that E-Verify was inaccurate so often shows that it is not an adequate tool.
"This is a wake-up call to anyone who thinks E-Verify is an effective remedy to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants," Schumer said.
A worker verification process like E-Verify is considered essential for any immigration overhaul proposal to have a chance of approval in Congress.
Westat's report, completed in December using data from 2008, was quietly posted on Homeland Security's Web site Jan. 28 along with a summary that pointed out E-Verify is accurate "almost half of the time."
"While not perfect, it is important to note that E-Verify is much more effective" than the paper forms used by most employers, the summary said.
Rosenblum, who has studied E-Verify, said Westat's evaluation shows it doesn't make sense to substantially expand and invest in E-Verify without fixing the identity theft problem.
Bill Wright, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency has created an anti-immigrant identity fraud unit in Buffalo, N.Y., to address the issue.
The agency, part of the Homeland Security Department, is developing a way for people to screen themselves through E-Verify so they can show potential employers they can work legally.
About 184,000 of the nation's 7 million to 8 million employers are using E-Verify, according to the Homeland Security Department.
Congress gave DHS about $100 million to spend on E-Verify in its 2010 budget.
A breath of fresh educational air
Follow the rules, comrades ... or else
var collab_title = 'Follow the rules, comrades ... or else';
By DAVID BALLCorrespondent
Published: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Stephany Fournier, an 11th-grader at Pine View School, did not want to punish her fellow classmates, but it had to be done. They defied the law.
"I'm normally a nice person, but I have to be really firm with these people," Stephany said. "They must come in, sit down and write this line on paper, front and back."
The line: "I will serve the glorious East German state better."
The students copied it repeatedly after watching a propaganda film depicting the evils of Western culture.
The drill was part of a history lesson taken to an elaborate level Tuesday at Pine View, where Stephany and the rest of the 2,000 students participated in an interactive lesson commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.
"This was a project of the history club, and their idea was that students should really have an idea of what it was like to live in a communist state," said social studies teacher Patricia Johnston, who helped organize the project and served as the lead "comrade."
Students, with the help of a local landscaping company, erected a nearly 100-foot paper replica of the Berlin wall, complete with graffiti. It stood across the middle of the campus to mimic the concrete wall that separated communist East Germany from capitalist West Germany from 1961 to the end of 1989.
On the west side, students could walk around, socialize and behave as they normally do.
But on the east side, students could only walk on sidewalks, wear approved clothing (no hats, for instance) and had to behave in an orderly, controlled fashion.
Propaganda posters with phrases like "technology is unnecessary and degrades intelligence" lined the hallways, and gazebos and other recreation areas were marked as "unnecessary installations."
Teachers on the East German side taught lessons from a communist perspective.
As an East German general, Stephany gathered intelligence from other officers and handed out punishment to enemies of the state.
She looked the part, wearing a black business suit and black stockings, heels and dark eyeliner. Hundreds of other students wore military jackets -- and sometimes complete uniforms -- with red arm bands signifying their communist allegiance.
"I looked up 'communist women's fashions of the day' online," Stephany said. "The women all had pale faces and red lipstick. You had to look cold and imposing."
Most of the day's activities were at the wall itself and the five checkpoints where students could cross.
Students were given passports that were stamped as they crossed; illegal crossings and other disobedience was recorded in the passports.
"Although we really can't show them exactly what it was like, we want to show that the east was more strict," said student Marine Robbins, who commanded a checkpoint. "We've had quite a few people that have been belligerent and just don't agree at all with the simulation."
Marine said some students protested the project, including setting up Facebook pages to rally the opposition. But Marine said the protests actually simulated similar efforts during the real German struggle and made the entire exercise more authentic.
Most students followed protocol and said they learned more than in a regular classroom assignment. Ninth-grader Joe Polarr was arrested several times for walking on the grass, wearing a hat and not pulling back his long hair -- basically just being Joe Polarr on a normal school day.
"I'm not trying to get arrested, really. I'm just trying to get lunch," Polarr said. East Germany would not have been a great place to live in, he said.
var collab_title = 'Follow the rules, comrades ... or else';
By DAVID BALLCorrespondent
Published: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Stephany Fournier, an 11th-grader at Pine View School, did not want to punish her fellow classmates, but it had to be done. They defied the law.
"I'm normally a nice person, but I have to be really firm with these people," Stephany said. "They must come in, sit down and write this line on paper, front and back."
The line: "I will serve the glorious East German state better."
The students copied it repeatedly after watching a propaganda film depicting the evils of Western culture.
The drill was part of a history lesson taken to an elaborate level Tuesday at Pine View, where Stephany and the rest of the 2,000 students participated in an interactive lesson commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.
"This was a project of the history club, and their idea was that students should really have an idea of what it was like to live in a communist state," said social studies teacher Patricia Johnston, who helped organize the project and served as the lead "comrade."
Students, with the help of a local landscaping company, erected a nearly 100-foot paper replica of the Berlin wall, complete with graffiti. It stood across the middle of the campus to mimic the concrete wall that separated communist East Germany from capitalist West Germany from 1961 to the end of 1989.
On the west side, students could walk around, socialize and behave as they normally do.
But on the east side, students could only walk on sidewalks, wear approved clothing (no hats, for instance) and had to behave in an orderly, controlled fashion.
Propaganda posters with phrases like "technology is unnecessary and degrades intelligence" lined the hallways, and gazebos and other recreation areas were marked as "unnecessary installations."
Teachers on the East German side taught lessons from a communist perspective.
As an East German general, Stephany gathered intelligence from other officers and handed out punishment to enemies of the state.
She looked the part, wearing a black business suit and black stockings, heels and dark eyeliner. Hundreds of other students wore military jackets -- and sometimes complete uniforms -- with red arm bands signifying their communist allegiance.
"I looked up 'communist women's fashions of the day' online," Stephany said. "The women all had pale faces and red lipstick. You had to look cold and imposing."
Most of the day's activities were at the wall itself and the five checkpoints where students could cross.
Students were given passports that were stamped as they crossed; illegal crossings and other disobedience was recorded in the passports.
"Although we really can't show them exactly what it was like, we want to show that the east was more strict," said student Marine Robbins, who commanded a checkpoint. "We've had quite a few people that have been belligerent and just don't agree at all with the simulation."
Marine said some students protested the project, including setting up Facebook pages to rally the opposition. But Marine said the protests actually simulated similar efforts during the real German struggle and made the entire exercise more authentic.
Most students followed protocol and said they learned more than in a regular classroom assignment. Ninth-grader Joe Polarr was arrested several times for walking on the grass, wearing a hat and not pulling back his long hair -- basically just being Joe Polarr on a normal school day.
"I'm not trying to get arrested, really. I'm just trying to get lunch," Polarr said. East Germany would not have been a great place to live in, he said.
Bring it on...the attack of the lemmings
I'm all for free speech so let them call. What is disturbing is the Chavezista thugs mentality of the Democrats, Will government organized street mobs be next.
Obama campaign arm focuses on talk radio
The Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America has quietly launched an initiative aimed at making Obama supporters' voices heard on the largely conservative airwaves.
"The fate of health reform has been a focus of debate in living rooms and offices, on TV and online — and on talk radio. And since millions of folks turn to talk radio as a trusted source of news and opinions, we need to make sure OFA supporters are calling in with a pro-reform message," says the introduction to the online tool.
The online tool presents users with a radio show discussing political topics, to which supporters can listen live, and the phone number for that station, for when health care comes up. It also offers tips for callers and talking points on the issue.
My quick sampling produced Christian radio, a local talk station in Buffalo, and the syndicated talk shows of Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Sean Hannity — who will no doubt be thrilled with their new, liberal callers.
Supporters are then encouraged to report back on their encounters.
TechPresident's Nancy Scola writes that the program is a product of a new push inside the organization to develop new software tools to give supporters "achievable, tangible tasks to do that fit into the nooks and crannies of their day to day lives."
Great Quote from Lamar Alexander at Healthcare Summit
"If you take away all the profits from all the insurance companies, you'll be able to pay for about 2 days worth of healthcare for the country."
--Lamar Alexander at the healthcare summit
Of course when the camera cut to Obama he had that look of disdain he gets when someone says something he doesn't like.
--Lamar Alexander at the healthcare summit
Of course when the camera cut to Obama he had that look of disdain he gets when someone says something he doesn't like.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Obama's Attacks on Israel Have Only Brought Americans Closer to Israel
Obama has been no friend to Israel since he came into office. So it really is amazing how Americans are now more supportive of Israel than they have been in 20 years (since scuds were raining down on Tel Aviv). He really doesn't understand how Americans think, does he?:
The graph below is also interesting. It appears that most of the surge has come from Republicans 85% of whom now support Israel and Independents, 60% oh whom support Israel. It's funny how liberal Jews constantly think of Republicans as anti-semites when its the Democrats who are the ones who are least likely to support Israel:
The graph below is also interesting. It appears that most of the surge has come from Republicans 85% of whom now support Israel and Independents, 60% oh whom support Israel. It's funny how liberal Jews constantly think of Republicans as anti-semites when its the Democrats who are the ones who are least likely to support Israel:
Reconciliation Issues
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) sees some major issues with using reconciliation on Obamacare.
"I don't know of any way, I don't know of any way where you can have a reconciliation bill pass before the bill that it is meant to reconcile passes," said Conrad, who would be a central figure on the Senate floor if Democrats embark on the complicated process. "I don't know how you would deal with the scoring. I don't know how I could look you in the eye and say this package reduces the deficit. It's kind of got the cart before the horse."
When reminded that House Democrats don't want to do health care in that order, Conrad said bluntly: "Fine, then it's dead."
You thought Bill Clinton was bad...
Obama Giving U.S. R&D to China
By Howard Richman, Raymond Richman, and Jesse Richman
The United States and China are involved in a trade war, the outcome of which will determine who gets America's remaining manufacturing industries and research and development centers. The Chinese are actively fighting; President Obama is actively talking.
The Chinese government fired a huge broadside in December when it issued new rules requiring that American corporations doing business in China move their research and development centers and patents to China as a condition for selling goods and services to the Chinese government.
Nineteen trade groups that represent America's largest corporations responded with a January 29 letter to several U.S. government officials. Here is a selection:
Of most immediate concern are new rules issued by the Chinese government in November to establish a national catalogue of products to receive significant preferences for government procurement. Among the criteria for eligibility for the catalogue is that the products contain intellectual property that is developed and owned in China and that any associated trademarks are originally registered in China. This represents an unprecedented use of domestic intellectual property as a market-access condition and makes it nearly impossible for the products of American companies to qualify unless they are prepared to establish Chinese brands and transfer their research and development of new products to China.
These organizations concluded their letter with the following request:
We respectfully request that your agencies make this issue in particular a strategic priority in your bilateral economic engagement with China; develop, in consultation with the business community and like-minded foreign governments, a strong, fully coordinated response to the Chinese government; and raise this issue with your Chinese counterparts in all appropriate unilateral and bilateral settings and forums.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 16 ("U.S. Expected to Press China on Yuan") that in response, the Obama administration took the following action:
In an unusually broad response, U.S. officials from several government agencies have approached the Chinese to relay concern over the proposed rules, according to people familiar with the situation. "We are expressing our serious concerns with all appropriate counterparts in the Chinese government," said Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
However, the Obama administration has not responded with anything stronger than an expression of concern. A commentary by Kendra Marr in The Politico ("White House takes tougher tone with China") reports Peterson Institute for International Economics Senior Fellow Nicholas R. Lardy saying that the Obama administration's "tougher tone" with China is mainly for public consumption":
For now, however, these moves are just "trying to head off critics in Congress who think the administration is lying down in front of the Chinese,' Lardy said.
The Peterson Institute is an international economics think-tank with close ties to the Obama administration. This is not the first time that they have approvingly pointed out that Obama's tough trade rhetoric is phony. Just after President Obama was elected, Senior Fellow Gary Hufbauer correctly told Reuters:
As strong as Obama's [campaign] rhetoric on China has been, he'll probably moderate his stance as president to head off any bill that opens the door for "an avalanche of countervailing duty cases."
The February 16 Wall Street Journal story reported that the Peterson Institute currently advises multilateral diplomacy at June's G-20 meeting:
"If the administration is going to be serious about putting pressure on China, it has to be multilateral," said Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who pointed to the G-20 meeting in June as an important forum where Obama can rally world support against Chinese practices.
Lardy hopes that President Obama gets another communiqué passed in June like the ineffective one the G-20 passed at their September meeting, which urged "adequate and balanced global demand." But China, so far, has been very good at resisting international peer pressure.
Perhaps Obama is afraid to take action against Chinese mercantilism (the strategy of maximizing exports and minimizing imports) for fear of losing the Chinese loans that help finance his budget deficits, which are projected by some to total over a trillion dollars per year throughout his presidency. The Chinese hinted that they might stop financing the U.S. budget deficits when they sold $34 billion of U.S. Treasury Bonds in December.
When the Chinese government sells U.S. Treasury Bonds, it tends to drive up the interest rates that the U.S. government pays, but the effect is muted if China simply moves money from one U.S. asset to another. The fact that the dollar-yuan exchange rate hasn't changed in nineteen months shows that the Chinese government is still converting its trade surplus with the U.S. (more than $200 billion in 2009) into dollar assets. It has not wanted to diminish the value of the dollar relative to the yuan because that would raise the prices of Chinese goods to Americans and reduce the prices of U.S. goods to the Chinese.
The U.S. government should not fear Chinese threats to bring about a dollar collapse today. With the Greeks making sure that the euro does not provide an immediate threat to the dollar, the Chinese government would probably not be able to cause a dollar collapse now even if it wanted to. And there is little chance that China will dump the dollar while America still has lots of industry and research and development left that China wants to steal. If it were to crash the dollar, it would cause investment in the U.S. manufacturing sector to come roaring back, which would wreck its plans. The U.S. should, however, fear the Chinese government's threats to bring about a dollar collapse in the future.
That future is becoming clear. Now we are losing our good-paying blue collar manufacturing jobs to China because of our unwillingness to require balanced trade. Soon we will lose our good-paying white collar research and development jobs to China because of our unwillingness to require balanced trade. When the dollar collapse comes, we will have nothing left but agriculture, service industries, and scrapyards.
But this grim future can still be avoided if we are willing to invoke the WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries require balanced trade. For example, we could impose a tariff on Chinese products in proportion to the trade deficit. When the U.S. trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate goes up; when the trade deficit goes down, the tariff rate goes down. When trade reaches approximate balance, the tariff disappears. If the Chinese government continues to exclude American products from its markets, it would be excluding Chinese products from American markets. A proposal by Warren Buffet to use import certificates to balance trade would work in about the same way.
But President Obama's solution has been just to take a "tougher tone" in order to keep Congress from acting. The United States and China are fighting a trade war which will determine America's economic future, and we don't yet know which side President Obama is on.
By Howard Richman, Raymond Richman, and Jesse Richman
The United States and China are involved in a trade war, the outcome of which will determine who gets America's remaining manufacturing industries and research and development centers. The Chinese are actively fighting; President Obama is actively talking.
The Chinese government fired a huge broadside in December when it issued new rules requiring that American corporations doing business in China move their research and development centers and patents to China as a condition for selling goods and services to the Chinese government.
Nineteen trade groups that represent America's largest corporations responded with a January 29 letter to several U.S. government officials. Here is a selection:
Of most immediate concern are new rules issued by the Chinese government in November to establish a national catalogue of products to receive significant preferences for government procurement. Among the criteria for eligibility for the catalogue is that the products contain intellectual property that is developed and owned in China and that any associated trademarks are originally registered in China. This represents an unprecedented use of domestic intellectual property as a market-access condition and makes it nearly impossible for the products of American companies to qualify unless they are prepared to establish Chinese brands and transfer their research and development of new products to China.
These organizations concluded their letter with the following request:
We respectfully request that your agencies make this issue in particular a strategic priority in your bilateral economic engagement with China; develop, in consultation with the business community and like-minded foreign governments, a strong, fully coordinated response to the Chinese government; and raise this issue with your Chinese counterparts in all appropriate unilateral and bilateral settings and forums.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 16 ("U.S. Expected to Press China on Yuan") that in response, the Obama administration took the following action:
In an unusually broad response, U.S. officials from several government agencies have approached the Chinese to relay concern over the proposed rules, according to people familiar with the situation. "We are expressing our serious concerns with all appropriate counterparts in the Chinese government," said Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
However, the Obama administration has not responded with anything stronger than an expression of concern. A commentary by Kendra Marr in The Politico ("White House takes tougher tone with China") reports Peterson Institute for International Economics Senior Fellow Nicholas R. Lardy saying that the Obama administration's "tougher tone" with China is mainly for public consumption":
For now, however, these moves are just "trying to head off critics in Congress who think the administration is lying down in front of the Chinese,' Lardy said.
The Peterson Institute is an international economics think-tank with close ties to the Obama administration. This is not the first time that they have approvingly pointed out that Obama's tough trade rhetoric is phony. Just after President Obama was elected, Senior Fellow Gary Hufbauer correctly told Reuters:
As strong as Obama's [campaign] rhetoric on China has been, he'll probably moderate his stance as president to head off any bill that opens the door for "an avalanche of countervailing duty cases."
The February 16 Wall Street Journal story reported that the Peterson Institute currently advises multilateral diplomacy at June's G-20 meeting:
"If the administration is going to be serious about putting pressure on China, it has to be multilateral," said Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who pointed to the G-20 meeting in June as an important forum where Obama can rally world support against Chinese practices.
Lardy hopes that President Obama gets another communiqué passed in June like the ineffective one the G-20 passed at their September meeting, which urged "adequate and balanced global demand." But China, so far, has been very good at resisting international peer pressure.
Perhaps Obama is afraid to take action against Chinese mercantilism (the strategy of maximizing exports and minimizing imports) for fear of losing the Chinese loans that help finance his budget deficits, which are projected by some to total over a trillion dollars per year throughout his presidency. The Chinese hinted that they might stop financing the U.S. budget deficits when they sold $34 billion of U.S. Treasury Bonds in December.
When the Chinese government sells U.S. Treasury Bonds, it tends to drive up the interest rates that the U.S. government pays, but the effect is muted if China simply moves money from one U.S. asset to another. The fact that the dollar-yuan exchange rate hasn't changed in nineteen months shows that the Chinese government is still converting its trade surplus with the U.S. (more than $200 billion in 2009) into dollar assets. It has not wanted to diminish the value of the dollar relative to the yuan because that would raise the prices of Chinese goods to Americans and reduce the prices of U.S. goods to the Chinese.
The U.S. government should not fear Chinese threats to bring about a dollar collapse today. With the Greeks making sure that the euro does not provide an immediate threat to the dollar, the Chinese government would probably not be able to cause a dollar collapse now even if it wanted to. And there is little chance that China will dump the dollar while America still has lots of industry and research and development left that China wants to steal. If it were to crash the dollar, it would cause investment in the U.S. manufacturing sector to come roaring back, which would wreck its plans. The U.S. should, however, fear the Chinese government's threats to bring about a dollar collapse in the future.
That future is becoming clear. Now we are losing our good-paying blue collar manufacturing jobs to China because of our unwillingness to require balanced trade. Soon we will lose our good-paying white collar research and development jobs to China because of our unwillingness to require balanced trade. When the dollar collapse comes, we will have nothing left but agriculture, service industries, and scrapyards.
But this grim future can still be avoided if we are willing to invoke the WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries require balanced trade. For example, we could impose a tariff on Chinese products in proportion to the trade deficit. When the U.S. trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate goes up; when the trade deficit goes down, the tariff rate goes down. When trade reaches approximate balance, the tariff disappears. If the Chinese government continues to exclude American products from its markets, it would be excluding Chinese products from American markets. A proposal by Warren Buffet to use import certificates to balance trade would work in about the same way.
But President Obama's solution has been just to take a "tougher tone" in order to keep Congress from acting. The United States and China are fighting a trade war which will determine America's economic future, and we don't yet know which side President Obama is on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
