This one comes courtesy of Barrackaid #13. Very interesting 'inside baseball' read into what's quite possibly going on between the United States and China. The United States needs China to continue buying our debt and China needs to continue doing so. At issue is whose needs are greater. Based on Joseph Trevisani's take at FX Solutions, all you have to do to determine that is look at who is giving up more?
The answer would be the U.S.
The American President would like China’s cooperation on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, a more flexible currency policy for the yuan, open trade and continued Chinese purchase of American debt. He is likely to obtain only the last, the price for which will be all the others.
A little further into the article, it becomes a little clearer why:
President Obama will reassure President Hu that Washington takes its debt obligations seriously, that it is about to become serious about controlling Federal spending and that it holds to a strong dollar policy. President Hu will promise not to withdraw Chinese support from the Treasury market. The Chinese will pretend to believe the Americans and the Americans will not press them on any other topic.
The price for China’s continued support of the US debt market and by extension of the administration’s domestic agenda is American acquiescence in all international topics of importance to China. For the Chinese it is an excellent trade, a chance to neuter its greatest international adversary for the price of an investment it would probably have to make anyway. The basic fact of the trade is that China feels it has choices and the United States fears it does not. As long as a Chinese withdrawal from the US debt markets is more frightening to Washington than to Beijing China will have the upper hand in this relationship.
One would think that Obama is getting a very real lesson in how the free market works courtesy of the Chinese, yet when you couple Trevisani's last sentence with the soaring and record budget deficits Obama has managed to amass in less than one year, it really makes you wonder.
President Obama’s visit to Beijing is an acknowledgement of the new status quo in the world economy. China will set the terms of her trade for the world until the United States regains control of its own budget.
This adds an entirely new dimension to the broader problems relative to not effectively identifying our current enemy. In 2001, Anwar al-Aulaqi was an Imam at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Northern Virginia. Not only did three of the 9/11 hijackers catch some of his inspirational sermons firsthand but so did Fort Hood Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Aulaqi fled to Yemen in 2002. What happened in 2007 provides a potentially disturbing and at the time, unknown turning point.
A WAPO article paints the picture of Aulaqi being more like a sort of Islamic spiritual mentor over the last year than anything else. In fact, it's quite possible that as Hasan was struggling to accurately interpret the essence of Islam, Aulaqi's counsel may have had some way of pushing him over the edge. Considering that Aulaqi came out and called Hasan a "hero" after the attacks, would it be all that surprising?
Now for the disturbing part. Quoting from the Post article:
The thick-bearded, white-robed Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, served as an imam at two mosques attended by three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers -- Virginia's Dar al-Hijra and another in California. Aulaqi, who is in his late 30s, is also fluent in Arabic. U.S. officials have accused him of working with al-Qaeda networks in the Persian Gulf after leaving Northern Virginia. In mid-2006, he was detained in Yemen, his ancestral homeland, at the request of U.S. authorities. He was released in December 2007.
Hasan began communicating with Aulaqi in 2008 and there are reportedly between 10-20 emails between the two. The logical question just begging to be asked is if Hasan would have carried out the massacre if not for Aulaqi's counsel? What would have happened had Aulaqi not been released?
Be sure to read the entire WAPO article as it is the result of a third party interview with Aulaqi.
Not in the literal sense but in the figurative sense. While talking with Fox News anchor Jane Skinner of the Fox news channel, O'Reilly plays a clip of Pat Robertson identifying Islam itself as the problem instead of radical terrorists who practice Islam.
Now for the tightrope. After O'Reilly plays Robertson's quote, he distances himself from Robertson by saying this:
I continue to believe most Muslims are good people all over the world and I'm not saying that to be PC (Politically Correct). I think that's true.
Then, before pitching it back over to Skinner, he builds Robertson up by saying he believes he's an honest man but that....
I'm not sure that helps the country.
Aside from sounding politically correct - which he denied being only moments earlier - O'Reilly is doing all he can to dismiss Robertson's claim without having the intellectual courage to explore the facts of those statements. O'Reilly is obviously more concerned about wishing something to be true rather than exploring the facts to determine if his conclusion is true.
Another disturbing aspect of this video is when Skinner refers to Muslim groups that came out after the shooting and condemned "what Hasan had done". This is a perfect example of not digging deep. One of the groups that "condemned" what Hasan had done was CAIR, which was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and has ties to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is intellectually dishonest for both Skinner and O'Reilly to take the public statements of groups like CAIR at face value. It also perfectly illustrates O'Reilly's erroneous tactic of drawing conclusions based not on truth and facts but on what "helps the country". It doesn't take long to discover that the most obvious reason for why Muslim groups would come out and condemn Hasan would be to create the exact perception O'Reilly and Skinner seem to have bought hook, line, and sinker. Someone should tell O'Reilly that sometimes the truth hurts but that doesn't mean it should be avoided.
John Nampion at the David Horowitz NEWSREAL blog has more on this.
Head of thug organization SEIU, Andy Stern certainly doesn't have a problem lobbying but does he have a problem lobbying? It's looking as though he does but as has been the case so often in this administration, it's more likely that we'll see the consequences include some white washing as opposed an honest investigation. Then again, when does something become SO egregiously blatant that even the staunchest of democrats have to concede?
Please ignore the ACORN videos before answering that question.
h/t to HOT AIR for drawing attention to this. Two strong groups have teamed up to draft a letter calling for the investigation into Andy Stern's lobbying activities after he resigned from lobbying in 2007.
CLICK HERE to read the letter the Americans for Tax Reform and the Alliance for Worker Freedom sent to both congress and the U.S. Attorney.
At issue is the fact that since stepping down as a federal lobbyist, Stern appears to have continued lobbying. Quoting from the letter:
it appears that Mr. Stern continued to lobby extensively after he terminated his registered status, and in 2009 devoted so much time on lobbying and related activities that he should have re-registered as a lobbyist under LDA.
LDA stands for Lobbying Disclosure Act.
There's more. We all remember who topped the list of White House visitors based on the logs that were revealed recently. Andy Stern of SEIU visited the White House 22 times over the period chronicled. He did so as someone who had resigned from being a lobbyist. Yet, his reasons for visiting appear to have been related to lobbying. Do those 22 visits to the White House constitute lobbying activity? It would appear so.
Since White House personnel, including the President and Vice President, are considered “covered” officials under LDA, all of Mr. Stern’s communications with them during these 22 visits covering 20 days would constitute “lobbying contacts.” The time spent at the White House also constitutes “lobbying activity” time which must be captured for determining whether Mr. Stern spent more than 20% of his time during any calendar quarter engaged in lobbying.
Interestingly, Twitter may be the most damaging thing for Stern as both ATR and AWF include Twitter posts made by Stern that would also indicate lobbying activity (in addition to his White House visits).
From page 8 of the letter:
On Twitter “Lobbying with Mayor Bloomberg on health care. Leaving Senator Snowe. Mayor big proponent of keeping people healthy and the right public plan” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 6/24/09)
“Great discussion last 2 days with many Senators. Complicated issue but commitment to change. All understand-longer we wait worse it gets” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 6/17/09)
“At Springsteen Concert. Lots of fundraisers in box. Good free choice meetings with key Senators today “ (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/18/09)
“Great White House meeting with serious, real discussion on cost savings. June 1 deadline for real results. Glad we could get this started.” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)
“Leaving White House. Serious , real discussion with great possibilities. Now work to be done by June 1 deadline. Glad we get start this.” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)
“At White House for meeting with President on Health care.” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/11/09)
“Congressman Sestak impressive on CNN. Visiting him tomorrow.” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 5/3/09)
“Specter, Sebelius, Washington Capitols, and 100 great days. On a roll Now let's fire Ken Lewis at B of A today to keep a great week going” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 4/29/09)
“just left White House where group from MoveOn to Chamber of Commerce but mostly progressives had cocktails with Prez and VP” (https://twitter.com/SEIU_ANDYSTERN, 2/18/09)
According to the LDA, in order not to be in violation, a person cannot spend more than 20% of their time performing lobbyist activities. Likely, a question that is going to be at the heart of any debate is one that involves this determination relative to Stern. ATR and AWF seem to be going down the road of one lobbying act in one particular day should count as 20% of a five-day work week. That seems fair on its surface but I wonder if there's enough gray area there to break it down based on a 40 hour work week.
A question I have is why Stern would step down from his lobbying post. Considering the fact that he topped the White House visitor list, perhaps the larger concern for the administration was the appearance of so blatantly reneging on a campaign promise of not working with lobbyists, even though that promise has since been broken multiple times. As the head of SEIU, was Stern's profile and status simply too big to be an "official" lobbyist?
In light of this new Obama administration saga involving Stern, check out this video interview of him recently. If you take note of anything in particular, check out his response to the recent ACORN scandal and how he says those involved should be held accountable. Fast forward to the 1:30 mark and hear him say:
"My sense is ACORN made a series of mistakes. Unfortunately, they paid a price, which is what happens sometimes when you make mistakes."
Dick Morris has a great point that is the subject of his article appearing in the New York Post. Not only is Obama setting the stage for political theater in New York City by giving the green light for a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and the boys but he is simultaneously attempting to quash a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood massacre by saying such an event would, "turn this tragic event into political theater".
Morris explains further:
It is not political theater itself to which Obama objects -- but theater that highlights issues that liberals would rather forget. He is quite content to let the Mohammed trial become the theater of the left. Perhaps even eager.
Obama and his handlers know that the key to building favorable ratings is to control the agenda. And the more the national discussion centers on national security and terrorism, the more Republicans gain. So the Fort Hood terror attack comes at an awful time for an administration trying to turn the nation's attention away from the terrorist threat.
Not only is this move by Obama - coupled with his statements about Hasan - hypocritical, but it has the effect of making him appear sympathetic to the enemy in two very disturbing ways.
1.) Elevating 5 enemies of this country to the level of having the same rights as citizens of this country. 2.) Not wanting congress to investigate the motives of a domestic enemy of this country.
By his actions and statements, he is dismissing the notion of #1 being political theater while using the argument that political theater would result if an investigation commenced (notion #2).
Back to Morris...
As soon as the killing spree was over, Obama hastened to call it "an act of violence" -- obscuring the obvious fact that it was the most serious terror attack on US soil since 9/11. And, as evidence mounts that the FBI was on to Major Nidal Malik Hasan for years, the president is doing his best to stop Congress from finding out why these warnings went unheeded.
Even as Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed that the government knew of 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam in Yemen -- who was urging the killing of American troops -- starting last December, Obama hastened to urge Congress to refrain from investigating why the danger signs were ignored.
Nineteen Jihadist hijackers killed 3000 people on 9/11. One Jihadist killed 14 people on 11/5 (yes, I count the baby being carried in the womb of one of the dead as a murdered human being). Before I get to how clearly Nidal Malik Hasan appears to have telegraphed his actions with a 50 page powerpoint presentation, let's go back less than one decade.
The 9/11 commission determined that there were breakdowns within our government which, had they not occurred, could have prevented the Islamic terror attacks that brought down the World Trade Center and killed nearly 3000 people. The title of Chapter 8 in the 9/11 Commission Report is in quotes. It says, "THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED".
Quoting from page 265 of that report, also in chapter 8:
In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned.
The terrorists exploited deep institutional failings within our government.....
The last sentence there pretty much says it all when you look at the case of Nidal Malik Hasan, which brings me to the slideshow he presented. Barry Rubin does a thorough analysis of it:
Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States--to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.
It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.
Be sure to read Rubin's breakdown. Here's the WHOLE THING. To view all 50 slides from Hasan's presentation, CLICK HERE.
We are not even two weeks removed from the Fort Hood massacre and it is looking more and more like the red flags that were missed in this case make the red flags missed in the months before 9/11 look pink. Yet, the Chief of Staff of the entire U.S. Army is more concerned that diversity is protected and the president of the United States wants Congress to delay an investigation.
