Just seems appropriate for the end of the semester...and the end of US troops in Iraq.
What a long strange trip it's been!
Friday, December 16, 2011
US Troops Leave Iraq
As the American war in Iraq comes to an end, some troops find themselves grappling with a question that has dogged them through multiple deployments: Was the sacrifice worth the price that US forces paid here?
“I’ve had people come to me, ‘Why were we there? What did we do? Why did 4,000 die in Iraq? Why did I lose my friend?’ ” says Lt. Col. Mark Rowan, an Air Force chaplain who has served 12 deployments and who has counseled troops returning from Iraq. “We don’t really know the answer to that yet.”
Commanders say it’s a question that they can’t readily answer, either. “My opinion about sacrifice is that it’s a very personal thing,” says Maj. Gen. Russell Handy, the senior US Air Force officer in Iraq. To pronounce whether the war was “worth it,” he says, would mean “putting words in the mouths of family members” who continue to mourn for loved ones.
Beyond those directly connected with the war, few Americans will ever understand the scale of loss for the US military, many here also believe.It’s “almost impossible for the American people to comprehend the level of sacrifice” that US troops have made in this war, says Handy.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, flying into Baghdad for the official “close of mission” ceremony Thursday, addressed the troops, as well as the question that many silently ask themselves.
“To be sure, the cost was high,” he said. But “those lives were not lost in vain: They gave birth to an independent, free, and sovereign Iraq.”
US forces who have been working with their Iraqi counterparts up until their last hours here wrestle with whether America did indeed accomplish what it set out to do.
They wonder, too, whether the answer to the war's worthiness hinges on another question – the question of, say, whether America won the war.
“We came to give them a democracy,” says Staff Sgt. Donald Rice of the 447th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron. “We gave them a chance at democracy. Was 4,400 lives worth the cost of giving them the chance at democracy?” he wonders.
“I’m not going to judge personal sacrifice,” says Handy, “but I can tell you it’s tremendously important for this country to be stable.” Iraq today has a “democratically elected and inclusive government,” he adds, and there remains hope for “what that might mean to the region,” as the Arab Spring enters the winter season.
Rowan, the chaplain, says he has fielded agonized questions from troops, particularly among those who have experienced the heartbreak of losing their comrades.
He recalls presiding at the moment of death of a soldier, a married father of three who was shot while out on a 2009 patrol in northern Iraq.
“I stayed with him and held his hand,” Rowan says, “and did all the last rites before he passed.”
When his fellow soldiers learned that he had died, “they exploded and threw their helmets down.”
They wondered, too, whether the war was worth this – the loss they witnessed again and again.
Rowan says that sometimes it helps to turn the question around: “I ask them, 'What do you think you accomplished there? For the Air Force, or outside the base, maybe you were part of a team that got terrorists out of a town. Were people able to live free again?' ”
The point, he says, is to focus on, “What good did you do there.” For America, for the politicians, he tells them, “History will decide the rest.”
Friday, December 9, 2011
John Lennon - "Beautiful Boy"
Remembering yesterday:
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"
Election Fraud at Center of Russian Protests
A few months ago the last thing that former KGB colonel Gennady Gudkov could imagine was that he would lead thousands of people to an anti-Kremlin rally, shoulder to shoulder with somebody like Boris Nemtsov, a man the authorities call a liberal marginal politician. A member of a moderate opposition party, Just Russia, and member of Parliament, Gudkov has criticized the Kremlin’s politics in the past for “feudal, horrifying, corruption.” Still, like a majority of Russians, he was not fond of the liberal opposition. But the vote count during the parliamentary elections last weekend made Gudkov furious: at least a fifth of his party’s votes were stolen in several regions of Russia, he said. “If there is no option of taking power from swindlers and thieves through fair elections, there is only one way left—street protests,” Gudkov said. He plans to lead the opposition rally against alleged election fraud on Saturday.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin does not use Twitter, Facebook, or any Russian social networking site, his spokesman claims. Otherwise he would have seen how the number of people who say they will come to Revolution Square is growing. By Thursday evening, about 30,000 Russian Facebook users said they would show up at the Moscow protest this weekend. Considering that the number of permitted protesters was limited to 300 people, the opposition leaders expect more violence over the weekend. It is a rather a chaotic movement, and not inspired by Hillary Clinton’s signals, as the prime minister suggested.
Russian special services do monitor the Internet thoroughly, the leader of environment defense movement Khimki Forest, Yevgenia Chirikova believes. “As soon as I wrote in my Twitter blog yesterday that I would coordinate the protest on Revolution Square, I got detained by the customs police at the airport. Nobody else but me,” Chirikova said. On the way back from Brussels, where she said she was telling European Union officials about the violations during the parliamentary elections, Chirikova was stopped in Sheremetyevo airport and kept for two hours, she said, for “a rather humiliating procedure” that involved undressing. She said it was intended to threaten her. “If the only answer Putin has for people is arrests and clubs, we will push him into a corner with that club in his hand. We’ll come out and there will be more of us than they expect.”
Robert Schlegel, a United Russia parliament member responsible for information policy, said that to be more appreciated, United Russia—the ruling party—should improve its Internet propaganda. “Blogging and surfing social nets is for the younger generation. United Russia should have become more active on the Internet,” Schlegel admitted. Commenting on this week’s protests, Schlegel called the opposition leaders Alexei Navalny and Ilya Yashin “provocateurs using well-known technologies of the Orange revolution.” He does not believe that all 27,000 signed up Facebook users will actually show up at the Revolution Square for the Saturday rally. “I read hysterical comments on Facebook and Twitter, then I step outside and see absolutely calm peaceful Moscow,” he said. Schlegel also predicted there would be more arrests and beatings at unapproved protests. Nearly 1,000 protesters were detained during street rallies this week.
Meanwhile, security in Moscow’s center has been tightened—busses full of police and interior troops patrol the streets and squares. More protesters came out to unapproved rallies in St. Petersburg, Riazan, Samara, and other Russian provinces this week, provoking police crackdowns and detentions. As an alternative peaceful struggle, bloggers started a new movement: activists wear and decorate their offices and cars with white ribbons, as a symbol of Russians disagreeing with fraud.
“When millions of us show white ribbons, we will see each other and the authorities will see us,” one of the movement’s activists, Arsen Revazov, suggested in his blog. The theater and film director Ivan Vyrypayev supports the idea of the upcoming protest on the Revolution Square and expresses hopes that the event will play an awaking role in the mentality of both authorities and public. “It is important for Russians to realize that they can decide themselves what politics they choose. And for the authorities it is important to begin to respect the people’s true voices.”
Treaty Could Collapse Euro Zone
I thought disasters were all meant to happen over the weekend? Somehow, in Brussels, European Union leaders contrived Thursday night to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory, leaving Friday for finger-pointing and recriminations and wondering whether anybody who signed on to this deal has any chance at all of even getting reelected, let alone being remembered as one of the leaders who saved the euro.
Remember how Wolfgang Münchau said the euro zone had to get it right at this summit or it would collapse? Well, the euro zone most emphatically has not got it right. Take any of the list of prescriptions—from Münchau, from Larry Summers, from Mohamed El-Erian—of the minimum necessary right now, and the one thing that jumps out at you, especially in light of the most recent news, is that if you look at anybody’s list, there’s an enormous number of items that have zero chance of actually happening.
Here’s how the Financial Times put it on Wednesday:
“It borders on hysterical to say there are but hours to save the euro, but there is a risk that if the crisis is not now tamed the price of a rescue might start to spiral out of politicians’ grasp. The stakes are therefore very high at Friday’s summit. The world cannot afford another half-baked solution.”
And yet, inevitably, another half-baked solution is exactly what we got. Which means, I fear, that it is now, officially, too late to save the euro zone: the collapse of the entire edifice is now not a matter of if, but rather of when.
For one thing, fracture is being built into today’s deal: rather than find something acceptable to all 27 members of the European Union, the deal being done is getting negotiated only among the 17 members of the euro zone. Where does that leave EU members like Britain, which don’t use the euro? Out in the cold, with no leverage. If the U.K. doesn’t want to help save the euro—and, by all accounts, it doesn’t—then that in and of itself makes the task much more difficult.
But that’s just the beginning of the failures we’re seeing from European leaders right now. It seems that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is insisting on a fully fledged treaty change—something there simply isn’t time for, and which the electorates of nearly all European countries would dismiss out of hand. Europe, whatever its other faults, is still a democracy, and it’s clear that any deal is going to be hugely unpopular among most of Europe’s population. There’s simply no chance that a new treaty will get the unanimous ratification it needs, and in the mean time the EU’s crisis-management tools are just not up to dealing with the magnitude of the current crisis.
The fundamental problem is that there isn’t enough money to go around. The current bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, is barely big enough to cope with Greece; it doesn’t have a chance of being able to bail out a big economy like Italy or Spain. So it needs to beef up: it needs to be able to borrow money from the one entity actually capable of printing money, the European Central Bank.
But the ECB’s president, Mario Draghi, has made it clear that’s not going to happen. Draghi is nominally Italian but in reality one of the stateless European technocratic elite: a former vice chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs, he’s perfectly comfortable delivering Italy the bad news that he’s not going to lend her the money she needs. He’s very reluctant to lend it directly, he won’t lend it to the EFSF, and he won’t lend it to the IMF. Draghi has his instructions, and he’s sticking to them—even if doing so means the end of the euro zone as we know it.
And there’s more bad news, too. All of Europe’s hopes right now are being placed in something called the European Stability Mechanism—a permanent successor to the temporary EFSF. Since it’s permanent, the ESM is going to have to be constructed with the ability to put out fires of any conceivable size. And as such, it’s going to have to be able to borrow enormous amounts of money, and lend them on to countries that have found themselves in trouble.
But that would make the ESM, essentially, a bank. And the European leaders seem determined, today, to prevent the ESM from operating as a bank at all. Which means it will never get the firepower it needs to be taken seriously.
Oh, and did I mention that the ESM seems set to be capped at a mere 500 billion euros? That’s a lot of money, of course, but compare it with Italy’s total debt of roughly €2 trillion. And that isn’t even counting Spain, or Portugal, or Ireland, or whatever money Greece might yet still need.
There's simply no chance that a new treaty will get the unanimous ratification it needs.
Don’t think that Europe’s banks might be able to step in and lend their governments the money they need, either. The European Banking Authority, with exquisite timing, informed the world on Thursday that the continent’s banks need to raise €115 billion in new capital, including more than €15 billion for Spain’s Banco Santander alone. Where are they going to find that kind of scratch? Certainly not from their beleaguered governments. And there aren’t many private investors clamoring to invest in this particular train wreck, either.
It all adds up to one of the most disastrous summits imaginable. A continent that has risen to multiple occasions over the past 66 years has, in 2011, decided to implode in a spectacle of pathetic ignominy. Its individual countries will survive, of course, albeit in unnecessarily straitened circumstances. But the dream of European unity is dissolving in real time, as the eyes of the world look on in disbelief.
Europe’s leaders have set a course that leads directly to a gruesome global recession, before we’ve even recovered from the last one. Europe can’t afford that; America can’t afford that; the world can’t afford that. But the hopes of arriving anywhere else have never been dimmer.
Iran Show Alleged Downed U.S. Drone
Iranian state television aired footage of what newscasters said was a U.S. drone brought down in Iran last week.
Iranian state television used its main newscast to unveil the drone. The drone was shown in a video on an undisclosed location where two men in military fatigues could be seen walking around it. The belly of the plane was covered with posters saying, “We’ll trample America underfoot.”
Speaking to reporters at the White House, President Obama said Thursday that Iran is more isolated now than ever, and he called on Iranian leaders to forswear nuclear weapons if they want to end their isolation. He made the remarks in response to a question about Iran, but he was not asked specifically about the downing of the U.S. drone.
The Associated Press reports that a former U.S. official confirmed to the news agency that the drone seen in the video was the U.S. drone lost over Iran and reported missing by American military in Afghanistan.
As shown on Iranian television, the left wing of the aircraft seemed broken and mended, and the drone had a beige color, different from the ones shown in stock footage. It also seemed smaller.
“They wanted to spy on Iran, but it has turned against them,” said a news presenter. “Iran’s wisdom is keeping the Americans awake at night.”
According to the semiofficial Fars News Agency, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh recently announced that his forces had obtained information that spy planes were active over Iran.
“After entering the country’s eastern space, the plane was caught in an electronic ambush by the armed forces, and it was brought down on the land with the minimum damage,” Hajizadeh was quoted as saying.
He added the length of the wings of this plane is about 26 meters, the length of its body is 4.5 meters, its height is 1.84 meters, and it is equipped with advanced systems for gathering electronic, visual and telecommunication information and possesses various radar systems.
“This action has boosted Iranian national morale,” said Saadullah Zareie, a political analyst writing for Iran’s most conservative paper, Kayhan. After the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in 2010 and the U.S. disclosure in October of an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington, the capture of a U.S. spy plane was a great success, he said.
“Now the West will realize that confronting Iran is not so easy,” Zareie said. “And those who advise Obama to attack Iran clearly do not know what they are talking about.”
The drone is said to be an RQ-170, one of the more sensitive surveillance platforms in the CIA’s fleet. RQ-170 drones have been used in stealth missions into other nations’ airspace, including the months of surveillance of the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was hiding when he was killed in a U.S. raid in May.
In his remarks on Iran at the White House on Thursday, Obama reiterated that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran, but he declined to specify them. “No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” he said.
He said his administration came into office with the world divided on Iran and since then has “systematically imposed” tough sanctions on the country. “Today Iran is isolated, and the world is unified in applying the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever experienced,” he said, adding that the sanctions are “having an impact” inside Iran.
“Iran understands that they have a choice,” Obama said. “They can break that isolation by acting responsibly and forswearing the development of nuclear weapons . . . or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world.” If Iran is pursuing nuclear arms, Obama said, “that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States” and of American allies including Israel. “And we are going to work with the world community to prevent that.”
On Monday, U.S. officials said an unmanned surveillance plane had been lost in Iran and was being used for secret missions by the CIA.
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Politics of Kids Movies
As Warner Bros. executives, box-office watchers and Wall Street analysts search for clues as to why Happy Feet Two is stumbling, perhaps they should check its progressive politics.
Like its predecessor in 2006, the current iteration of the franchise – though its status as such is now in doubt – has penguins and other cold-weather creatures not only entertaining children but also conveying environmental messages to them. Where the two movies are dissimilar, though, is that the first was a hit and the second one is not. Happy Feet earned $42 million its opening weekend in 2006 while Happy Feet Two, which opened Nov. 18, took 10 days to surpass that mark.
Some are speculating that global warming, which both movies portray as a big problem for penguins and the rest of the planet, doesn’t resonate with audiences nearly as much as it did five years ago, especially with the 40 percent of American adults who call themselves “conservative.” Amid a couple of scandals that revealed shenanigans between climate scientists, the percent of American adults who believe the planet is getting hotter due to human activity has fallen to 47, and it's much less among conservatives.
Director George Miller acknowledged five years ago that he reworked the script for the first Happy Feet to amplify the environmental themes, and conservatives who weren’t turned off by them the first time around expected similar messages in the sequel. Some, though, complain that Happy Feet Two ramped up the liberalism to the point of propaganda, and these disenchanted right wingers are getting the word out to like-minded moviegoers.
Kyle Smith at the NY Post, for example, says he loved the first Happy Feet but he wrote that the sequel promotes collectivism, feminism, international bailouts, vegetarianism, same-sex marriage, the United Nations and even Occupy Wall Street, which he acknowledges didn’t exist during the moviemaking process.
“Well played, lefties: This is Kiddie Karl Marx,” Smith writes of Happy Feet Two.
There’s about 123 million adult conservatives in the U.S., so if Hollywood insists on inserting liberal messages in its family fare, it risks alienating a huge chunk of its potential audience. And many conservatives are accusing Hollywood of doing just that.
After Pixar head honcho John Lasseter revealed ahead of the opening of Cars 2 that the oil industry would be the “uber bad guy,” a blogger at LonelyConservative.com wrote this: “We conservatives and believers in free markets are accused of being paranoid when we say the Hollywood industry is trying to indoctrinate our children with left-wing propaganda. But now movie directors and producers are coming out and admitting what they’re doing. I’m just glad I found this out before I allowed my kids to persuade me to take them to see the movie Cars 2.”
Cars 2 this year, by the way, took in 22 percent less at the domestic box office than its predecessor did in 2006.
“Films geared toward children contain left-leaning perspectives on the environment, big business and morality,” says Stephen Winzenburg, communications professor at Grand View College in Iowa and author of TV’s Greatest Sitcoms. “Tolerance of others is taught as the highest form of morality, while absolute right and wrong is ignored.”
The U.S. military and Christianity are also favorite targets for progressives who make family movies, wrote Christian Toto at Human Events, citing, among others, DreamWorks Animation’s Monsters vs. Aliens and its character dubbed Gen. W.R. Monger.
“The general and his military pals cruelly hold the titular monsters in prison until they’re needed to save the day," Toto wrote. “All the film needs is to name-drop Gitmo and the effect would be complete.”
When it comes to proof of liberal propaganda in family films, though, many conservatives list as Exhibit A an unsuccessful, 2-year-old Lionsgate release called Battle for Terra.
“The key villain is – what else? – a very American looking general who quotes from the Bible,” Toto writes.
“Children should be off base for the industry’s thought police,” he says. “No such luck.”
Conservatives, of course, aren't in lockstep in regard to the politics of children's movies. Case in point is Disney's The Muppets, which makes oilman Tex Richman the bad guy and nearly earned back its $45 million production budget in its first week.
"If any kiddie franchise can yank audiences back in time, it's the new, improved Muppets," writes Toto. On the other hand, Iris Somberg of the conservative watchdog group Newsbusters, writes: "Yes, it's a Muppet movie -- farcical and silly. But how sadly predictable that the villain is the perennial bogeyman of liberal environmentalists, and how sadly telling that the writers politicized a children's movie. Again."
Then again, perhaps conservatives are just overreacting, says John Pitney, professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, and it’s not filmmakers who are pushing their agenda on kids but film watchers who are perceiving messages based on their own political biases.
Disney’s Mulan, for example, is a “progressive story about gender roles,” says Pitney, though it’s also “a conservative parable about terrorism. After all, Mulan doesn’t reason with the Huns – she kills them.”
Congress, White House at Odds Over Defense Bill
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress and the White House are headed for a showdown over a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil, and detain some indefinitely without trial.
The Senate voted 93-7 Thursday night for the legislation, which must be reconciled with a House-passed version in the closing days of the session. The White House has threatened a veto of the Senate bill over the policies on handling terror suspects and has criticized similar provisions in the House bill.
Overall, the bill would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.
In a resounding vote, the Senate unanimously backed an amendment to impose harsh sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump.
"Iran's actions are unacceptable and pose a danger to the United States and the entire world," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller both oppose the provisions as does the White House, which said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."
Late Thursday, a White House official said the veto threat still stands.
The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.
The series of detention provisions challenges citizens' constitutional rights, tests the boundaries of executive and legislative branch authority and sets up a confrontation with the Democratic commander in chief. Civil rights groups fiercely oppose the bill.
"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens," said Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel.
The bill reflects the politically charged dispute over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.
Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.
The House-passed bill would limit Obama's authority to transfer terrorist suspects from the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to installations in the United States, even for trial. It also would make it difficult for the administration to move detainees to foreign countries.
On Iran, Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., had widespread bipartisan support for their amendment, which would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Gingrich Says He's "Conservative Alternative" to Romney
Newt Gingrich, who not long ago was urging his fellow Republican candidates to avoid tearing one another apart in pursuit of the party’s presidential nomination, took a new approach on Monday by explicitly declaring: “I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate; I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney.”
With his candidacy on the rise, Mr. Gingrich opened a three-day campaign visit to South Carolina and warned Republicans to be suspicious of candidates who “adopt radically different positions.” It was a fresh glimpse into the sharpening tenor of the nominating fight as the first round of voting begins in five weeks.
“We think there has to be a solid conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Mr. Gingrich told WSC Radio in Charleston, S.C. “I’m the one candidate who can bring together national security conservatives, and economic conservatives, and social conservatives in order to make sure we have a conservative nominee.”
He added, “I wouldn’t lie to the American people. I wouldn’t switch my positions for political reasons. It’s perfectly reasonable to change your position if facts change. If you see new things you didn’t see – everybody’s done that, Ronald Reagan did that. It’s wrong to go around to adopt radically different positions based on your need of any one election, then people will have to ask themselves, ‘What will you tell me next time?’”
Mr. Gingrich seemed to be making a not-so-veiled reference to how Mr. Romney’s positions on abortion, gay rights and other issues have evolved over the years. He said that he believes he and Mr. Romney “can have a very serious race” in the weeks ahead.
The comments from a radio interview on “Charleston’s Morning News” were among the sharpest words that Mr. Gingrich has used yet to describe Mr. Romney. Mr. Gingrich’s campaign swing through South Carolina comes a day after he received an endorsement from The Union Leader, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire, in an editorial that said Mr. Gingrich was not a perfect candidate.
“I think that’s right,” Mr. Gingrich said. “I think anybody who is honest about it knows that no person except Christ has ever been perfect.
“I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate. I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anybody else.”
Woman Claims 13-Year Affair with Cain
ATLANTA, Ga. - An Atlanta businesswoman is breaking her silence, claiming she has been involved in a 13-year-long affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, FOX 5 senior I-Team reporter Dale Russell sat down with Ginger White, who had a story to tell.
“I'm not proud,” White told Russell. “I didn't want to come out with this. I did not.”
White was worried a political tsunami was headed her way. So, she decided to head it off, by confessing she was involved in a 13-year-long affair with presidential hopeful Herman Cain.
“It was pretty simple,” White said. “It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”
Ginger White says she met Herman Cain in the late 90s in Louisville, Kentucky, when as president of the National Restaurant Association, he made a presentation. She was impressed. She says they shared drinks afterwards and he invited her back to his hotel room.
“’I'd like to see you again,’” White said Cain told her. “’You are beautiful to me, and I would love for us to continue this friendship.’”
She says in his hotel room, he pulled out a calendar and invited her to meet him in Palm Springs. She accepted, and she says the affair began.
“He made it very intriguing,” White told FOX 5. “It was fun. It was something that took me away from my humdrum life at the time. And it was exciting.”
She says he gave her his newly-published book, Leadership is Common Sense, and he wrote: “Miss G, you have already made a 'big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination."
She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.
“Very much the same, very much confident, very much sure of himself,” White said, describing Cain. “Very arrogant in a playful sometimes way. Very, ah -- Herman Cain loves Herman Cain.”
When his new book, CEO of SELF, came out in 2001, she says Cain once again autographed it for her writing, "'Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus.'"
When asked if it was fair to say the relationship is going on even now, White said, “I think it is safe to say that after this interview, that will be the end of it. Yes, we have a friendship now.”
She says the physical relationship ended about eight months ago, right before Cain announced he was running for president. But the communication did not. When we asked for any corroborating evidence, she pointed us to her cell phone contacts. One name: Herman Cain.
She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain's private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months-- calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.
“We've never worked together,” said White. “And I can't imagine someone phoning or texting me for the last two and a half years, just because.”
We texted the number and Herman Cain called us back. He told us he "knew Ginger White" but said these are "more false allegations." He said she had his number because he was "trying to help her financially.”
She says she planned on keeping the relationship a secret while Cain made his run for the White House until she and her family watched reports of different women who had accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment. She says she was not surprised by the allegations, but was bothered by the way Cain fought back, attacking the woman, including during an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman.
“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,” White said. “I felt bad for them.”
We received a phone tip from someone who knew Ginger White. That person claimed Ms. White was having an affair with Herman Cain. The tipster also called a number of other national media outlets who reached out to her. White told FOX 5, she felt trapped.
“I wanted to give my side, before it was thrown out there and made out to be something filthy,” said White. “Some people will look at this and say that is exactly what it is. I'm sorry for that.”
And so she talked. Before our interview, we checked into Ginger White's background. We found she filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled.
We also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and a number of eviction notices here in DeKalb County over the past six years. The most recent happened this month.
Ms. White says she has been unemployed, and she is a single mom with two kids struggling to make ends meet.
Iranian Protesters Storm UK Embassy
(Reuters) - Iranian protesters briefly took six British embassy staff hostage on Tuesday when they stormed two diplomatic compounds in Tehran, smashing windows, hurling petrol bombs and burning the British flag in a protest against sanctions imposed by Britain.
Britain said it was outraged by the attacks on its embassy compounds, but had no immediate comment on the seizure of its staff who, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency said, were freed by police from a leafy residential complex in north Tehran.
The attacks come at a time of rising diplomatic tension between Iran and Western nations who last week imposed fresh sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program which they believe is aimed at achieving the capability of making an atomic bomb.
Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, says it only wants nuclear plants to generate electricity.
The embassy storming is also a clear sign of deepening political infighting within Iran's ruling hardline elites with the conservative-led parliament attempting to force the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expel the British ambassador.
Several dozen protesters broke away from a crowd of a few hundred outside the main embassy compound in downtown Tehran, scaled the gates, broke the locks and went inside.
Protesters pulled down the British flag, burned it, and put up the Iranian flag, Iranian news agencies and news pictures showed. Inside, the demonstrators threw stones and petrol bombs. One waved a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth, state TV showed.
Others carried the royal crest out through the embassy gate as police stood by, pictures carried by the Fars news agency showed. Demonstrators waved flags symbolizing martyrdom and held portraits of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Another group of protesters broke into a second British Embassy compound at Qolhak in north Tehran, the IRNA state news agency said. Once the embassy's summer quarters, the sprawling, tree-lined compound is now used to house diplomatic staff.
Six embassy staff were taken hostage there, but were later freed by police, Fars news agency reported.
"Police freed the six people working for the British embassy in Qolhak garden," Fars said.
A German school next to the Qolhak compound was also damaged, the German government said.
Police appeared to have cleared the demonstrators in front of the main downtown embassy compound, but later clashed with hardline protesters and fired tear gas to attempt to disperse them, Fars said.
Protesters nevertheless again entered the compound, Fars said.
The British Foreign Office said it was outraged.
"There has been an incursion by a significant number of demonstrators into our Embassy premises, including vandalism to our property," the Foreign Office said in a statement. "This is a fluid situation and details are still emerging. We are outraged by this. It is utterly unacceptable and we condemn it."
Britain said the Iranian government had a duty under international law to protect diplomats and urged Iranian authorities to act with "utmost urgency" to bring the situation under control.
IRAN PARLIAMENT WANTS UK AMBASSADOR OUT
There have been regular protests outside the British embassy over the years since the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah, but never have any been so violent.
The attacks and hostage-taking was reminiscent of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran carried out by radical students who held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The United States and Iran have cut diplomatic ties ever since.
An Iranian official told Reuters the storming of two British compounds on Tuesday was not planned by the government.
"It was not an organized measure. The establishment had no role in it. It was not planned," said the official, who declined to be identified. Iran's Foreign Ministry said it regretted the attacks and was committed to ensuring the safety of diplomats.
The attacks followed the rapid approval by Iran's Guardian Council of a parliamentary bill compelling the government to expel the British ambassador in retaliation for the sanctions. A lawmaker had also warned on Sunday that angry Iranians could storm the British embassy as they did the U.S. mission in 1979.
Ahmadinejad's government, often at odds with conservatives who control the parliament, has five days to expel Britain's ambassador, the speaker of parliament said.
"Parliament officially notified the president over a bill regarding degrading the ties with Britain, obliging the government to implement it within five days," Fars news agency quoted speaker Ali Larijani as saying.
"Radicals in Iran and in the West are always in favor of crisis ... Such radical hardliners in Iran will use the crisis to unite people and also to blame the crisis for the fading economy," said political analyst Hasan Sedghi.
The incident followed Britain's imposition of new sanctions on the Islamic state last week over its nuclear program.
London banned all British financial institutions from doing business with their Iranian counterparts, including the Central Bank of Iran, as part of a new wave of sanctions by Western countries.
In London, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain expected other countries to follow its lead in imposing financial sanctions on Iran and will take "robust" action if Tehran reduces their diplomatic relations.
Hague was speaking in a parliamentary debate just as news broke of the incident in Tehran and he made no comment on it.
Monday, November 21, 2011
35 Dead in Egyptian Clashes
CAIRO (AP) - Security forces fired tear gas and clashed Monday with several thousand protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square in the third straight day of violence that has killed at least 22 people and has turned into the most sustained challenge yet to the rule of Egypt's military.
Throughout the day, young activists demanding the military hand over power to a civilian government skirmished with black-clad police, hurling stones and firebombs and throwing back the tear gas canisters being fired by police in to the square, which was the epicenter of the protest movement that ousted President Hosni Mubarak.
The night before saw an escalation of the fighting as police launched a heavy assault that tried and failed to clear protesters from the square. In a show of the ferocity of the assault, the death toll quadrupled from Sunday evening until Monday morning. During the overnight clashes, police hit a makeshift field clinic operated by protesters in the square, forcing them to evacuate bloodied wounded to a nearby mosque.
The eruption of violence, which began Saturday, reflects the frustration and confusion that has mired Egypt's revolution since Mubarak fell in February and the military stepped into power.
It comes only a week before Egypt is to begin the first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections, which many have hoped would be a significant landmark in a transition to democracy. Instead, it has been clouded by anger at the military's top body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which will continue to rule as head of state even after the vote. Activists accuse the generals of acting increasingly in the same autocratic way as Mubarak's regime and seeking to cling to power.
The military says it will only hand over power after presidential elections, which it has vaguely said will be held in late 2012 or early 2013. The protesters are demanding an immediate move to civilian rule.
The Health Ministry said Monday that at least 22 people have been killed since the violence began Saturday - a jump from the toll of five dead around nightfall Sunday.
The violence looks set to intensify with some of the protesters on Monday lobbing firebombs at the police.
"We must use force against force. We cannot just throw stones at them," said Hassan Mohammed, a protester in his 20s.
"Do you expect us to meet blood with kindness?" asked a bearded teenager climbing a tree with a firebomb in hand. "We will burn it under their feet," he added as he went on to use expletive against the Supreme Council's head, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi.
Doctors at field hospitals set up in the square spoke of scores of protesters arriving with breathing and eye problems and wounds to the face from what they said was the excessive use of tear gas and rubber bullets.
Mohammed Mustafa, one of the doctors, said his field hospital was treating an average of 80 cases per hour and that many of the wounded did not want to be taken to hospital in ambulances because they feared arrest.
The protesters' suspicions about the military were fed by a proposal issued by the military-appointed Cabinet last week that would shield the armed forces from any civilian oversight and give the generals veto power over legislation dealing with military affairs.
But other concerns are also feeding the tensions on the street. Many Egyptians are anxious about what the impending elections will bring. Specifically they worry that stalwarts of Mubarak's ruling party could win a significant number of seats in the next parliament because the military did not ban them from running for public office as requested by activists.
The military's failure to issue such a ban has fed widely held suspicion that the generals are reluctant to dismantle the old regime, partly out of loyalty to Mubarak, their longtime mentor.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issued a statement, read on state TV Sunday night, saying it does not intend to "extend the transitional period and will not permit by any means hindering the process of democratic transition."
The military-backed Cabinet said the elections due to start on Nov. 28 will go ahead as scheduled.
Activists have been holding occasional protests against the military in Tahrir for months, and some have seen crackdowns by the military or police.
But this weekend's violence was the most sustained fighting between the two sides. It began when security forces stormed a sit-in at Tahrir staged by several hundred protesters wounded in clashes during the 18-day uprising in January and February and frustrated by the slow pace of bringing those responsible to justice.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.
CAIRO (AP) - An Egyptian morgue official says the death toll has climbed to 35 during the third straight day of violence that has turned into the most sustained challenge yet to the rule of Egypt's military.
Most of the deaths were in the area around Cairo's central Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the uprising that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak in February.
On Monday, young activists demanding the military hand over power to a civilian government skirmished with black-clad police, hurling stones and firebombs and throwing back the tear gas canisters being fired by police into the square.
The official said 20 people had been killed Monday. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.
U.S. Spies Outed in Lebanon
WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA's operations in Lebanon have been badly damaged after Hezbollah identified and captured a number of U.S. spies recently, current and former U.S. officials told The Associated Press. The intelligence debacle is particularly troubling because the CIA saw it coming.
Hezbollah's longtime leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, boasted on television in June that he had rooted out at least two CIA spies who had infiltrated the ranks of Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist group closely allied with Iran. Though the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon officially denied the accusation, current and former officials concede that it happened and the damage has spread even further.
In recent months, CIA officials have secretly been scrambling to protect their remaining spies - foreign assets or agents working for the agency - before Hezbollah can find them.
To be sure, some deaths are to be expected in shadowy spy wars. It's an extremely risky business and people get killed. But the damage to the agency's spy network in Lebanon has been greater than usual, several former and current U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about security matters.
The Lebanon crisis is the latest mishap involving CIA counterintelligence, the undermining or manipulating of the enemy's ability to gather information. Former CIA officials have said that once-essential skill has been eroded as the agency shifted from outmaneuvering rival spy agencies to fighting terrorists. In the rush for immediate results, former officers say, tradecraft has suffered.
The most recent high-profile example was the suicide bomber who posed as an informant and killed seven CIA employees and wounded six others in Khost, Afghanistan in December 2009.
Last year, then-CIA director Leon Panetta said the agency had to maintain "a greater awareness of counterintelligence." But eight months later, Nasrallah let the world know he had bested the CIA, demonstrating that the agency still struggles with this critical aspect of spying and sending a message to those who would betray Hezbollah.
The CIA was well aware the spies were vulnerable in Lebanon. CIA officials were warned, including the chief of the unit that supervises Hezbollah operations from CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and the head of counterintelligence. It remains unclear whether anyone has been or will be held accountable in the wake of this counterintelligence disaster or whether the incident will affect the CIA's ability to recruit assets in Lebanon.
In response to AP's questions about what happened in Lebanon, a U.S. official said Hezbollah is recognized as a complicated enemy responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist group before September 2001. The agency does not underestimate the organization, the official said.
The CIA's toughest adversaries, like Hezbollah and Iran, have for years been improving their ability to hunt spies, relying on patience and guile to exploit counterintelligence holes.
In 2007, for instance, when Ali-Reza Asgari, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, disappeared in Turkey, it was assumed that he was either killed or defected. In response, the Iranian government began a painstaking review of foreign travel by its citizens, particularly to places like Turkey where Iranians don't need a visa and could meet with foreign intelligence services.
It didn't take long, a Western intelligence official told the AP, before the U.S., Britain and Israel began losing contact with some of their Iranian spies.
The State Department last year described Hezbollah as "the most technically capable terrorist group in the world," and the Defense Department estimates it receives between $100 million and $200 million per year in funding from Iran.
Backed by Iran, Hezbollah has built a professional counterintelligence apparatus that Nasrallah - whom the U.S. government designated an international terrorist a decade ago - proudly describes as the "spy combat unit." U.S. intelligence officials believe the unit, which is considered formidable and ruthless, went operational in about 2004.
Using the latest commercial software, Nasrallah's spy-hunters unit began methodically searching for spies in Hezbollah's midst. To find them, U.S. officials said, Hezbollah examined cellphone data looking for anomalies. The analysis identified cellphones that, for instance, were used rarely or always from specific locations and only for a short period of time. Then it came down to old-fashioned, shoe-leather detective work: Who in that area had information that might be worth selling to the enemy?
The effort took years but eventually Hezbollah, and later the Lebanese government, began making arrests. By one estimate, 100 Israeli assets were apprehended as the news made headlines across the region in 2009. Some of those suspected Israeli spies worked for telecommunications companies and served in the military.
Back at CIA headquarters, the arrests alarmed senior officials. The agency prepared a study on its own vulnerabilities, U.S. officials said, and the results proved to be prescient.
The analysis concluded that the CIA was susceptible to the same analysis that had compromised the Israelis, the officials said.
CIA managers were instructed to be extra careful about handling sources in Lebanon. A U.S. official said recommendations were issued to counter the potential problem.
But it's unclear what preventive measures were taken by the Hezbollah unit chief or the officer in charge of the Beirut station. Former officials say the Hezbollah unit chief is no stranger to the necessity of counterintelligence and knew the risks. The unit chief has worked overseas in hostile environments like Afghanistan and played an important role in the capture of a top terrorist while stationed in the Persian Gulf region after the attacks of 9/11.
"We've lost a lot of people in Beirut over the years, so everyone should know the drill," said a former Middle East case officer familiar with the situation.
But whatever actions the CIA took, they were not enough. Like the Israelis, bad tradecraft doomed these CIA assets and the agency ultimately failed to protect them, an official said. In some instances, CIA officers fell into predictable patterns when meeting their sources, the official said.
This allowed Hezbollah to identify assets and case officers and unravel at least part of the CIA's spy network in Lebanon. There was also a reluctance to share cases and some files were put in "restricted handling." The designation severely limits the number of people who know the identity of the source but also reduces the number of experts who could spot problems that might lead to their discovery, officials said.
Nasrallah's televised announcement in June was followed by finger-pointing among departments inside the CIA as the spy agency tried figure out what went wrong and contain the damage.
The fate of these CIA assets is unknown. Hezbollah treats spies differently, said Matthew Levitt, a counterterrorism and intelligence expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies who's writing a book about the terrorist organization
"It all depends on who these guys were and what they have to say," Levitt said. "Hezbollah has disappeared people before. Others they have kept around."
Who's responsible for the mess in Lebanon? It's not clear. The chief of Hezbollah operations at CIA headquarters continues to run the unit that also focuses on Iranians and Palestinians. The CIA's top counterintelligence officer, who was one of the most senior women in the clandestine service, recently retired after approximately five years in the job. She is credited with some important cases, including the recent arrests of Russian spies who had been living in the U.S. for years.
Officials said the woman was succeeded by a more experienced operations officer. That officer has held important posts in Moscow, Southeast Asia, Europe and the Balkans, important frontlines of the agency's spy wars with foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
String Cheese Incident @ Red Rocks
Jam Thursday to you all!
If you have never seen a show at Red Rocks...you must!
If you have never seen a show at Red Rocks...you must!
Perry Funds Dry Up
WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign fundraising has gone into a tailspin as a result of poor debate performances and plunging poll numbers, jeopardizing his position as the best-funded Republican presidential candidate of 2012.
Perry’s associates and supporters say his campaign has redoubled its money-raising efforts in the past week to ensure that his campaign will have enough money to survive the first three contests of the 2012 election calendar: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But Perry’s loyal backers are running into resistance from Republican donors. One Perry fundraiser, who asked not to be named, said he received 15 RSVPs for a recent event from potential donors saying they might attend. But after a gaffe-marred Perry debate performance, none showed up.
“The debates have taken a toll,” the fundraiser said. “The national numbers have taken a toll. People see the campaign on a negative trajectory.”
For good reason. The RealClearPolitics.com average of recent national polls places Perry fourth at 9.9 percent, down from his peak of 31.8 percent on Sept. 13. More ominously, new polls in the first two states to select presidential convention delegates show Perry languishing in fifth place in Iowa and New Hampshire as fellow Texan Ron Paul rocketed to second place.
“It’s the iron rule of politics: Money follows popularity,” says Austin lobbyist Bill Miller, a Perry donor. “It goes up if you’re popular and goes down if you’re not.”
Another Perry fundraiser said he expects the Texas governor to raise between $3 million and $5 million in the final three months of 2012 — less than one-third of what he generated in the first six weeks of his candidacy.
Ramped up spending
Perry supporters say they may well raise less money than four other candidates: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former National Restaurant Association CEO Herman Cain, and Paul.
Perry reported having $15 million in the bank on Oct. 1 — more than any other candidate in the massive GOP field — but that number may be misleading because his campaign delayed payments of some salaries and other expenses until after the previous reporting period ended.
Perry also has ramped up his spending in response to sagging poll numbers, investing an estimated $1 million for a TV ad blitz on the Fox News Channel to rebuild his standing among conservative viewers.
Nonpartisan analysts say the Texas governor’s hefty bank account has kept him in the running, despite his missteps.
“Because he did so well early on he has had enough money on hand to give him the opportunity to stay in the game and make a comeback,” said University of Iowa political scientist Tim Hagle.
Prominent Perry supporters say they can reverse the negative media narrative with time and money.
“Don’t count him out,” said California state Assemblyman Dan Logue, who encouraged Perry to run. “He’s got his feet under him now and is headed in the right direction, based on the fact that his record is the best record of any candidate who’s running for president.”
Perry campaign officials did not respond to a request for updated money totals. His money people are redoubling their efforts in Texas, where they are combing past donors of the governor’s statewide races. One Perry associate estimates that “at least another 25 percent” of past Perry backers are “sitting out there that they think they can get.”
Unlike contributors in the rest of the country, Texas political activists “have an additional reason to give,” a Perry backer points out: Even if the governor loses, he still will be an influential figure in state politics.
Help in a ‘rough patch’
The campaign also is contacting presidential donors who gave less than the maximum gift of $2,500, asking them to “see what you can do to help us through this rough patch,” one fundraiser said.
Perry, whose campaign was heavily dependent on large contributions over the first two months, also is ramping up its small-donor solicitations and has stepped up the purchase of online ads designed to generate revenue and identify grass-roots supporters.
To help generate buzz — and dollars — Perry is hoping to land a big endorsement, either a talk radio superstar like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or a tea party favorite such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Florida Gov. Rick Scott or South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
Perry loyalists say they feel a slight uptick in momentum following his self-deprecating response to the embarrassing “oops” moment at the Nov. 9 debate in Michigan.
Cashing in on that sense, Perry will make a two-day money swing in December through California, where his conservative core has remained loyal.
Jeff Miller, the Perry campaign chair in California and a key fundraiser, said that even after Perry’s debate debacle, “I got a call from someone who said, ‘I’m still in for the max. I believe in the governor. I believe in what he can do for jobs.’ ”
Perry’s associates and supporters say his campaign has redoubled its money-raising efforts in the past week to ensure that his campaign will have enough money to survive the first three contests of the 2012 election calendar: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But Perry’s loyal backers are running into resistance from Republican donors. One Perry fundraiser, who asked not to be named, said he received 15 RSVPs for a recent event from potential donors saying they might attend. But after a gaffe-marred Perry debate performance, none showed up.
“The debates have taken a toll,” the fundraiser said. “The national numbers have taken a toll. People see the campaign on a negative trajectory.”
For good reason. The RealClearPolitics.com average of recent national polls places Perry fourth at 9.9 percent, down from his peak of 31.8 percent on Sept. 13. More ominously, new polls in the first two states to select presidential convention delegates show Perry languishing in fifth place in Iowa and New Hampshire as fellow Texan Ron Paul rocketed to second place.
“It’s the iron rule of politics: Money follows popularity,” says Austin lobbyist Bill Miller, a Perry donor. “It goes up if you’re popular and goes down if you’re not.”
Another Perry fundraiser said he expects the Texas governor to raise between $3 million and $5 million in the final three months of 2012 — less than one-third of what he generated in the first six weeks of his candidacy.
Ramped up spending
Perry supporters say they may well raise less money than four other candidates: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former National Restaurant Association CEO Herman Cain, and Paul.
Perry reported having $15 million in the bank on Oct. 1 — more than any other candidate in the massive GOP field — but that number may be misleading because his campaign delayed payments of some salaries and other expenses until after the previous reporting period ended.
Perry also has ramped up his spending in response to sagging poll numbers, investing an estimated $1 million for a TV ad blitz on the Fox News Channel to rebuild his standing among conservative viewers.
Nonpartisan analysts say the Texas governor’s hefty bank account has kept him in the running, despite his missteps.
“Because he did so well early on he has had enough money on hand to give him the opportunity to stay in the game and make a comeback,” said University of Iowa political scientist Tim Hagle.
Prominent Perry supporters say they can reverse the negative media narrative with time and money.
“Don’t count him out,” said California state Assemblyman Dan Logue, who encouraged Perry to run. “He’s got his feet under him now and is headed in the right direction, based on the fact that his record is the best record of any candidate who’s running for president.”
Perry campaign officials did not respond to a request for updated money totals. His money people are redoubling their efforts in Texas, where they are combing past donors of the governor’s statewide races. One Perry associate estimates that “at least another 25 percent” of past Perry backers are “sitting out there that they think they can get.”
Unlike contributors in the rest of the country, Texas political activists “have an additional reason to give,” a Perry backer points out: Even if the governor loses, he still will be an influential figure in state politics.
Help in a ‘rough patch’
The campaign also is contacting presidential donors who gave less than the maximum gift of $2,500, asking them to “see what you can do to help us through this rough patch,” one fundraiser said.
Perry, whose campaign was heavily dependent on large contributions over the first two months, also is ramping up its small-donor solicitations and has stepped up the purchase of online ads designed to generate revenue and identify grass-roots supporters.
To help generate buzz — and dollars — Perry is hoping to land a big endorsement, either a talk radio superstar like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or a tea party favorite such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Florida Gov. Rick Scott or South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
Perry loyalists say they feel a slight uptick in momentum following his self-deprecating response to the embarrassing “oops” moment at the Nov. 9 debate in Michigan.
Cashing in on that sense, Perry will make a two-day money swing in December through California, where his conservative core has remained loyal.
Jeff Miller, the Perry campaign chair in California and a key fundraiser, said that even after Perry’s debate debacle, “I got a call from someone who said, ‘I’m still in for the max. I believe in the governor. I believe in what he can do for jobs.’ ”
The 1% = 47%...of Congress
It’s no secret that many members of the U.S. House and Senate are millionaires — 47 percent of them — their salaries paid for by the American taxpayer.
The Center for Responsive Politics has crunched the numbers and released the results on its Open Secrets blog:
“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million,” according to the Center’s research.
“Despite the global economic meltdown in 2008 and the sluggish recovery that followed, that’s up about 7.6 percent from an estimated median net worth of $2.38 million in 2009 … and up 13 percent from a median net worth of $2.27 million in 2008 . … Fully 36 Senate Democrats, and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The same was true for 110 House Republicans and 73 House Democrats.”
“The vast majority of members of Congress are quite comfortable, financially , while many of their own constituents suffer from economic hardships,” said Sheila Krumholz at the Center For Responsive Politics. “Few Americans enjoy the same financial cushions maintained by most members of Congress — or the same access to market-altering information that could yield personal, financial gains.”
Russian Threat Over NATO Expansion
MOSCOW — Russia is facing a heightened risk of being drawn into conflicts at its borders that have the potential of turning nuclear, the nation’s top military officer said Thursday.
Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, cautioned over NATO’s expansion eastward and warned that the risks for Russia to be pulled into local conflicts have “risen sharply.”
Makarov added, according to Russian news agencies, that “under certain conditions local and regional conflicts may develop into a full-scale war involving nuclear weapons.”
A steady decline in Russia’s conventional forces has prompted the Kremlin to rely increasingly on its nuclear deterrent.
The nation’s military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia’s existence.
Russia sees NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet republics and ex-members of the Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe as a key threat to Russia’s security.
Makarov specifically referred to NATO’s plans to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine as potentially threatening Russia’s security. Russia routed Georgian forces in a brief August 2008 war over a separatist province of South Ossetia. Moscow later recognized South Ossettia and another breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia as independent states and increased its military presence there.
Russia also considers missile defense plans as another security challenge.
Russia has strongly opposed the U.S.-led missile defense plan, saying it could threaten its nuclear forces and undermine their deterrence potential. Moscow has agreed to consider NATO’s proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should operate. Russia has insisted that the system should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Marines Headed to Australia
CANBERRA, Australia - President Obama insisted Wednesday that the United States does not fear China, even as he announced a new security agreement with Australia that is widely viewed as a response to Beijing's growing aggressiveness.
China responded swiftly, warning that an expanded U.S. military footprint in Australia may not be appropriate and deserved greater scrutiny.
The agreement, announced during a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, will expand the U.S. military presence in Australia, positioning more U.S. personnel and equipment there, and increasing American access to bases. About 250 U.S. Marines will begin a rotation in northern Australia starting next year, with a full force of 2,500 military personnel staffing up over the next several years.
Mr. Obama called the deployment "significant," and said it would build capacity and cooperation between the U.S. and Australia. U.S. officials were careful to emphasize that the pact was not an attempt to create a permanent American military presence in Australia.
"It also allows us to meet the demands of a lot of partners in the region that want to feel that they're getting the training, they're getting the exercises, and that we have the presence that's necessary to maintain the security architecture in the region," Mr. Obama said.
The president spoke shortly after arriving in the Australian capital, his second stop on a nine-day tour of the Asia-Pacific region. After a 10-hour flight from Honolulu, where he hosted an economic summit, Mr. Obama headed straight into meetings with Gillard.
Asia-Pacific trade vital to economic recovery
On Thursday, Mr. Obama will address the Australian Parliament, then fly to the northern city of Darwin, where some of the Marines deploying to Australia next year will be based.
During his news conference with Gillard, the president sidestepped questions about whether the security agreement was aimed at containing China. But he said the U.S. would keep sending a clear message that China needs to accept the responsibilities that come with being a world power.
"It's important for them to play by the rules of the road," he said.
And he insisted that the U.S is not fearful of China's rise.
"I think the notion that we fear China is mistaken. The notion that we're looking to exclude China is mistaken," he said.
China was immediately leery of the prospect of an expanded U.S. military presence in Australia. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Wednesday that it was worth discussing whether the plan was in line with the common interests of the international community.
Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes said the agreement was not only appropriate, but also a response to the demand from nations in the region that have signaled they want the U.S. to be present.
The U.S. and smaller Asian nations have grown increasingly concerned about China claiming dominion over vast areas of the Pacific that the U.S. considers international waters, and reigniting old territorial disputes, including confrontations over the South China Sea. China's defense spending has increased threefold since the 1990s to about $160 billion last year, and its military has recently tested a new stealth jet fighter and launched its first aircraft carrier.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that the goal of the new security pact is to signal that the U.S. and Australia will stick together in face of any threats.
In addition to the expanded Marine presence in Australia, more U.S. aircraft will rotate through Australia as part of an agreement between each nation's air force. Mr. Obama and Gillard said the increased air presence would allow the U.S. and Australia to more effectively respond to respond to natural disasters and humanitarian crises in the region.
Rhodes said the U.S. military boost would amount to a "sustained U.S. presence." He distinguished that from a permanent presence in the sense that the U.S. forces will use Australian facilities, as opposed to the United States to building its own bases, as it has in such regional places as South Korea. The U.S. has not signaled any interest in that in Australia.
The only American base currently in Australia is the secretive joint Australia-U.S. intelligence and communications complex at Pine Gap in central Australia. But there are hundreds of U.S. service personnel in Australia on exchange.
Air combat units also use the expansive live bombing ranges in Australia's sparsely populated north in training rotations of a few months and occasionally naval units train off the coast. But training exercises involving ground forces are unusual.
During Wednesday's brief news conference, Mr. Obama and Gillard also fielded questions on a range of other issues, from U.S. efforts to address climate change to the debt crisis in Europe.
Dozens Arrested Over SAT/ACT Cheating Scandal
MINEOLA, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — New details, exclusive to CBS 2, emerged Thursday about the broadening investigation into Long Island’s college admissions cheating scandal.
Reporter Jennifer McLogan has learned why multiple stand-ins took both SAT and ACT exams at multiple schools and how they got away with it.
A private eye and defense attorney have proof the cheating probe is widening.
“We’ve had other suspects contact us,” McLogan was told.
They were recently approached by new suspects — targets of Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice’s ongoing college admissions exams investigation. The men already represent Great Neck North High School graduate Sam Eshaghoff, the accused mastermind of the impersonation-for-hire-scam.
When asked if Eshaghoff is involved in the widening scandal, attorney Matin Emouna said, “He is not involved in this widening scandal at all. He was just the poster boy for what had happened.”
Sources told McLogan that 35 to 40 additional students in at least five schools may have paid thousands of dollars to “stand-ins” to take not only the SAT, but also the ACT, a standardized test growing in popularity in our area.
McLogan has learned exclusively how both tests played off one another to catch the crooks.
Here’s how it worked: The SAT cheater would take a test for himself and get a low score. The second time the cheater would hire a stand-in, who, in turn, would get a high score. That discrepancy would be flagged and the test cancelled.
When that happens the cheater would switch to the ACT and hire a high-scoring stand-in from the start to avoid the flagging process.
The ACT would certify the single high score and colleges would receive only that score. The SAT score would be withheld by the student.
“Millions of kids take the SATs and ACTs every year. The message needs to be sent loud and clear: if you’re going to cheat you’re going to be caught and there will be consequences,” Rice said back on Oct. 20.
At a recent State Senate hearing security measures and lax oversight of the high stakes tests were blasted. The Educational Testing Service then brought in the former head of the FBI.
“It took this for this to hire somebody of the quality and high standards of a Louis Freeh to try to clean this mess up,” private investigator Les Levin said.
McLogan has learned the additional arrests will include students who paid others to take their tests, those who took the tests and the cash, and others who created fake IDs.
Nassau district attorney investigators are backing away from a specific time frame for arrests, as they wait for additional information from the ACT.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
SCOTUS to Hear Health Care Challenge
The Supreme Court decided on Monday to review President Obama’s 2010 health-care overhaul, promising a high-profile hearing on the question dominating American politics: the constitutional limits of the federal government’s power.
No initiative has exemplified Obama’s progressive domestic agenda or inflamed his conservative opponents like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Republican presidential candidates have taken an oath to dismantle what they derisively call Obamacare, and the court’s decision will deliver an unmistakable — if unpredictable — jolt to the political system in the midst of next year’s national elections.
Next March, around the second anniversary of the act’s passage, the nine justices will hear arguments in the case, taking on the role of constitutional referee between those who see the law as a trespass on individual and states’ rights and those who consider it an extension of a safety net to Americans regardless of where they live or work.
A ruling on whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to require nearly every American to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty will define the court under the still-new tenure of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. It will probably be the court’s highest-profile decision since Bush v. Gore ended the presidential contest of 2000.
As a mark of the case’s importance, the justices said they will hear 51 / 2 hours of oral arguments on the constitutional question and related issues. That appears to be a modern record: In 2003, the court devoted four hours of oral arguments to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, a sweeping law aimed at controlling the influence of money in elections.
Even as aspects of the health-care law have been implemented, opponents and supporters have awaited the court’s decision. Oral arguments will most likely be held over one or two days, with a ruling expected before the court recesses in late June.
The court accepted appeals from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta — the only appellate court to say the law is unconstitutional — in a case filed by a business group and 26 states that object to the legislation. Justices said they will consider:
●Whether Congress was acting within its constitutional powers by requiring all Americans to have at least a basic form of health insurance by 2014. Those who do not will be required to pay a penalty on their 2015 income tax returns.
●Whether other parts of the law can go forward if the “individual mandate” is found unconstitutional. Lower courts have differed on the question. The administration says the law’s more popular features cannot work financially without the mandate that all Americans join the system.
●Whether Congress is improperly coercing states to expand Medicaid, the subsidized health-care program for the poor and disabled.
●Whether the issue is even ripe for deciding. Some lower-court judges have said that the penalty paid for not having insurance is the same as a tax and, under the federal Anti-Injunction Act, cannot be challenged until someone has to pay it in 2015.
White House is ‘confident’
The White House, which had called on the court to take the case now, has said that the challenges to the act are no different from those that faced Social Security, the Civil Rights Act and other major pieces of social legislation.
“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” said White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) countered that polls consistently show that the legislation is unpopular. “This misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American,” he said.
The Democratic-controlled Congress that passed the act said its authority was grounded in the Constitution’s granting of power to regulate interstate commerce and to pass laws “necessary and proper” to create a functioning federal government. Opponents said that power was never meant to require individuals to purchase a product — in this case, health insurance — that they do not want.
What the justices will do with the case is difficult to predict.
Most who follow the court believe that the four liberals are likely to agree that the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states” naturally applies to health care, which accounts for more than 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer have consistently agreed with an expansive view of the commerce clause; Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have not yet considered a case that offered a substantial test.
It is more complicated on the other side of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member who has consistently voted for a limited view of the power. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy have a more mixed record on the issue.
Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. have not telegraphed their views.
Conservative groups have called on Kagan to sit out the case because she worked for the Obama administration as solicitor general. Liberal groups have said Thomas faces a conflict because of the political activities of his wife.
But justices make their own decisions about whether they have reason to recuse themselves, and there was no indication from Monday’s order that either would miss the case.
Breaking the pattern
As soon as Obama signed the health-care bill, opponents raced to challenge it. The early court decisions followed a predictable pattern, with district judges appointed by Democratic presidents upholding the law and Republican appointees striking it down.
But at the appeals court level, that changed. In the 11th Circuit decisions, Judge Frank Hull, a Bill Clinton appointee, joined with a Republican colleague in saying that the “unprecedented” legislation went too far. They said that if the law were constitutional, it would be impossible to say what action on the part of the government would go too far.
At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati and the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit, two prominent Republican-appointed judges agreed that the law is intrusive but within Congress’s powers.
In Cincinnati, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, was the deciding vote to uphold the act. Last week in Washington, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, wrote an opinion saying that the question was political, not constitutional.
“It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty,” Silberman wrote. But then — alluding to other cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the commerce clause gives Congress power — he added that “it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”
Even as the legal wrangling grows to a crescendo, some aspects of the law are already being enforced. Those include requirements that many insurance plans allow young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26; cover a range of preventive services, including birth control, without imposing co-payments or other out-of-pocket costs; eliminate lifetime dollar limits on coverage; and begin phasing out annual caps.
Many insurers also are now barred from excluding children with preexisting conditions — a prohibition that will be extended to all individuals in 2014.
The three 11th Circuit cases accepted by the court are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius; Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services; and Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, et al.
Gingrich Takes the Lead
Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.
Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4. Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image- his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney's favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.
Gingrich's lead caps an amazing comeback he's made over the last 5 months. In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he's at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%. He's climbed 18 points in less than 2 months.
There's reason to think that if Cain continues to fade, Gingrich will continue to gain. Among Cain's supporters 73% have a favorable opinion of Gingrich to only 21% with a negative one. That compares to a 33/55 spread for Romney with Cain voters and a 32/53 one for Perry. They like Gingrich a whole lot more than they do the other serious candidates in the race.
Cain's base of strength continues to be with Tea Party voters, where he gets 33% to 31% for Gingrich, and only 11% for Romney. This is where you can really see that Gingrich will be the beneficiary if Cain continues to implode- Gingrich's favorability with Tea Partiers is 81/14. Romney's is 43/45. There's a lot of room for Gingrich to build up support with that key group of Republican voters.
Cain's continuing to benefit from doubts about whether the allegations against him are true- 54% of primary voters think they are 'mostly false' to only 24 who believe they are 'mostly true.' Painting himself as a victim of the media is proving to be a good strategy for Cain so far- 61% think it has been 'mostly unfair' to him compared to 26% who say it has been 'mostly fair.' Only 26% of Republicans say they have a more negative opinion of him now than before the accusations surfaced, and just 27% think he should drop out of the race. All of that's fine but here's the bottom line- Cain's favorability numbers are declining and so is his support. If those trends continue he will fade as a candidate.
The other Republican coming off a bad week is Rick Perry and his numbers have continued on their downward trajectory. Just 35% of GOP primary voters see him positively to 49% with a negative opinion. That's a 18 point drop compared to a month ago when he was at 42/38. And he's gone from 14% to 6% in the horse race, a bigger decline than Cain's.
If there's any sign of hope for Perry and the other non-Gingrich/Cain/Romney voters it might be the rise of Gingrich. Gingrich has gained 18 points in only 2 months, suggesting that someone else might be capable of gaining 18 points in the 2 months before Iowa as well. And Perry's national favorability of 35/49 is pretty much identical to the 36/49 Gingrich had in June- Newt obviously came back and perhaps Perry can as well, although there's no doubt the clock is ticking.
As for Romney he has not shown any ability to take advantage of the trouble his fellow candidates keep getting themselves into. In July Romney was at 20%, in August at 20%, in September at 18%, October at 22%, and now in November at 18%. He's been at 20 +/-2% for the last five months in our polling. While the flavor of the month has gone from Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich, Romney hasn't had a turn in that seat- he can only hope that his chance in that role will come in January, which is certainly the best time to have it.
"Secret Farm Bill" Primed for Passage
Lawmakers on the House and Senate Agriculture committees are trying to write a new five-year farm bill through the supercommittee process.
The legislators are using the supercommittee to avoid what would be a more public, election-year debate in 2012, when the current farm bill expires and new legislation would be scheduled for writing, according to critics of the effort.
“We call it the secret farm bill,” said one environmental activist, who worries that if the lawmakers succeed, it will prop up U.S. farm payments through 2017.
Environmental groups and poverty advocates say the supercommittee should dismiss the recommendations from the farm-state lawmakers, which are expected to be delivered later this week. The recommendations are expected to propose the replacement of some existing farm payments with a new crop insurance program and new payments that would be linked to commodity prices.
While some of the changes lawmakers are expected to propose would save billions on paper, critics say the new farm payments could balloon in cost if commodity prices fall.
Opponents also worry the lawmakers are trying to get around longtime critics of the farm bill who for years have said the legislation is a symbol of waste that costs taxpayers money while hurting farmers in poor countries who do not receive similar levels of support.
“They are completely trying to write a whole new farm subsidy program,” a second activist said. “They are making an end-run around people who question these programs.”
An advantage of locking in the changes through the supercommittee is that the panel’s recommendations must get an up-or-down vote in Congress. That would give less leverage to opponents of farm subsidies.
Ben Becker, a spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee, defended the effort to propose farm bill changes to the supercommittee.
“Either the supercommittee would in essence write the Farm Bill, with no hearings or public input, or the Agriculture Committees and the communities we represent would have a voice. Democrats and Republicans are working hard within the process that’s been imposed on us to develop a sound bipartisan and bicameral recommendation that members of both parties can support,” he said.
But the secrecy of the process has even some farm lobbyists raising questions.
“All big legislation is written behind closed doors, but they are doing this is in such a compressed way,“ one longtime agricultural lobbyist said. “I am having trouble finding out what’s going on.”
The proposals from Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and ranking member Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who have been negotiating for weeks, are expected to include a new type of revenue-based insurance for some crops as well as a bolstered price-triggered payment for other crops.
The Agriculture committees had been asked to deliver recommendations on $23 billion in cuts over the next 10 years by Nov. 1, but they missed that deadline.
Different commodity groups have been trying to maximize their payments by pushing their own formulas, which has lengthened and complicated the lawmakers’ effort.
The $23 billion package is expected to include billions in cuts to nutrition and conservation programs, but the biggest chunk, estimated at $13 billion, would come from payments to farmers.
Stabenow has focused on a new revenue-based “shallow loss” insurance program that is supported by corn, wheat, barley, soy and canola farmers.
Lucas, with the support of rice and peanut farmers, wants to modify the existing price-based payment to farmers for those crops.
Payments to cotton farmers have been a sticking point, and they are set to get their own program, also linked to commodity prices.
Farmers now receive “direct payments” that are based on historical production. This means that even if the farmer produces nothing, payments from the government can still be received.
The farm safety net includes subsidized crop insurance and countercyclical and marketing loan payments that rise when prices fall. These latter payments are intended to help farmer survive dramatic changes in world prices.
Outrage over direct payments going to farmers who no longer farm has led the Agriculture committees to largely agree that direct payments need to be replaced.
Stabenow’s proposed “shallow loss” insurance program would complement traditional crop insurance. The program would pay farmers for small losses typically not covered by existing insurance.
The proposed replacement payments for cotton, rice and peanuts would be based on higher “target” prices. If the market falls below the higher “target,” the government would pay farmers the difference through countercyclical payments or marketing loans.
The American Farm Bureau decided to oppose the shallow-loss proposal, arguing that it will encourage farmers to take on excessive risk.
Environmental and international poverty advocates are against the whole process.
The groups believe higher price-based payments promote overproduction and distort world trade, hurting farmers in the Third World and causing them to cut down rainforest in search of more income.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
