konane's Blog

"More Than Hezbollah Can Chew?

The most interesting point about this article is quoted directly below about Israeli intelligence watching Syria so closely.  Brings it full circle as to how they knew Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria and Lebanon prior to the US going into Iraq. 

......"Will Syria jump in? How? With its army? Not with its air force (which Israel humiliated and destroyed in 1982). Israel has been taking pictures and gauging the Syrian armed forces for a long time now. It knows things about them that even the Syrians don't know." ......


"More Than Hezbollah Can Chew?
By Ralph Kinney Bennet  July 17, 2006
Source Tech Central Station

"The Israeli dismantling of Iran's expeditionary force in Lebanon -- Hezbollah -- began in earnest over the weekend.

 

Hezbollah played its big card when it carried out the carefully planned kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers.

 

Now it's Israel's turn.

 

The bombing of the Beirut International Airport was brilliant. It had heretofore been used routinely to bring in weapons and supplies for Hezbollah and to move forces. It was the main "bridge" between Syria and Iran and its client "army." With the airport down and a naval blockade in place the IDF is able to concentrate on anything that moves on the ground in the Bekka Valley and throughout Lebanon. They have already interdicted the bridges and road system and are now able to use their electronic intelligence (ELINT) assets to watch for any movement off the roads and under the cover of darkness.

 

It will be interesting over the next few days to see how many large ground-to-ground missiles Hezbollah can fire. Some stores of these missiles have already been destroyed in air strikes and the movement and preparation of these missiles to fire is difficult to hide. Now we will have a firmer sense of just how many missiles Hezbollah has beyond the small rockets which are in effect relatively inaccurate artillery shells.

 

Hezbollah's Chief, Hassan Nasrallah, who is known as a pompous blowhard even on the Arab "Street," which has always been culturally predisposed to histrionic posturing, is now on the run and may have to decamp to Damascus for relative safety.

 

If he can get there.

 

His armed forces, despite all their goose-stepping parade marches and RPG-rattling, will prove to have a lot of "Iraq Republican Guard" hollowness to them. Unfortunately, a lot of gullible, poor, Lebanese kids who have been conned and whipped into a hateful frenzy by Nasrallah and his lieutenants, will lose their lives when they come up against IDF training and firepower. There may be a lucky shot from a shoulder-fired SAM here and there, and there will probably be a lot of mines or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as everyone now likes to call them. But pitched battles with the IDF, which Hezbollah propaganda seems to thirst for, will be nasty, brutish and short.

 

This is not to say Hezbollah will be eliminated, but that it will be forced back into its old cowardly and treacherous pattern of routine, discrete terrorism.

 

Israel has made some real tactical mistakes recently, mistakes they cannot afford to make when living as they do in a constant state of war. The kidnapping of the soldiers near the Lebanon border probably should never have happened. Nor should that warship have been off its guard when the missile attack came. But there will not be many mistakes now. While press headlines have seemed to concentrate on civilians killed by Israeli strikes in Lebanon, the fact is that these attacks are cutting deep into the flesh and muscle of Hezbollah.

 

The question now is how many missiles and how much other weaponry Hezbollah has managed to stockpile (often hidden in places with civilian population for cover) before embarking on this venture. It will not be easy to bring in more supplies from the big boys in Damascus and Tehran.

 

Will Syria jump in? How? With its army? Not with its air force (which Israel humiliated and destroyed in 1982). Israel has been taking pictures and gauging the Syrian armed forces for a long time now. It knows things about them that even the Syrians don't know. And what the Syrians do know must make they feel very uneasy. You would not want to be going into action in a Syrian tank, for instance, knowing what everybody now knows about precision guided munitions.

 

How about Iran? Not in a direct military way. It isn't ready and it cannot afford to suffer the destruction its armed forces would have to absorb. Neither its long range missile nor air forces can deliver enough bang unless they resorted to chemical weapons, which would result in... However, since in Iran we are dealing with a leader who is every bit as crazy as that Pyongyang midget with the high-heeled shoes, we have to say, "Who knows?"

 

The world terror war will continue. But Hezbollah's reputation is in for a big deflation, and this chance for the Islamofascists to try yet again to live up to their own military fantasies will go down in flames.

 

Perhaps Nasrallah's hope is to "bog down" the IDF in a war of attrition in Southern Lebanon to help is Hamas brothers in Gaza. In any case, when the dust clears, and it will, Hezbollah will be back to its squalid, pathetic tactics of the suicide bombers and assassination teams. Thus the struggle between freedom and mind-imprisoning hatred will grind on. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071706E

Entry #457

"Crisis in the Middle East" Civilization at stake

I've read in metaphysical circles that "As go the Jews, so goes the world" which I believe is true, and apparently Larry Elder does also in the following article. 

 

I am not Jewish, but do stand solid with Israel in the fight for her very life because it represents a microcosm of the larger battle we infidels are engaged in to the end ... one way or another.

 

 

It's clear that the UN stands with any terrorist organizations or would have been more forthcoming in its support of the US in our war on terror AND support for Israel as a state..... but highlighted in red below the UN clearly wants Israel wiped off the map in the Middle East. 

 

It's becoming very clear to me that the UN stands for nothing other than corruption, graft, bribes and as a governing body is incapable of leading a herd of ants to a sugar cube because it somply doesn't possess any form of moral compass other than one sold to the highest bidder. 
__________________ 
"UN Wipes Israel Off the Map - Photos - November 29, 2005 UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People
(photos of map)
__________________

"Politely eliminating Israel

By Daniel Pipes

http://jewishworldreview.com/1205/pipes2005_12_13.php3


"Crisis in the Middle East"  Civilization at stake

By Larry Elder

Source Townhall.com

"Iran wants to buy time -- time to continue pursuing its nuclear program, in the wake of growing international opposition. So to distract the world's attention, let's start a proxy war.

Hamas, the Palestinian terror group, on June 25, 2006, tunneled into Israeli territory, kidnapped one Israeli soldier, killed two more, and have since launched hundreds of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

Nearly three weeks later, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist group in Lebanon, Hezbollah, entered Israel, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others. The terror group then launched over 1,400 rockets into Israel during the first five days of the conflict, and even struck an Israeli ship with a missile -- showing more capability than experts assumed.

The European Union urged Israel to show restraint, expressing great concern "about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel." France's President Jacques Chirac said, "One may well ask if there isn't today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon. . . . I find honestly -- as all Europeans do -- that the current reactions are totally disproportionate." The Vatican issued a statement saying, " . . . [T]he Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation. . . . "

Restraint? Hezbollah threatens to exterminate Israel and to defeat America. Hamas accuses the Israelis of "stealing" the Palestinians' land. The Hamas Covenant, Article Three, describes the duty of all Muslims: " . . . [To] fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." Article Eleven clarifies their belief "that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [property that generates revenue for mosques and religious schools] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day." Article Thirteen flatly states, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

World Net Daily's Joseph Farah, an Arab-American, years ago wrote a column titled "The Jews Took No One's Land." The Holy Land, writes Farah, was described as a vast wasteland in the 19th century. Beginning in the mid-1800s, Jews were the majority -- often an overwhelming majority, especially around Jerusalem. When Jews began to return to their "promised land" early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity. In 1948, when the United Nations partitioned the land into separate Arab and Jewish states, the surrounding Arab states immediately declared war. The Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live peacefully. Many Arabs chose to leave, to be rejected, used and virtually imprisoned by Arab power brokers.

Joan Peters, in "From Time Immemorial," a wonderful book about the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict over Palestine, quotes Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's prime minister after the 1948 war. Years later, Al-Azm wrote, "Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees . . . while it is we who made them leave. . . . We brought disaster upon . . . Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. . . . We have rendered them dispossessed. . . . We have accustomed them to begging. . . . We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. . . . Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon . . . men, women and children -- all this in the service of political purposes. . . . "

Peters also quotes King Hussein of Jordan, who, in 1960, said: "Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. . . . They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal." Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000, and pulled completely out of Gaza in August 2005. Following the withdrawal from Gaza, Israel weathered some 700 rocket attacks launched from the former occupied territory. So much for the notion that this crisis turns on the withdrawal from "occupied" territory.

Bombay. Bali. Madrid. London. Cairo. Washington, D.C. And New York, and New York again. Spanish authorities foiled a terrorist attack on its National Court, Spain's center for prosecuting terrorists, after the Spaniards agreed to withdraw from Iraq following Madrid's train bombings. Much of the world, and unfortunately, much of America, refuses to get it. This is World War III. Islamofascism seeks our destruction -- not accommodation, not conciliation, but complete and total destruction. Islamofascism does not end with the "recapture" of "historic Palestine." Our very existence -- democracy, freedom, religious tolerance and gender equality -- threaten Islamofascism.

If the Europeans don't get it, at least some of the so-called "moderate" Arab states do. In a dramatic departure from the past, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states blame Hezbollah, not Israel, for starting the war. Former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu notes that the terrorists call Israel "little Satan," and America the "great Satan." But, Netanyahu warns, sooner or later the Europeans will realize that terrorists consider them the "middle Satan."

Nothing short of civilization is at stake."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/07/20/crisis_in_the_middle_east:_civilization_at_stake

Entry #456

"Kofi Annan: Hamas? Terrorist?

Missed this one earlier.


 

"Kofi Annan: Hamas? Terrorist?
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 6, 2006


Secretary General Kofi Annan told the attendees at the 2006 Davos World Economic Conference that he had initiated a "new mindset" at the United Nations on human rights, law, the nature of war, and the role of corporations. To show how hip he was, Kofi surrounded himself with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt at the conference.

Meanwhile, back at UN headquarters in New York, the real face of the United Nations establishment was revealed in this shocking exchange with the Secretary General's spokesman Stéphane Dujarric at his January 26, 2006, daily press briefing:

 

Question: Does the Secretary-General consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization?

 

Spokesman: The Secretary-General has denounced in clear terms every time any organization has done a terrorist act, including when those acts were claimed by Hamas.

 

Question: But that doesn't answer my question.

 

Spokesman: There is no United Nations label that I know of, of a terrorist organization.

 

Question: The last time there was a movie shot here there was a lot of talk that the movie was [being shot at the UN] because it was going to enhance the image of the United Nations in the world, and it was supposed to be supportive of the United Nations. Does a movie on Ché indicate that the United Nations supports Ché Guevara?

 

Spokesman: [Sigh] I don't know.

 

[Laughter]

 

The United Nations is still unable to reach consensus on a basic definition of terrorism. But it opens its doors to the filming of scenes for a movie about vicious terrorist and mass murderer Ché Guevara! This follows Annan's participation at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People last November where a pre-1948 map of Palestine - with the state of Israel conspicuously absent - was proudly displayed.

 

Despite Kofi Annan's attempt to polish his image in front of the world's movers and shakers at Davos as he finishes his term, there is really nothing new at all in the mindset that he has brought to his stewardship of Turtle Bay. Evil acts against freedom-loving peoples the world over are excused and sometimes glorified in the halls of the United Nations. Moral courage to confront the enemies of a secure, peaceful and free world is in very short supply. How else can we explain Annan's years of excuse making for Saddam Hussein and his condemnation of the United States' forcible removal of this genocidal dictator and menace to peace as "illegal"? Is it a surprise that Annan is hiding in the shadows even after Iran's aggressive nuclear ambitions have been exposed to the world amidst its president's repeated threats to destroy Israel? He did not find any time while in London to join representatives from the five permanent members of the Security Council who were discussing a referral of Iran's actions to the Security Council. But he did find time to issue a bromide statement of moral relativism to the symposium on "Human Civilizations and Cultures: from Dialogue to Alliance" held on January 30-February 1 in one of the more repressive countries in the world: Tunisia. He lectures us about the need to "unlearn our collective prejudices, and promote a continuing dialogue among human societies: a dialogue based on the premise that diversity - in thought, in belief, and in action - is a precious gift, not a threat." Fair enough, but we are not the people whose leaders vowed to put a democratic member state into an "eternal coma."

At the Davos conference Annan cited, as one his best accomplishments, the broadening of the UN's constituency, going beyond the member states to bring in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foundations in order to represent the "people." Aside from the fact that United Nations was set up under the UN Charter as an international body of sovereign member states and not as some sort of peoples' parliament, the NGOs and foundations that Kofi Annan has in mind are most often on the extreme Left of the political spectrum. Along with Annan's chief advisors, they favor global taxes, massive programs for wealth redistribution from successful countries with free market systems to corrupt regimes - all without any accountability.

Foundations set up and funded by George Soros and Ted Turner - including Soros' Open Society Institute and Turner's United Nations Foundation - are bankrolling NGOs and UN agencies that have political agendas hostile to the United States. In turn, such NGOs as Amnesty International and Greenpeace have broad access to UN administrators and conferences that the average citizen can never have. They lobby for - and in some instances even help write - UN measures designed to hurt the United States and take power away from our democratic government. They believe that they have a monopoly on the truth, which makes it easy to reject the legitimacy of organizations that might also want to participate in UN conferences but have a different point of view.

Greenpeace, for example, lobbied for the UN's Kyoto Protocol, which would have cost the U.S. at least 4 million jobs had we been foolish enough to join. While Greenpeace does not make donor information readily identifiable on its website, reports indicate that the Turner Foundation has donated to the NGO.

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) has lobbied the UN for a measure to outlaw private gun ownership and effectively overturn the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Its director, a former employee of Soros' Open Society Institute, called the U.S. "unbelievably selfish" for its opposition. The Open Society Institute is a donor to IANSA.

The multi-year United Nations' Millennium Development Project - directed by Columbia Earth Institute's Professor Jeffrey Sachs and funded in part by a Soros foundation - culminated in a recommendation to the Secretary General and the General Assembly that would entail a massive wealth redistribution foreign development aid program along with global taxes to help pay for them. The total annual cost to Americans could top $150 billion before too long if we succumb to world pressure to fully fund this "take from America" program.

Project Syndicate, an international association of newspapers established and funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute, publishes anti-American propaganda. Turner's United Nations Foundations has helped pay for pro-UN agenda media, including the United Nations Correspondence Association.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Soros and Turner-sponsored foundations, among others, are pouring many millions of dollars into NGOs and UN agencies, which have agendas that are blatantly hostile to the United States and the free enterprise system. They are the embodiment of the true mindset that Kofi Annan has reinforced during his reign. Unfortunately, this mindset will not easily change without fundamental reforms and redirection of priorities at the United Nations."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21155

Entry #455

11 Charged In Web Gambling Crackdown

"11 Charged In Web Gambling Crackdown

BetOnSports CEO, Others, Arrested For Conspiracy, Fraud, Racketeering

(Page 1 of 2)FORT WORTH, Texas, July 18,
(CBS/AP) Federal officials on Monday charged 11 people, including the CEO of a big gambling Web site, alleging they committed conspiracy, racketeering and fraud in taking sports bets from U.S. residents.

The Justice Department is seeking the forfeiture of $4.5 billion, cars and computers from the defendants, including BetOnSports PLC and three other companies.

BetOnSports Chief Executive David Carruthers and four other defendants were arrested over the weekend. Carruthers was being prevented from boarding a flight Sunday from Texas to Costa Rica, where the company has operations.

The 22-count indictment was unsealed Monday in St. Louis, where a federal judge also ordered BetOnSports to stop accepting bets placed from within the United States.

Several of the defendants live outside the United States, which will make them hard to catch, said U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway in St. Louis.

"This is a tough crime to prosecute," she said.

"...It's very, very difficult to enforce United (States) law in jurisdictions that don't respect United States statutes," Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who's leading a push for tougher laws, told CBS News in April.

Among those who live abroad is Gary Stephen Kaplan, the founder of BetOnSports, which is incorporated in the United Kingdom and listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Trading of the company's shares was suspended in London on Tuesday. Shares of BetOnSports fell as much as 24 percent Monday following news of Carruthers' arrest, but they recovered to close 17 percent lower at $2.24.

In the fiscal year ending Feb. 5, BetOnSports reported a 65 percent gain in operating profit on continuing operations to $20.1 million. The company said it handled $1.77 billion worth of bets for the year, up 25 percent.".........................

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/national/main1812590.shtml

Entry #454

"CardPlayer.com Explains Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Again, I don't have a dog in the fight because I have never gambled on the internet, period. 

But since this is such a hot-button issue here's something I dug up via FreeRepublic.com, search page with gambling as the subject.   

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=gambling


 

"CardPlayer.com Explains Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

 

Amended Bill Doesn't Mention Online Poker Players

Confusion in the Press

There seems to be some confusion in the press regarding what bill just passed in Congress. It has been reported that the “Goodlatte” bill passed in the House. Actually what is referred to as the Goodlatte Bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, is H.R. 4777, which was fraught with problems previously reported by CardPlayer. Click here for that article. The common name of that bill was the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.”

Another milder bill was introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. That bill, commonly known as the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” is H.R. 4411, which basically prohibits credit card companies and financial institutions from sending payment to gaming sites.

The bill that passed was an amended version of H.R. 4411, which is the Leach bill that added some of Goodlatte’s proposals. Before this bill becomes law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. Currently, there is no commensurate bill pending in the Senate.

Poker Players Are Not at Risk

The first thing to note is that the bill does not prohibit a poker enthusiast from playing online poker. One Democrat introduced such an amendment to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the bill, but the amendment failed. There is no mention of the poker player in the bill nor any penalty associated with playing poker. 

H.R. 4411

After almost four hours of debate, the bill passed by a vote of 317-93. In a nutshell, here’s the meat of the statute and the predictable problems associated with each section of the bill.

Online gaming sites are prohibited from accepting payment from a United States financial institution. Since all online sites are outside of the United States, our government has no jurisdiction to enforce this part of the law. Simply stated, the United States cannot make laws or enforce laws regarding business outside the United States. 

Financial institutions are forbidden from delivering funds to online gaming sites. However, most banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. Therefore, offshore third-party companies have already been set in motion to handle United States financial transactions.

The amended 1961 Wire Act modernizes its language by including the Internet and prohibiting games “predominantly subject to chance.” This will be the start of expensive and time-consuming litigation regarding whether poker is predominantly a game of skill or chance.

A burden is placed upon Internet service providers and other technology providers to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. This will prove to be an unenforceable nightmare for all involved.

The bill directs the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to issue regulations outlining policies and procedures that could be used by financial institutions to identify and block gambling-related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. If the bill ever becomes law, these entities have 270 days to write such procedures. The implementation is mind boggling.

The bill contains carve-outs for such things as lotteries, horse racing, and the stock market. Every opponent of the bill criticizes the bill because, while it attempts to legislate morality, it prohibits only certain forms of gambling while allowing others.

As a matter of fact, although the proponents of the bill say that online gaming is destroying the moral fiber of society, the bill allows a state to house an online gaming site for its citizens.

Political Motivation

The bill was clearly politically motivated by Republicans who are worried about losing control in the House after the November election. Last month, House Republican leaders announced that this bill would be part of a 10-part “American Values Agenda,” which consists of 10 unrelated pieces of legislation, including a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, tax cuts, a flag burning law, and extensive restrictions on stem cell research.

Furthermore, this is a way our legislators can separate themselves from the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who lobbied against previous versions of this bill using bribes, fraud, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the bill’s defeat.

The Future Players

As I see it, there are a number of players and organizations to be watching in the near future. Although Senate leaders have not identified the bill as a top priority, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has pledged to pursue a similar bill in the Senate. 

Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the American Gaming Association president, recently announced that the AGA supports a study of the feasibility of regulating online gaming.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget said that although it supports the House’s vote, it has concerns about the bill. 

Sam Vallandingham, vice president for the First State Bank in West Virginia has said, “Our concern is that the added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of Internet gambling will drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, and daily operation of our bank.”

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, continue to vocally oppose the bill: “Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it won’t work for gambling,” Frank said. Paul agreed, adding, “the only thing (prohibition) does is increase the price.” 

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, offered an amendment that would have eliminated what she called the “hypocritical exemption” by completely banning all forms of Internet gambling. It failed by a vote of 114-297.

My favorite Representative, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, also offered such an amendment. He called all the exceptions and carve-outs “loopholes as big as a barn door.” 

The Poker Players Alliance is another group to be watched. Reuters reported that regulating Internet poker instead of banning it could bring the U.S. government $3.3 billion in taxes annually, according to a study by the Poker Players Alliance. Income taxes on winnings from Internet poker alone — which is estimated to have attracted $60 billion in wagers worldwide in 2005 — could amount to $2.5 billion each year. The study also said that a 1 percent user fee on online poker transactions would generate another $800 million to $1 billion in revenue per year for the U.S. government.

Finally, Rep. Jim Kasper from North Dakota should be watched as well. I had the pleasure of speaking with him this morning. He informed me that he was in contact with AGA president Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., discussing possible ramifications of the bill. 

Rep Kasper told me: “I intend to draft the Legislation to allow any Internet company located in North Dakota to be able to do business worldwide, not just in North Dakota. If the DOJ or the Congress try to stop us, it is my intention that the state of North Dakota initiate legal proceedings in federal court, to have the courts rule on the Constitutional issues. And, I am looking for input and help from the gaming industry in the drafting of the new bills.” Representative Jim Kasper can be reached at jmkasper@amg-nd.com

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have predicted every year for about the last 10 years. My prediction is that no law will pass in 2006 banning online gaming. The attempts are more complicated but no more feasible than they have ever been. Online gaming is a $12 billion a year business that is here to stay. Show your support for the right to play online by going to www.CardPlayer.com/link/savepoker and sending a letter to your Congressional representatives opposing this legislation. "

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1157?class=PokerNews 

Entry #453

25% of Hizballah's rocket assets destroyed

The very latest breaking news from Israel is here .... some of which doesn't make the news .... if you care to bookmark it  ..... 

http://debka.com/


Israeli military estimates up to 25% of Hizballah’s rocket assets destroyed in six days. No immediate timeline for ending operation

July 17, 2006, 1:53 PM (GMT+02:00)

They say it is too early to discuss a new international force for South Lebanon. DEBKAfile adds: Hizballah still has three quarters of its 10-13,000 rockets intact, and, moreover, according to our sources, is receiving fresh supplies through smuggling routes across Syria into the northern Lebanese pocket of Hermel. It is therefore impossible to draw up a time table to end the Israeli campaign to crush Hizballah’s war machine.

The IDF still relies mostly on its air force to destroy Hizballah stores and infrastructure. Sunday night saw 60 Israel air strikes over Lebanon, reported to have killed 23 people. Israeli artillery, responding to every-deepening Hizballah rocket attacks, is shelling suspected rockets stores secreted in the homes, garages and schools of south Lebanese towns and villages, after advising southerners to leave their homes. Elite troops also took part in these operations.

Tyre, whence Hizballah fired the 15 rockets that killed 8 civilians in Haifa, was targeted Sunday. Eight Canadian dual citizens were killed. Later 5 Hizballah rocket crews were taken out. Nine Lebanese troops are reported killed in raids to knock out their coastal radar stations which assisted the Hizballah attack an Israeli warship last Friday.

The southern suburbs of Beirut and fuel tanks at the international airport took a pounding too, as did the Hizballah’s logistics and training centers in the Beqaa Valley and roads connecting Lebanon to Syria to cut off Hizballah’s supply routes. "

http://debka.com/

Entry #451

"Why We Will Win the War on Terror

The timeline stated at the bottom of this article is around the same as I've read predicted elsewhere.



"Why We Will Win the War on Terror
By Larry Schweikart
Source History News Network
"Mr. Schweikart is the author of America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror.


If, in June 1942, you looked at where things stood militarily in the Pacific, you probably wouldn't have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. The U.S. had just handed Japan a solid defeat at Midway, but at the cost of one more carrier, leaving us with just two in the Pacific, one in dock, and one in transit, compared to the Japanese carrier fleet that numbered between 13 and 15, depending on how one counted their "light" carriers. Beyond that, it still looked bleak. The Japanese held everything from Malaya to Attu and Kiska, plus large sections of China. We had yet to liberate anyone, and our fleet had been "attrited" (to use the words of Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf in the Gulf War). More important, the bloody battles of the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and Okinawa had yet to be fought.

And yet . . . a historian, looking back, would know that the war was essentially over after Midway. Oh, there was very hard, and very bloody fighting ahead, but after Midway, Japan could not win, only delay the inevitable. Ditto in Europe, where, after June 6, 1944, Germany could not win. The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events. That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle.

As historians (objective ones, that is) look back 30 years from now, and write the history of this war, they will find the battle of Iraq essentially was over after November 2004. I do not say that because Bush won reelection--that was critical, but so was the formation of the Iraqi government at that time--but because those two events then allowed a military victory at Fallujah, which was the tipping point of this battle (or, if you prefer, "war"). At Fallujah, more than 2000 terrorists were killed and the real al-Qaeda back of the so-called "insurgency" broken. Since then, Zarqawi was scrambling, as did the Japanese after Okinawa, to re-stock his ranks of suicide bombers. They were both unsuccessful. Last month, Zarqawi was killed, replicating the shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's plane in 1943. Even then, the war in the Pacific was not over--and the bloodiest battles had not been fought--but again, the outcome was further cemented.

Beyond Iraq, the U.S. will win the War on Terror because it's what Americans do: we win military conflicts. Leftists love to point to Vietnam. But again, is that a "war," or a battle within the Cold War, which we won? Either way, Vietnam illustrates one of the strengths our military possesses that our enemies almost never do: the ability to learn from loss. In many (not all) Muslim societies, especially those from Bedouin/Arab cultures, it is shameful to lose, and doubly shameful to admit one lost. How can such a foe possibly adapt to the inevitable battlefield screwups? Japanese admirals went down with their ships out of a code of "honor," while American commanders transferred their command--and their experience--to another ship.

Americans win wars because, despite the claims of Senator Richard Durbin, we have an unusual and almost distinct concern for the sanctity of life--ours, and our enemy's. We take better care of prisoners than most combatants, and unlike any I've ever encountered, we make more efforts to rescue our own (including three planned rescue missions for POWs in wartime over the course of three different wars). We win wars because, despite the claims of the left, our soldiers come from every sector, every lifestyle, and every part of American society (zip code studies have proven this). Our troops are simply the best trained, ever, which virtually all military analysts agree is the most important ingredient in successful military operations.

There is a myth of the War on Terror that we "can't beat an ideology," and "terrorism is an ideology, not a state." It seems to me we defeated three much more powerful ideologies in the 20th century alone--fascism, bushido-ism, and communism. Another myth says we've "never fought a war like this." Quite the contrary, in the Filipino Insurrection and subsequent Moro Wars, we not only fought a guerilla/terrorist enemy very much like al-Qaeda (the Moros were even Muslims who practiced beheading their enemies), but the leader, Emilio Aguinaldo (like Zarqawi) stated that his goal was not to defeat the U.S. militarily but to affect the outcome of the 1900 election. Both of our enemies failed, and al-Qaeda will continue to fail. Just as in the skies over Europe, where our bombers, by becoming a giant sky-borne "roach motel" absorbed some 30% of the total Nazi war effort, we have set up a "roach motel" in Iraq, and are killing terrorists by the bushel. It is worth noting that the media has gone out of its way to avoid reporting enemy numbers killed, but my own sources--and a little basic addition--shows that they have lost upwards of 20,000 already. No military force in history has survived these losses. The Japanese kamikazes ran out, and the suicide bombers will too . . . soon. Look for the battle of Iraq to be over by late 2007, and, if the timetable holds, al-Qaeda to be substantially defeated within the next five to eight years."


http://hnn.us/articles/27494.html

Entry #450

"Headlines from the Year 2029!"

From Neal Boortz.


"OK  ... so the jet lag has me pretty good this morning, so I'm going to fill in some space here with "Headlines from the Year 2029!" sent to me by a listener. 

  • Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia , formerly known as California.  White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
  • Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
  • Baby conceived naturally.  Scientists stumped.
  • Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
  • Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).
  • Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
  • France pleads f or global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
  • Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
  • George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
  • Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
  • 85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
  • Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
  • Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut. (Hummmmmmmmm) Now that's just wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
  • Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals, violates their civil rights.
  • Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.
  • New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
  • Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
  • IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
  • Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

Here's a hot dog cooker that'll feed a crowd.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200607/07172006.html#headlines

Entry #449

Revisionism revisited today

From the Powerline guys this morning.


"Dr. Goebbels, call your office

 

In an obscene attempt to obtain political mileage, the Democrats are claiming that President Bush is responsible for the outbreak of war in the Middle East. Howard Dean claims that the war would not have occurred if the Democrats had been in power because the Dems would have worked the past six years to prevent it. And Sen. Dodd has made basically the same assertion. Meanwhile, Rep. Jane Harmon contends that the Bush administration is to blame for our poor to non-existent relations with Syria and Iran which, she says, prevent us from using diplomacy to end the crisis.

Once again, the Democrats are taking partisan politics to a previously unknown low. No past opposition party has attempted to blame the outbreak of an Arab-Israeli war on the party in power. Unless I'm mistaken, the Repubicans didn't blame President Johnson for the war in 1967; the Dems didn't blame President Nixon for the war in 1973; nor did they blame President Reagan for the hostilities in Lebanon that occurred on his watch. Moreover, it is especially reprehensible for the Dems to be taking such a low road now, when unlike before, the U.S. is in the middle of essentially the same war as Israel -- the war on terrorism."...........

....."Remember, though, this is the party that brokered the deal that enabled North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons, yet now blames that regime's nuclear status on President Bush. In terms of the style of its propaganda, this is a party in which Joseph Goebbels would feel at home."...

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014715.php


You guys reading might want to check out this permanlink where they're talking about Miss Universe with some snapshots of contestants.  Big Grin
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014713.php
Entry #448

"Middle East Crisis: Backgrounder

From SteveQuayle.com
"Middle East Crisis: Backgrounder


July 14, 2006
Stratfor

"Israel lives with three realities: geographic, demographic and cultural. Geographically, it is at a permanent disadvantage, lacking strategic depth. It does enjoy the advantage of interior lines -- the ability to move forces rapidly from one front to another. Demographically, it is on the whole outnumbered, although it can achieve local superiority in numbers by choosing the time and place of war. Its greatest advantage is cultural. It has a far greater mastery of the technology and culture of war than its neighbors.

Two of the realities cannot be changed. Nothing can be done about geography or demography. Culture can be changed. It is not inherently the case that Israel will have a technological or operational advantage over its neighbors. The great inherent fear of Israel is that the Arabs will equal or surpass Israeli prowess culturally and therefore militarily. If that were to happen, then all three realities would turn against Israel and Israel might well be at risk.

That is why the capture of Israeli troops, first one in the south, then two in the north, has galvanized Israel. The kidnappings represent a level of Arab tactical prowess that previously was the Israeli domain. They also represent a level of tactical slackness on the Israeli side that was previously the Arab domain. These events hardly represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power. Nevertheless, for a country that depends on its cultural superiority, any tremor in this variable reverberates dramatically. Hamas and Hezbollah have struck the core Israeli nerve. Israel cannot ignore it.

Embedded in Israel's demographic problem is this: Israel has national security requirements that outstrip its manpower base. It can field a sufficient army, but its industrial base cannot supply all of the weapons needed to fight high-intensity conflicts. This means it is always dependent on an outside source for its industrial base and must align its policies with that source. At first this was the Soviets, then France and finally the United States. Israel broke with the Soviets and France when their political demands became too intense. It was after 1967 that it entered into a patron-client relationship with the United States. This relationship is its strength and its weakness. It gives the Israelis the systems they need for national security, but since U.S. and Israeli interests diverge, the relationship constrains Israel's range of action.

During the Cold War, the United States relied on Israel for a critical geopolitical function. The fundamental U.S. interest was Turkey, which controlled the Bosporus and kept the Soviet fleet under control in the Mediterranean. The emergence of Soviet influence in Syria and Iraq -- which was not driven by U.S. support for Israel since the United States did not provide all that much support compared to France -- threatened Turkey with attack from two directions, north and south. Turkey could not survive this. Israel drew Syrian attention away from Turkey by threatening Damascus and drawing forces and Soviet equipment away from the Turkish frontier. Israel helped secure Turkey and turned a Soviet investment into a dry hole.

Once Egypt signed a treaty with Israel and Sinai became a buffer zone, Israel became safe from a full peripheral war -- everyone attacking at the same time. Jordan was not going to launch an attack and Syria by itself could not strike. The danger to Israel became Palestinian operations inside of Israel and the occupied territories and the threat posed from Lebanon by the Syrian-sponsored group Hezbollah.

In 1982, Israel responded to this threat by invading Lebanon. It moved as far north as Beirut and the mountains east and northeast of it. Israel did not invade Beirut proper, since Israeli forces do not like urban warfare as it imposes too high a rate of attrition. But what the Israelis found was low-rate attrition. Throughout their occupation of Lebanon, they were constantly experiencing guerrilla attacks, particularly from Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has two patrons: Syria and Iran. The Syrians have used Hezbollah to pursue their political and business interests in Lebanon. Iran has used Hezbollah for business and ideological reasons. Business interests were the overlapping element. In the interest of business, it became important to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran that an accommodation be reached with Israel. Israel wanted to withdraw from Lebanon in order to end the constant low-level combat and losses.

Israel withdrew in 1988, having reached quiet understandings with Syria that Damascus would take responsibility for Hezbollah, in return for which Israel would not object to Syrian domination of Lebanon. Iran, deep in its war with Iraq, was not in a position to object if it had wanted to. Israel returned to its borders in the north, maintaining a security presence in the south of Lebanon that lasted for several years.

As Lebanon blossomed and Syria's hold on it loosened, Iran also began to increase its regional influence. Its hold on some elements of Hezbollah strengthened, and in recent months, Hezbollah -- aligning itself with Iranian Shiite ideology -- has become more aggressive. Iranian weapons were provided to Hezbollah, and tensions grew along the frontier. This culminated in the capture of two soldiers in the north and the current crisis.

It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the soldier kidnappings on the Israeli psyche. First, while the Israeli military is extremely highly trained, Israel is also a country with mass conscription. Having a soldier kidnapped by Arabs hits every family in the country. The older generation is shocked and outraged that members of the younger generation have been captured and worried that they allowed themselves to be captured; therefore, the younger generation needs to prove it too can defeat the Arabs. This is not a primary driver, but it is a dimension.

The more fundamental issue is this: Israel withdrew from Lebanon in order to escape low-intensity conflict. If Hezbollah is now going to impose low-intensity conflict on Israel's border, the rationale for withdrawal disappears. It is better for Israel to fight deep in Lebanon than inside Israel. If the rockets are going to fall in Israel proper, then moving into a forward posture has no cost to Israel.

From an international standpoint, the Israelis expect to be condemned. These international condemnations, however, are now having the opposite effect of what is intended. The Israeli view is that they will be condemned regardless of what they do. The differential between the condemnation of reprisal attacks and condemnation of a full invasion is not enough to deter more extreme action. If Israel is going to be attacked anyway, it might as well achieve its goals.

Moreover, an invasion of Hezbollah-held territory aligns Israel with the United States. U.S. intelligence has been extremely concerned about the growing activity of Hezbollah, and U.S. relations with Iran are not good. Lebanon is the center of gravity of Hezbollah, and the destruction of Hezbollah capabilities in Lebanon, particularly the command structure, would cripple Hezbollah operations globally in the near future. The United States would very much like to see that happen, but cannot do it itself. Moreover, an Israeli action would enrage the Islamic world, but it would also drive home the limits of Iranian power. Once again, Iran would have dropped Lebanon in the grease, and not been hurt itself. The lesson of Hezbollah would not be lost on the Iraqi Shia -- or so the Bush administration would hope.

Therefore, this is one Israeli action that benefits the United States, and thus helps the immediate situation as well as long-term geopolitical alignments. It realigns the United States and Israel. This also argues that any invasion must be devastating to Hezbollah. It must go deep. It must occupy temporarily. It must shatter Hezbollah.

At this point, the Israelis appear to be unrolling a war plan in this direction. They have blockaded the Lebanese coast. Israeli aircraft are attacking what air power there is in Lebanon, and have attacked Hezbollah and other key command-and-control infrastructure. It would follow that the Israelis will now concentrate on destroying Hezbollah -- and Lebanese -- communications capabilities and attacking munitions dumps, vehicle sites, rocket-storage areas and so forth.

Most important, Israel is calling up its reserves. This is never a symbolic gesture in Israel. All Israelis below middle age are in the reserves and mobilization is costly in every sense of the word. If the Israelis were planning a routine reprisal, they would not be mobilizing. But they are, which means they are planning to do substantially more than retributive airstrikes. The question is what their plan is.

Given the blockade and what appears to be the shape of the airstrikes, it seems to us at the moment the Israelis are planning to go fairly deep into Lebanon. The logical first step is a move to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. But given the missile attacks on Haifa, they will go farther, not only to attack launcher sites, but to get rid of weapons caches. This means a move deep into the Bekaa Valley, the seat of Hezbollah power and the location of plants and facilities. Such a penetration would leave Israeli forces' left flank open, so a move into Bekaa would likely be accompanied by attacks to the west. It would bring the Israelis close to Beirut again.

This leaves Israel's right flank exposed, and that exposure is to Syria. The Israeli doctrine is that leaving Syrian airpower intact while operating in Lebanon is dangerous. Therefore, Israel must at least be considering using its air force to attack Syrian facilities, unless it gets ironclad assurances the Syrians will not intervene in any way. Conversations are going on between Egypt and Syria, and we suspect this is the subject. But Israel would not necessarily object to the opportunity of eliminating Syrian air power as part of its operation, or if Syria chooses, going even further.

At the same time, Israel does not intend to get bogged down in Lebanon again. It will want to go in, wreak havoc, withdraw. That means it will go deeper and faster, and be more devastating, than if it were planning a long-term occupation. It will go in to liquidate Hezbollah and then leave. True, this is no final solution, but for the Israelis, there are no final solutions.

Israeli forces are already in Lebanon. Its special forces are inside identifying targets for airstrikes. We expect numerous air attacks over the next 48 hours, as well as reports of firefights in southern Lebanon. We also expect more rocket attacks on Israel.

It will take several days to mount a full invasion of Lebanon. We would not expect major operations before the weekend at the earliest. If the rocket attacks are taking place, however, Israel might send several brigades to the Litani River almost immediately in order to move the rockets out of range of Haifa. Therefore, we would expect a rapid operation in the next 24-48 hours followed by a larger force later.

At this point, the only thing that can prevent this would be a major intervention by Syria with real guarantees that it would restrain Hezbollah and indications such operations are under way. Syria is the key to a peaceful resolution. Syria must calculate the relative risks, and we expect them to be unwilling to act decisively.

Therefore:

1. Israel cannot tolerate an insurgency on its northern frontier; if there is one, it wants it farther north.

2. It cannot tolerate attacks on Haifa.

3. It cannot endure a crisis of confidence in its military

4. Hezbollah cannot back off of its engagement with Israel.

5. Syria can stop this, but the cost to it stopping it is higher than the cost of letting it go on.

It would appear Israel will invade Lebanon. The global response will be noisy. There will be no substantial international action against Israel. Beirut's tourism and transportation industry, as well as its financial sectors, are very much at risk.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/middleeast_crisis.htm

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/login.php?err=3&prodid=&subid=&url=/products/premium (Must subscribe to read original article)

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Global/060714.MidEast.bkgrd.html
Entry #447

Repeal 16th Amendment, Abolish Income Tax

Several years ago the late (R) Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia proposed elimination of income tax but died while in office back before 2000. 

Had he lived he'd be still working on getting it done and no doubt pushing for a consumption tax "Fair Tax" which is the brainchild of (R) Representative John Linder of Georgia. 

Please consider signing this petition which is simply to repeal the 16th amendment which is the amendment upon which income tax and its collection are based.


   

"The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.... It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn." --George Washington

Petition Background

Repeal the 16th Amendment and Abolish the Income Tax

"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." --Ben Franklin

As our nation's Founders understood, the federal government would be constitutionally limited both in the means of collection and expenditure of the tax payer's money. The Constitution afforded citizens this protection in Article I, Section 9, which reads, in part, "No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

This constitutional protection was undermined, however, when the 16th Amendment was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified on February 3, 1913: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Prior to the 16th Amendment, taxation in America was levied based on consumption, not income. Tax based on consumption (a sales tax) entails limitations to that tax, because an excessive tax rate will itself stifle consumption and give rise to smuggling, black markets and other means of tax evasion. Speaking of taxation on consumption, in the Federalist Papers, the definitive explication of our nation's Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. ... If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the Treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds." Another author of The Federalist Papers, James Madison, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...."

Anti-Federalists also understood the need to constitutionally restrict taxation to support only those things constitutionally reserved for the central government: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical," wrote Thomas Jefferson. "A wise and frugal government ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. ... Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. ... Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands?"

At odds with these strict constructionist intentions was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who did more damage to Federalism than any president in our nation's history. Indeed, he firmly believed in the funding of unconstitutional government growth by way of unconstitutional taxation. "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Of course, Roosevelt's "American principle" was little more than a paraphrase of Karl Marx's maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And through invasive taxation and regulation, the central government has intruded into every aspect of American life. As Nikita Khrushchev observed, "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

Contrary to the closet socialism articulated by FDR, national sales tax would be a welcome and constitutionally permissible alternative to the socialist vision and statist implications of the current system. Our present-day progressive income tax not only punishes hard work and free-market success, it also restricts economic growth by stifling consumers and the private sector.

One effort to abolish the income tax comes from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who recently proposed H.J. Resolution 15, "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens." If passed into law, this measure would eliminate the central government's prerogative to levy inequitable taxes, and would have the added effect of conforming the government's role more closely to its constitutionally defined strictures.

At the same time, economists recognize that legitimate tax reform and tax reductions can be disastrous if not accompanied by comparable reductions in government spending. Spiraling deficits, including those being run up by the current administration, will have dire consequences for long-term economic health. Therefore, it is essential that any meaningful tax reform legislation, including but not limited to the repeal of the 16th Amendment and replacing the income tax with an alternative like a national sales tax, be accompanied by reductions in government expenditures under the guidance of the Constitution's own parameters for central government activity.

Given the limited influence of constitutional constructionists and fiscal conservatives in both chambers of Congress, H.J. Resolution 15 stands little chance of passage on Capitol Hill, or ratification by the states. This hard reality must serve only to bolster the resolve of citizens committed to the Founders' notion of a constitutionally limited government -- a limitation largely enforced by restraints in the collection and expenditure of tax revenue. As the central government continues to encroach upon every sphere of our lives, the time is ripe to bring the issue of fair and just taxation before the public eye.

Sign This Petition.     http://patriotpetitions.us/noincometax/

http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=6

Entry #445

"It's the Productivity, Stupid

"It's the Productivity, Stupid
By Tim Worstall
Source Tech Central Station Daily

"We've all seen the "Why oh Why" pieces floating around about the economy? Why, if productivity is booming, GDP growth is strong, oh why is the labor market weaker than we think it ought to be? Why aren't Joe Six-pack's wages soaring and why are profits rising so strongly? Well, here's why: productivity is booming.

 

A useful introduction to the situation is this by Jared Bernstein over at the blog MaxSpeak:

 

Let us begin with a few observations:

Over the course of the current economic expansion, real GDP is up 15%.

The Congress is busy killing a moderate minimum wage increase while working diligently to repeal the estate tax.

Profits as a share of national income are at a forty-year high. The share of income accruing to the top 1%, after falling in the wake of the dot.com bust, is again on the rise.

Productivity is up a stellar 15% over this recovery. Real hourly wages of non-managers are up bupkes (-0.6%).

New economy cheerleaders expound on the great job market, yet employment growth is up only 2% over this business cycle. The growth for the comparable period over the 1990s cycle was 7% and the historical average for cycles of this length was 10%.

 

Rather than try and argue each point separately or in detail (for example, real wages are not the same as real compensation, which has been rising, neither the minimum wage nor the estate tax affect real hourly wages so as you'd notice and so on) let's take the major points as they are.

 

Real GDP and productivity have risen by the same amount, wages haven't budged, profits have surged and so has the income of the top 1 percent. The interesting question now is exactly the why oh why? one. Why have all of these things been happening?

 

There are a number of possible theories, of course. Perhaps Karl Rove personally contacts each and every CEO to remind them not to raise wages so as to benefit Republicans? If that were actually happening I tend to think that those of my friends who are CEOs might tell me, perhaps let it slip in a moment of beery introspection: maybe they don't because they'd have to kill me afterwards? Too difficult to get the blood off that mink-lined limo perhaps?

 

Perhaps such explanations should be better left to the tinfoil hat brigade. Part of what I think is the true answer comes from The Economist:

But by some other measures, the labour market is weak. Real wages for the median worker in America have been stagnant during this business cycle, although economic growth was running at an annualised pace of 5.6% in the first quarter. Corporate demand for labour has not been growing fast enough, apparently, to drive up wages.

 

What we need is a mechanism (one that preferably does not involve unlikely and nefarious conspiracies) to explain our observed facts. One that is explained in an essay in this book, Flying on One Engine, a collection of pieces from Wall Street economists from a couple of years ago. John P. Lipskey and James E. Glassman (not to be confused with TCS Daily host James K. Glassman; these writers are both economists at JP Morgan Chase) where they say this:

In particular, total employment will not expand unless the economy grows faster than businesses are able to boost productivity. Thus, the "hurdle" rate for job growth -- that is, the minimum rate of GDP growth needed to produce net job gains -- will vary over time, depending upon how successful companies are in improving their productivity.

 

and

...that is, if productivity continued to advance at the exceptional rate of the past year or so [they were writing in 2004-Ed] the implication is that profit margins would soar, despite a starting point of record highs.

 

I think that provides our answer. Yes, it is true that productivity has been rising strongly.

 

My own view is that we are going through something of a step change in the economy. While, as we know, a lot of the productivity growth of the 1990s was actually the computer industry itself becoming more efficient at its own manufacturing, the current boom is from people working out what to actually do with the bright shiny boxes. In this view, the internet is as world-changing an invention as the car, and we have now a one-off boost in productivity growth. It might last for another 6 months or another six years, no one really knows.

 

But that productivity rise is indeed there, all are agreed upon that. As above, in order for there to be strong growth in the demand for labor, GDP growth has to be higher than the rise in productivity. If a company can expand its output to meet the market demands simply by internal efficiency improvements (which is what productivity means to some extent) why should they go out and hire more labor? Further, if there is no strong demand for more labor, why would wages rise?

 

We can even explain the rise in corporate profits from this model: the extra money has to be going somewhere and if there's no general inflation then it isn't going on physical inputs, if wages aren't rising then it's not going to labor, what is there left: profits. As the top 1 percent get more of their income from profits than any other group in the economy, we can even, with this very simply model, explain why their income is going up too.

 

The next question might be what are we going to do about all of this? My reaction would be nothing, as I can't think of anything that would not make things worse. A Keynesian might argue that the solution is even greater boosting of demand to boost GDP growth but this would require greater than present governmental deficit spending: not a solution likely to appeal to anyone just at present. We could try to artificially slow down the productivity growth (say, set OSHA or the EPA loose on business) but that would violate the most important precept that economists have about wealth generation: productivity isn't everything but in the long run it's almost everything (© Paul Krugman). Or we could simply wait. At some point this surge in productivity will work itself out, GDP growth will be higher than that growth and employment and wages will rise naturally.

 

However, I will admit to liking this argument precisely because of its circularity. The question as so often posed is, if productivity is rising so quickly, as fast as GDP, why isn't the labor market tight and wages similarly booming? The answer being, the labor market isn't tight and wages are not booming because productivity is rising so quickly, as fast as GDP.

 

The only question that remains, as far as I can see, is why the original question therefore causes such puzzlement? Why do we have all of those "Why, oh why?" pieces when the answer is "because"?

 

Tim Worstall is a TCS Daily contributing writer living in Europe.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071306A
Comments
Entry #443
Page 563 of 593
Guest