Although we have no coherent accounts of the history of Sindh from the periods prior to the Arab rule, it is an established fact that everyone, from Persian invaders to Alexander the Great, who attempted to conquer India, acquired Sindh too and had a free  plunge in the country’s riches. The Arabs wanted Sindh for its wealth to finance their expeditions further deep into India. Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf[1] had dispatched his general, Muhammad bin Qasim, with express directions to seize the treasures of Aror and Multan (North Sindh) and occupy all regions of India up to the frontiers of China. Mahmud of Ghazna, the inveterate plunderer, also wanted the treasures of Somnath to finance his Indian expeditions. The principality of Somnath at that time had acquired the status of a regional hub of trade for Sindh and Gujrat. After the conquest of Sindh by the Arabs,  Sindhi traders chose to make Somnath their commercial and financial capital, as they considered their wealth more secure in Somnath away from the reach of the Arab marauders who controlled much of the western parts of Sindh. Such was the glitter and allure of the gems and treasure accumulated in Somnath that it tempted Mahmud to descend several times from cold northern valleys beyond the Karakorams thousands of miles down south into the hot tropics of India to quench his lust for pillage and plunder. After a number of attempts and several years Mahmud was finally able to take over Somnath but fortunately by then he was too wearied and too old to further carry on with his nefarious designs and soon after he died.

Zahiruddin Babar too eyed the treasures of Sindh to finance his Indian expeditions. Although Babar did not himself attack Sindh, he extended his reign to Kandhar whose ruler Shah Beg Arghun took refuge in the plains of Sindh and eventually conquered it. It is one of the poignant episodes of the history of Sindh that its enemies at various junctures have put aside their differences and partnered in the exploitation of the country. Shah Beg Arghun after conquering Sindh had Babar’s name chanted in the weekly Juma prayer sermons as the current Muslim Caliph. Although this move legally put Sindh under the suzerainty of Kandhar and effectively made Arghun the deputy or viceroy of Babar, the strategy earned Arghun time to consolidate his hold on Sindh. The Arghun army, after taking possession of the treasures of Sindh, ransacked and despoiled the culturally rich and affluent city of Thatta, and reduced the internationally famed metropolis to a virtual graveyard. When there was nothing left to rob, the army began tearing apart houses to extract timber and other building material. A sizable portion of the wealth thus looted made its way to Kandhar and enabled Babar to raise a large army to attack India and establish the Mughal Empire. There is no denying the fact that Britain could only firm up their control on all of India after they were able to have Sindh. In 1843, when they annexed Sindh, Bahadur Shah Zafar ruled India and just within fourteen years the British forces were able to put a seal on the Mughal rule in India. The economy of Sindh was very important to the British rulers and they at several occasions rejected the demand of the Punjab for more share in the water from the river Indus—although the Punjab was asking for the favor to irrigate the lands that the British government in India had allotted to army men from the province as reward for the latter’s services to the Crown. The British did not choose to disappoint their loyal Punjabi subjects, who had served them through thick and thin and helped them quell every insurgency and revolt, just because they were driven by the values of justice and natural rights. But definitely they were fascinated by Sindh and could not afford to adversely affect Sindh’s revenues and economic output which constituted a sizable portion of the colonial government’s income.

In the present times, the military establishment of Pakistan is dependent on the economic potential of Sindh, which contributes about 70 percent of Pakistan’s GDP. In addition, the country has been exploiting the vast coal, oil and natural gas resources of Sindh for decades. Sindh thus bears the costs of maintaining the 700,000-plus defense establishment of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. If Sindh stops injecting funds in the national income of Pakistan, the country would not be able to maintain its military and the Pakistan government would collapse under its own burden. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to segue into a discussion of the raison d’être of maintaining a large military for protecting the borders of any country. It would be just appropriate to  note that presently Pakistan army has been made to fight the Taliban and Islamic extremists and embark upon an effort to contain Islamic militancy in the country. In this situation, both the Pakistan army and the Islamic militants need financial resources to be able to keep fighting. The Taliban had seized Swat and adjoining areas not just to have a sanctuary in the tribal belt for themselves but also to take control of the emerald mines and other precious stones quarries in the region. They not only sold emerald extracted from the Swat valley, but they also raised funds by auctioning off the assets of the government and multinational companies in the areas under their control. Before the army launched its operation in the area a few weeks ago, the Taliban held weekly auctions in Swat to sell off the government and multinational assets and traders from all parts of Pakistan, especially the Punjab, participated in those auctions.

Wars, whether fought against insurgents like the Taliban or for conquering the world, incur tremendous costs. To continue waging their so-called Jihad, the Taliban need more than the funds raised by selling the gemstones and war booty. While it can be argued that the primitive and crude Taliban may not be tuned in to the intricacies of economics, but

Pakistan’s establishment is well grounded in the economic realities and are unambiguously aware that how the country earns its income and which part of the country is economically most important. Western countries, particularly the United

States, have time and again voiced their concern that the Taliban enjoy an active and wholesome support of the army and military agencies of Pakistan. These concerns cannot be shrugged off in the face of the fact that Pakistan Army first actively supported and nurtured Afghan Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union and later made those Mujahedeen into the Taliban and kept patronizing them. Like their traditional friends in Pakistan army, the Taliban also know that it is Sindh which keeps infusing blood in the anemic economy of Pakistan. In this backdrop, one can justifiably claim that resettlement in Sindh of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Swat is part of a strategic plan to further entrench the colonial-style vested interests in Sindh which have recently been apprehensive of losing out to the new dynamics of globalization in the area. In the light of the symbiotic relation between the army and the Taliban, it would be unrealistic to ignore the thrust of these protagonists to consolidate their hold on Sindh and its resources before the realities of globalization make it difficult for them to unabashedly keep skimming off the surplus Sindh produces. Resettlement of IDPs in Sindh thus emerges as a very clever move: 1. to sustain the Pakistani establishment’s control on the resources of Sindh, 2. to permanently mutilate the Sufi and secular traditions of Sindh and thus extinguish the well-corroborated Sindhi pride that Sindhi youth has always been loath to participate in any type of terrorism. Both the Taliban and Pakistani agencies are adroitly making their moves and this time Sindh happens to be the chess board. According to the leader of Pashtuns in Sindh, Shahi Syed, there are four million Pashtuns in Karachi and nobody is able to make an accurate estimate of the number of the Taliban or members of Al-Qaeda among them. According to estimates, there is a combined population of between seven and eight million Pashtuns in Sindh, which include Afghanis, people from tribal areas, and ordinary Pathans. Although a vast majority of them is settled in Karachi, at least a quarter of this Pashtun population is dispersed in other parts of the province.

Never in history has Sindh suffered so great an influx of outsiders as it has after the creation of Pakistan. First it was the Indian refugees immediately after the Partition in 1947—a vast majority of which was cleverly guided into Sindh and these refugees, who call themselves Mohajirs, kept trickling in for many decades to come. Then it was the notorious One Unit[2] which enabled the Pakistani establishment (the Punjab-dominated civil and military bureaucracy) to settle millions of Punjabis in Sindh. Following the teachings of Machiavelli, the rulers[3] planted pockets of non-native population in various parts of Sindh—in addition to Karachi, there are whole villages and small towns populated by the Punjabi settlers in the interior of Sindh. During the Afghan war in the 1980s, hundreds of thousands of Afghan immigrants made Sindh their permanent home. Now it is the turn of displaced Swatis to head toward the universal sanctuary for the destitute, the displaced and refugees—called Sindh. According to media reports so far about 1.8 million people have been displaced and the town of Swat has been completely abandoned. The problem is not only Swat, the military operation is set to expand to Mingora and the adjoining areas up to Peshawar and the stream of refugees is not going to abate. If most of these IDPs get settled in Sindh, the precarious ethnic balance in Sindh will tilt in favor of the migrants and the Sindhis will be permanently reduced to a minority in their own homeland.

History bears out that whenever Sindhis have been able to self-rule, they have disseminated love and peace and busied themselves in the creation of arts and literature, in cultural activities, in trade and commerce, and, in the process, established and nurtured high civilizations. But whenever Sindh has slipped into the control of outsiders, its wealth has been utilized for regional disruption, war and egotistical pursuits. Because Sindh is the land of Sufis and Sindhis are eternally peace-loving, religious extremism has never endured in Sindh except for intermittent bouts in the times of foreign rule and within the settlements the foreigners established. Sindhis can continue to follow the teachings of the Sufi saints, and conduct themselves as liberal, tolerant, and peace-loving people, only if they will remain in majority in their homeland.

History is full of accounts of migrations and re-settlements, but there has always been a limit to influx of immigrants in a country. One finds no precedence that outside rulers have attempted to resettle their whole towns and cities into their dominions or colonies. The six-decade long state-sponsored resettlement process in Sindh is unique with no parallel anywhere in the world and any time in the history of mankind. The total desertion of Swat in the wake of military operation gives rise to many pertinent questions. Is it sheer failure of Pakistan army or is it part of a well-planned strategy? There are only a few thousand refugees in the camps established by the government and international agencies, while those rendered homeless are estimated at about two million and hundreds of thousands are heading to Sindh! Hordes of them have settled in the districts of Tando Muhammd Khan, Hyderabad, Jamshoro, Dadu, and Karachi and the local Pashtuns in Sindh are receiving the refugees and establishing camps for them. If the Pakistan government is once again up to its old strategy of raking in charity money and stirring the conscience of the world into pumping in more funds in the name of IDPs, the civilized world should not allow themselves to be duped into sacrificing Sindh, Sindhis, and their

5000-year old culture of peace and nonviolence at the altar of this game of strategic compassion contrived by Pakistani agencies. The United States must revisit its current policy and evaluate the causes of past failures in the region. Every time the US took on the Taliban or Islamic militants, the latter slipped out with the help of their inveterate allies in Pakistan army. From Afghanistan the militants infiltrated into Iraq and then into Pakistani tribal areas, and now they are all set to make Sindh their new battleground. In this situation, the United States, instead of wasting time with Pakistan army in the desolate mountains of Swat and tribal areas, ought to concentrate on preventing the influx  of IDPs and thus, the Taliban into Sindh, because if Islamic militants get into Sindh, this land of Sufis will turn into an epicenter of talibanization. Sindh can keep its traditions of peace and religious liberalism only if it is able to keep intact the shrines of Sufi saints—both the Hindus and Muslims among Sindhis revere these saints and pay homage to them. The Taliban are notorious for their intolerance toward Sufi saints and they indulged in the shameful acts of destroying Sufi shrines and other symbols of religious tolerance and diversity in Afghanistan. In the absence of these emblems of Sufism in Sindh, there will be mushrooming of madrasahs – churning out multitudes of young talibs ever ready to blow off themselves and everyone else. Pakistan shares borders with India and India has sustained all invasions from the northwest. After the Taliban are able to entrench themselves in Sindh, they will be knocking at the doors of India and their militancy will conveniently spill into India. It may be intentional on the part of those-who-matter in Pakistan, to let India experience the real lightning of Islamic extremism after having them encounter its faint sparks during the Mumbai terror last year. Will it be prudent for the world’s sole super power to let Islamic terrorists broaden the reach of their activities to Sindh and India? The Taliban phenomenon will shatter Indian economy and weaken the country both internally and externally.

Pakistan army which has thrived on enmity with India has contrived this game to circumvent the international pressure that it should focus on its north-western tribal region rather than on its eastern border with India. It appears a calculated move to blur the difference between the army’s new, but unwelcome, enemy and its traditionally favorite foe. The Taliban operating in Sindh will acquire way more strategic importance than their present situation and can nudge China to come open in their support as China considers India its military and economic rival. In that situation, the United States will permanently lose its war against terror. It is in the geostrategic interests of both India and the United States to prevent the influx of the Taliban into Sindh.

Footnotes

The Governor of Hijaz and Iraq during the rule of the Ummayads in the 8th century AD. He was known for his ruthlessness and viciousness.
One Unit was the cleverly engineered device to amalgamate the four constituent provinces in the western wing of the country and introduce parity with the eastern wing. The eastern wing of the country was comprised of only one province, East Bengal (later East Pakistan under One Unit), which was the largest single province with population more than the population of the other four provinces in the western wing combined. The main purpose of the One Unit was to suppress the Bengali majority into submission and to stifle the national identities of the smaller provinces.
Of Pakistan’s 62 years existence, the Punjab-dominated army has ruled the country directly for about 35 years and indirectly for about 20 years.

-
About the Author:
Dilshad Bhutto Sr. is an Academic and Author. He holds Masters of Arts degrees both in Economics and International Relations. He had has Articles published in Daily Kawish, Daily Awami Awaz, Monthly Sajjah, Monthly Azadi and Monthly Sindh Awaz. Bhutto has also published several reports and essays in The Sindh Monitor and was a part of the Sindh Round Table Conference Planning Committee for Sindh Monitor’s 2010 conference “Sindh: Problems and Prospects”.
 
Article Source

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

US President Obama spoke Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, about the future of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. The following is a transcript of his remarks:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — Gen. McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 — so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

<form accept-charset=”UNKNOWN” enctype=”application/x-www-form-urlencoded” method=”get”>

Source: The News

</form>

-
About the Author:
Mohsin Ali Farhad
Islamabad Pakistan
Article Source

Since before his election, in 2008, Mr. Obama has fought litigation efforts of plaintiffs in several U.S. District Courts, to the tune of nearly 2 million dollars, to judicially mandate the disclosure of his original long form Hawaiian birth certificate. In this exclusively private endeavor to keep from publicly disclosing his long form birth certificate, and, apparently, all of his educational records, Obama has illicitly used federal tax money in the form of legal services provided by the US. Department of Justice, in addition to Democratic Party campaign contributions used to retain the very expensive services of the DC office of Perkins Coie Law Firm, in order to oppose the just attempts of plaintiffs, like Alan Keyes, to force him to prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, and not an American citizen born in Africa. And after a little of the dense smoke has dissipated from the legal battleground, a very simple question remains. Why doesn’t Obama enlist the trust of the millions of the electorate who distrust, and regard, him as an interloper, by simply disclosing his long form birth certificate for public scrutiny?

Perhaps, the loose use of the term “misrepresentation,” in regard to the allegations and statements made by the media supporting Obama in this constitutional controversy, has not been so subtly changed to that of “lying” by those opposing Obama’s credibility on network television and Internet news broadcasts. What does it actually take for a media misrepresentation to equate a lie? Well, according to the great late American humorist and satirist, Will Rogers, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, don’t you dare call it a dog.” If professional television journalists know substantially that the correct facts do not support the content of their statements on network broadcasts, then what might be innocent misrepresentation through honest ignorance becomes deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation, or an intentional lie.

In the most recent edition of the Internet’s “World Net Daily,” the Western Center for Journalism’s July 21, 2009 publication, of a report of an investigation commissioned privately by an unnamed retired CIA officer in December 2008, was republished for public benefit. In this report, as I read it, the most disturbing two facts which emerged from its words were, (1), that the many American voters who regularly watch CNN were probably duped by the assertion (lie?) of television journalist Katy Pilgrim, when she stated, on July 17, 2009, that “the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate.” The (2nd) disturbing fact was the February 23, 2009 assertion (lie?) of Jonathan Alter, MSNBC Political Analyst, in response to the question by MSNBC’s “Countdown” host, Keith Olberman, of “But as long as you feed that community that is looking for some excuse to question the legitimacy of a presidency, have you not-to some degree-done your job? I mean, has Alan Keyes not-to some degree-done his job in this?” Alter’s response was, “Well, you know, I don’t really think so, because I think it’s just sort of makes him and the other Clinton critic-the other Obama critics look ridiculous. And so, that doesn’t really, you know, help their cause in the debate. They are a party that is out of ideas, so they have to resort to these lies, you know, about the fact that he is not a citizen. You know, this came up during the campaign, Keith, and the Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”

Were the millions of American citizens who religiously watch CNN as their valid, truthful news source falsely told, on February 23 and July 17, 2009, that Obama’s original long form birth certificate was published on the Internet by an unnamed Hawaiian hospital? If so, it was much more than negligent misrepresentation, because those individuals making the statements, news professionals, knew beyond a reasonable doubt that what they were not stating the truth. The only type of Obama birth certification that has, to date, been published on the Internet, by the President’s own wishes, has been that silly green thing called a certificate of live birth, which would not be suitable, as a birth certificate, to obtain an official identification card from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So, the prevailing situation is very much like the ludicrously absurd 9/11 mass murder investigation that was called “The 9/11 Commission,” by which authority the federally supportive powers-that-be (the media) urged, if not demanded, that a very large segment, over 80%, of the American public surrender its suspicions that the federal government surreptitiously orchestrated the mass killing that occurred on that awful day in 2001.   The mainstream electronic media, presently allied with the U.S. Executive Branch, the standing Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Senate Majority Leader are currently urging, if not demanding, that every American voter quietly accept, without authoritative proof, that Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.  In the name of all that’s sacrosanct, I cannot, and will not, do such a thing, and I hope that the bulk of the American electorate will follow suit.  Perhaps the mid-term congressional elections will serve to remove from Congress the incumbent legislators who don’t support constitutional government.  Without a legislative majority, the Obama administration and its unconstitutional policies will certainly fade into obscurity with no chance of regaining a governmental momentum and the confidence of the American people.

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

US President Obama spoke Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, about the future of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. The following is a transcript of his remarks:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — Gen. McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 — so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

<form accept-charset=”UNKNOWN” enctype=”application/x-www-form-urlencoded” method=”get”>

Source: The News

</form>

-
About the Author:
Mohsin Ali Farhad
Islamabad Pakistan
Article Source

History speaks for itself. Chamberlain neglected up-in-your-face reality and millions died due to his ignorance. FDR was “in love” with Stalin and gave him the Eastern Europe. He was totally responsible for a long and expensive “cold war” that could have been avoided which included the Korean and Vietnam wars where people died for no good reason.

Pay attention to the present administration. It will take us the FDR path.

The following is a piece of history of political misgivings. Let’s not repeat it.

Socialism Is Deadly

Socialism is not self-sustainable. It needs a leader to employ the power of the state to achieve its goals.

Soviet Union was established in 1922. It called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It added in short order Soviet Socialist Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. They were all called “Socialist”.

Hitler raised to power by building the German Workers’ Party. The name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

After the war, Soviet Union retained Eastern Europe and installed communist governments. They all became “Socialist”. Czech Socialist Republic, Socialist Republic of Romania and so on.

Socialism is defined (Merriam-Webster) as:

1 Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2 a. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

3 A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Hitler was a socialist

By the autumn of 1937 Hitler had held three plebiscites. One asked vindication of his departure from the League of Nations, and he received a 92.3 per cent vote of confidence. The second sought acceptance of his combination of chancellorship and presidency after the death of Hindenburg; the affirmation vote was 88.3 per cent. The third followed the Rhineland crisis in March, 1936; the vote was 98 percent in support.

Hitler and his speeches

Hitler in his speeches, suggested to the German people first that they were sick, second that he alone could make them well.

His arguments were passionate:

“You are humiliated. You are degraded. Germany is a sick nation. Admit it. Concede the extent of your misery. You have been trying to persuade yourselves that you are content with this miserable republic.”

“Those who stabbed you in the back, the Jews and the Marxists, are ruling you today. They prevent you from recovering your self-respect. They are the spiritual death of your nation. And your own spiritual death too. For you are Germany. We are Germany. Be men! Out with the traitors, the Jews, the pacifists, the republicans….” And so on.
These speeches had an immense emotional effect. Women, especially, were overcome by them. If the audience was full of women, Hitler would shriek out, “You are mine, and I am yours, as long as I live!”

For the Germans, suppression of liberty was the price they were willing to pay for his leadership. Hitler was a socialist.

Hitler was in a mission

In a speech at Nuremberg in 1936, Hitler said, “If we could command the Urals (Russia Eastern Mountains) with their incalculable wealth of raw materials, and the limitless plains and fields of the Ukraine, the country (Germany) would swim in plenty.”

Hitler, in his speech at Nuremberg on September 9 said that Germany should no longer fear a blockade in the event of war. Acquisition of Czechoslovak industrial areas and consequent opening up to Germany of the grain of Hungary and the oil of Rumania would, indeed, make Germany very nearly self-sufficient.

Hitler openly stated in 1936 that he intended to attack Russia, annex Ukraine and eastern Russia up to Urals, and of course the Eastern Europe in between: Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and so on, for the benefit of German people.

Hitler promises – He broke them all

He promised to respect the Treaty of Locarno; and violated it. He promised not to fortify the Rhineland; and fortified it. He promised not to annex Austria; and annexed it. He promised not to invade Czechoslovakia; and invaded it.

Stalin perfected Socialism. It is called Communism.

Under communism, dictatorship of the Proletarian is the rule. Anyone who is against the rules established by the communist rulers, is an enemy of the state and must be liquidated. By 1938, Stalin was still busy exterminating state enemies, by now in the millions.

The Soviets, under Stalin’s chairmanship, even had a constitution. “The Constitution guarantees paid employment, leisure, and free education to all the inhabitants of the country.”

All governments rule by force. In Soviet Russia force is applied directly, and with social aims in view which are intended to benefit not only 165,000,000 Russians, but the whole human race. The end justifies the means, in the Soviet style. Stalin was perfectly frank about this. Lady Astor asked him, “How long are you going to go on killing people?” Stalin replied, “As long as it is necessary.”

Just like Hitler, Stalin had a similar, but somehow a different mission.

In 1938, Stalin was the leader of the Communist International, which had roots in ALL countries. He was confident, that the Communism will rule the world without any military intervention. Stalin had no reason to go to war. The only purpose of his army was to defend the new and young communist society he was building. In 1938 Stalin had no fighting army to speak of.

Roosevelt and Yalta Accord

Roosevelt was a socialist at heart. Had he had the power, he would have turned USA into a socialist country. Well, he couldn’t do it. USA is structured unlike any other country, so he failed, and it wasn’t for lack of trying.

The New Deal describes the program of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1933 to 1939 of relief, recovery, and reform. These new policies aimed to solve the economic problems created by the depression of the 1930′s. When Roosevelt was nominated, he said, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.”

The New Deal included federal action of unprecedented scope to stimulate industrial recovery, assist victims of the Depression, guarantee minimum living standards, and prevent future economic crises. Many economic, political, and social factors lead up to the New Deal. Staggering statistics, like a 25% unemployment rate, and the fact that 20% of NYC school children were under weight and malnourished, made it clear immediate action was necessary.

Roosevelt, promising to deliver The New Deal, sounds very much like Hitler and Stalin. “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.” The promise was well intended and certainly was sincere coming from Roosevelt. But so was Stalin and Hitler.

Roosevelt signs Yalta agreement

Roosevelt by signing the Yalta agreement with Stalin, did more damage to the world than the war itself.

By 1943, Roosevelt had come to the view that the independence of small states was an obstruction on the road to peace, and that the Great Powers had the right to impose governments on states without the consent of their populations. Roosevelt was entranced with a vision of a world peacefully directed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The arrangements made in Yalta furthered the collaboration with Stalin, whose joint dismembering of Poland with Hitler started World War II in Europe. The war that Britain and France ostensibly entered to free the Poles ended with the West helping lock the shackles on Poland for decades, as well as on most of Eastern and Central Europe, and set the stage for China’s takeover by Mao.

It was Roosevelt himself who offered up eastern Poland at Yalta, the portion east of the so-called Curzon Line.

Stalin did not worry about breaking deals when it suited him. By late March of 1945, even FDR was forced to admit that the Soviets had no intention to allow free elections in Poland, saying: “We can’t do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.” That wasn’t exactly so. Stalin often did just what the Big Three agreed upon, including dragooning legions of slave laborers as “reparations,” forcibly repatriating millions of refugees to the gulag and worse, uprooting millions of others from their homes.

And to add insult to the injury,

Washington and London kept fueling Stalin’s war machine even as it was enslaving much of Europe. “Soviet preponderance in Europe,” noted Churchill’s official biographer Martin Gilbert, did not stop more aid to Stalin, code-named Milepost, including a delivery agreed to on April 3, 1945–after FDR’s above comment. “Under this agreement, Russia was to receive, and did receive, more than a thousand fighter aircraft and 240,000 tons of aircraft fuel, as well as 24,000 tons of rubber from Britain, and more than three thousand aircraft, three thousand tanks, nine thousand jeeps, sixteen thousand weapons carriers and 41,436 trucks from the United States, as well as nearly two thousand million dollars worth of machinery and equipment.”

From there on: The Cold War, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and so on. The free world is still paying the price today.

From 1924 to 1936, John Gunther was assigned to the London bureau of the Chicago Daily News. Well known author of several “Inside” books. Inside Europe is the source for my information.

Inside Europe by John Gunther, 1938 edition.

Tr Cojoc

-
About the Author:
See the full blog at: Socialism is Deadly http://superhometheater.com/forex/socialism-is-deadlyLearn more at Inside Europe by John Gunther, 1938 edition.Tr Cojoc is a financial and political analyst. For more information go to  Loan Modification Made Easy http://superhometheater.com/Politics/loan-modification.html
Article Source

Below is a high-level overview of the timeline.  It is important to note that many of these reforms and their effective dates are subject to the rules and regulations process both at the state and federal levels – which could alter the intended timing of implementation.

2010

New Programs:
* Temporary retiree reinsurance program is established
* National risk pool is created, small business tax credit is established
* $250 rebate for Medicare members who reach the “doughnut hole”

Insurance Reforms:
* Prohibits lifetime benefit limits – based on dollar amounts
* Allows restricted annual limits on the dollar value of certain benefits
* Coverage rescissions/cancellations are prohibited (except for fraud or intentional misrepresentation)
* Cost-sharing obligations for preventive services are prohibited
* Dependent coverage up to age 26 is mandated
* Internal and external appeal processes must be established
* Pre-existing condition exclusions for dependent children (under 19 years of age) are prohibited
* New health plan disclosure and transparency requirements are created

2011

Insurance Reforms:
* Uniform coverage documents and standard definitions are developed
* Minimum medical loss ratios are mandated

Medicare Reforms:
* Medicare Advantage cost sharing limits effective
* Medicare beneficiaries who reach the doughnut hole will receive a 50% discount on brand name drugs
* A 10% Medicare bonus will be provided to primary care physicians and general surgeons practicing in underserved areas, such as inner cities and rural communities.
* Medicare Advantage plans would begin to have their payments frozen.

Other:
* Employers are required to report the value of health care benefits on employees’ W2 tax statements.
* Annual industry fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers of brand name drugs.
* Voluntary long term care insurance program would be made available to provide cash benefit for assisting disabled individuals to stay in their homes or cover nursing home costs. Benefits would start five years after people begin paying a fee for coverage.
* Funding for community health centers would be increased to provide care for many low income and uninsured people.

2012

* Hospitals, physicians, and payers would be encouraged to band together in “accountable care organizations.”
* Hospitals with high rates of preventable readmissions would face reduced Medicare payments.

2013

* Individuals making $200,000 a year or couples making $250,000 would have a higher Medicare payroll tax of 2.35% on earned income —up from the current 1.45%. A new tax of 3.8% on unearned income, such as dividends and interest, is also added.
* Medical expense contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs) limited to $2,500 a year—indexed for inflation. In addition, the thresholds for claiming itemized tax deduction for medical expenses rise from 7.5% to 10% of income.
* Medical device manufacturers would have a 2.9% sales tax on medical devices; devices such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, and hearing aids would be exempt.
* Eliminates deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy for employers who maintain prescription drug plans for their Medicare Part D eligible retirees.

2014

Coverage Mandates & Subsidies:
* Individual and employer coverage responsibilities are effective. 
* Individual affordability tax credits are created and small business tax credits are expanded.

Health Insurance Exchange & Insurance Reforms:
* State individual and small group health insurance exchanges operational.
* Guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability, modified community rating and minimum benefit standards (“essential benefits” plan) effective. 
* Lifetime and annual dollar limits are prohibited for essential benefits.
* Pre-existing condition exclusions are prohibited.

Taxes & Fees:
* Addition of new taxes on health insurers

Medicaid and Medicare Reform:
* Medicaid expanded to cover low income individuals under age 65 up to 133% of the federal poverty level—about $28,300 for a family of four.
* Minimum medical loss ratio of 85% required for Medicare Advantage plans

2018

Taxes & Fees:
* Tax (“Cadillac tax”) imposed on employer sponsored health insurance plans that offer policies with generous levels of coverage.

2020

Medicare Reform:
* Doughnut hole coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefit is fully phased out. Seniors continue to pay the standard 25% of their drug costs until they reach the threshold for Medicare catastrophic coverage.

Author  Resource: Easy To Insure ME http://www.easytoinsureme.com/

–
About the Author:
<a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.easytoinsureme.com/”>health insurance</a>
<a rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” href=”http://www.easytoinsureme.com/”>health insurance quotes</a>
Article Source

There is no question that the passing of legislation to provide additional health insurance availability to millions of Americans has some good provisions and some questionable ones. Although we can’t discuss all the provisions, we can look at several main provisions.

Probably the provision favored most by both sides is the requirement that insurance companies must accept all patients with pre-existing conditions starting in 2014. The second part of this provision also provides that insurances companies can not drop coverage for patients being treated for extended care even though they reach the limits of their coverage. This certainly sounds great for those unfortunates who have serious conditions and need to have health insurance coverage. There is one problem however, how does this get paid for? You might say “the insurance companies make billions”. That’s true, but here’s how they make that money. First, they deny as many claims as possible, secondly they do not accept patients with pre-existing conditions and thirdly they drop coverage when a patient has reached their policy limits. By using these tactics, private, for profit insurance carriers, average a net profit of 2%-3%. Not exactly comparable to Wall Street or the Silicone Valley. We must assume if these organizations can no longer take advantage of these tactics, that their costs will increase significantly creating significant losses instead of 2-3% profits. The only choice they will have to compensate for these higher costs, will be to raise rates on all policies, simply said the 85% of Americans who have insurance today will see hefty increases to their current policies. And because insurance premiums will not be regulated until 2014, we should see some very large increases very soon. Keep in mind, one of the goals of reform was to lower insurance costs to all Americans so they could afford coverage. It appears savings aren’t going to happen as we were told.

Paying for this incredibly large entitlement program is mainly achieved two ways. The Medicare/Medicaid program funding will be reduced by 500 billion dollars and taxes will be raised by 460 billion dollars, primarily from households that earn $250,000 or more per year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)estimates that after 10 years of M/M reductions and tax increases and by not fully implementing the reform program until 2014, the deficit will be reduced by $143 billion. This means revenue will be collected for 10 years to pay for 6 years of the program. There are a number of concerns. Currently Medicare/Medicaid are seriously in debt and have very limited coverage for seniors who paid into this program for most of their working life and are now faced with additional and significant reductions because funding will be reduced. Additionally, today nearly 50% of the people do not pay any tax while 10% of the people pay 70% of the tax collected. Those 10% are now going to pay a greater share of the revenue due to tax increases provided by this legislation. Penalizing the successful people of this country is becoming out of control. Lastly, if the CBO estimates a $143 billion dollar surplus after 10 years of collecting revenues with only 6 years of implementation, they also are projecting $1.3 trillion surplus after 20 years of funding and 16 years of the program. These numbers make little sense, are considered broad estimates and are based upon many hypothetical factors. The main concern is, are we burying our economy in tremendous debt during a time when we need to reduce spending to strengthen the economy? The last point you might consider when evaluating the CBO’s estimates is that in 1965, at the inception of Medicaid, the CBO estimated it would cost $3 billion and would grow to $12 billion in 25 years. In fact by 1990, 25 years later, it had grown to $120 billion. The CBO was off by $108 billion or about 900%. Need I say more?

The bill is designed to cover an additional 32 million Americans who currently do not have coverage, about 10% of the population. 15 million of the 32 million favor having coverage, the remaining 17 million had elected to remain uninsured, preferring to be self insured, not paying insurance premiums in hopes of not needing health care. These people will now be required to purchase insurance or face a fine of $695 per year, a much less expensive option. This requirement is being challenged as being unconstitutional. At no time in the history of this country were citizens ever required to purchase products or services from private organizations or face government penalty fines.

In short, many Americans facing high rising insurance costs or those without coverage, certainly are in favor of reform that will provide them help should they become ill. However the majority of Americans were opposed to the legislation that passed, for several reasons. Firstly, it does nothing to reduce the rising costs of health care which is the primary problem for high insurance rates. It reduces funding to Medicare thereby reducing coverage and reimbursements for the elderly. It increases Medicaid costs to the states by enlarging the Medicaid program which is funded 65% by the states. It does not regulate insurance premiums until 2014, giving insurance companies the green light to raise rates out of sight for the next four years. It takes 10 years of revenue collecting to pay for 6 years of the program.

But probably the biggest problem the American public has is that in spite of a majority of Americans who were opposed to the legislation, the Congress knowingly passed the legislation regardless of what the people favored. Or, legislation without representation. Unforgivable in America.

–
About the Author:
Charles Patti is President/CEO of NCD Medical Corp. and National Consulting and Development Corp. Charles is based in northeast Ohio and has been in business since 1987. His diverse background includes sales, engineering, and business management. He has strong experience in Diagnostic Imaging Systems, Document Management Systems, Main Frame Computer Systems, and Combustion Control Systems.
Charles J Patti, President/CEO
NCD Medical
Contact
Article Source

I am sure you have heard or read this dialogue several times a week, either from family, friends, or online blogs. In fact, you may even have the same ideologies as John, or perhaps even Scott. Regardless of which group you belong to, even if you are apathetic, we can ALL agree that no one seems to have the answer! Who do you believe? That is the big question.

In this article, I will try to present examples from past economic events, compare and contrast those with today’s crisis, and explore that ever lingering question in the back of everyone’s mind, “Should I prepare for the future, or live life as usual?”

Many individuals ask this question on a daily basis. In fact, many are so bold as to predict when this collapse may happen, and to prepare accordingly. However, have you really thought about what a global economic collapse involves?

The most predominate economic collapse that everyone thinks of, when the subject is brought up, is the Great Collapse of Wall Street during the 1920′s and 1930′s and the subsequent “Great Depression”. Yet, little does anyone take into account that more damaging, previous collapses took place.

Previous collapses within western societies trace their roots all the way back to the age of antiquities within the Mediterranean. Many historians regard the collapse of the ancient Roman Empire, within the fourth and fifth centuries, a result of poor leadership. Although it is difficult to reach a conclusive verdict on why the Western Roman Empire fell, suffice is it to say that it was a long and complex process, made more difficult to understand by the patchy nature of proceeding decades of turmoil (War with Goths, Franks and Alamanni).

If there was a simple answer, the Romans would surely have found it. The institution itself was not at fault, but the support it received from its commanders-in-chief, the Emperors, was often lacking.

It is interesting to note that our “commander-in-chief”, President Barrack Hussein Obama, along with our nation’s most important institution – Congress, have often been lacking and have failed to support their constituents (as of March 15th, 2010, Rasmussen reports that 71% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job, while only 26% of Americans strongly approve of President Obama’s decisions).

Our “modern-age” is no different when juxtaposed with the nadir of the Roman Empire. The French Revolution of 1789, the economic collapse following the War of 1812, the Panic of 1873, etc. can all be attributed to one commonality – debt exceeded revenue. The only factor that was missing from those eras, which our modern society is at the mercy of, is globalization. Thus, if one country falters a ripple effect can and will affect all others, including the so called “prosperous” nations.

If we take a look at global debt it is truly shocking. Spending our way into prosperity first and foremost will not work, and will in fact lead to decades of pain. In fact, for year’s world renowned economists such as Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Nouriel Roubini, and others, have been warning us of fiscal implosion due to Federal debt monetization with subsequent government controls in the form of Treasury bond interest, manipulated COMEX markets (recent former Goldman Sachs employee, turned whistleblower, has indicated for every ounce of tangible Silver, 100 ounces of paper has been issued – they simply cannot meet the demand if a large scale “call” was made), and other forms of capital control. Many may question the validity of this argument and the accuracy of the aforementioned economists. Yet, a simple browsing of Main Stream Media will show that they have been correct.

Foreclosures on the rise, insolvent banks, third party bond and market “pumping” through the Fed, and un-employment are just a few aspects that they have correctly forecasted. This is especially true with un-employment. A country cannot regain prosperity if no one is working to buy the commodities that are either produced locally or are imported in.  Job cuts accelerated in March of 2010, surging to 61% with employers announcing plans to cut 67,611 jobs in March, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. Simply put, without tangible “jobs” America CANNOT rise out of the ashes and once again lead her people to prosperity.

What is even more disturbing is that the government has now taken control and ownership of auto manufacturers, national health care, and the student loan industry effectively removing banks and cutting revenue at around $68 Billion dollars. However, the governments take over and control has not ended there. No, recently enacted Treasury laws have now closed the loop hole on expatriated money. Newly altered Internal Revenue Code, Chapter 4, Sections 1471-1474, has effectively implemented Global Capital Control enforcement for United States citizens.

So severe is the current regimes law changes, that some pseudonym financial correspondents, such as “John Galt”, have indicated the following, “The precursor to most major shifts within western civilization have always been the restrictions placed on the flow of capital. Without going off into woo-woo land on you, all I can say is that this is a warning shot that something major is about to occur which further restricts the freedoms of the citizens of this once great nation. When I did my radio show, I warned that this one event, a key moment or marker in any nation’s history was something to be taken deadly seriously. In my opinion it means that a currency realignment or change or outright revocation of rights taken for granted was certain with a 90 day, maybe if we’re lucky, 180 day window.”

As previously mentioned globalization is the “monkey wrench” in the economic machine. Historically, when a nation falters or defaults on its debt, the butterfly effect is tremendous, and defaults occur in waves.

Let’s return to the question posed at the outset of this article, “Who should you believe, and should you be concerned?” The answer to this question is, “Yes” – you should be concerned, and believe the data as presented by key financial institutions and watch groups. With this in mind, preparing for the future is not only a wise but sound decision.

How do you prepare? This question is tougher than one may think. An immeasurable amount of combinations are at play within a SHTF scenario. Should I invest in Gold or Silver? How about weapons, food, seeds, fiat money, and on and on this scenario plays out. A wise decision would be to have a small segment of each of the aforementioned items. Here is a small, but essential, list presented that you may find helpful from a Sarajevo war survivor, and though things may not deteriorate to this extreme, you must remember that anything is possible:

From a Sarajevo War Survivor:

Experiencing horrible things that can happen in a civil war, or economic deterioration – death of parents and friends, hunger and malnutrition, endless freezing cold, fear, sniper attacks.

1. Stockpiling helps, but you never know how long trouble will last, so locate

near renewable food sources.

2. Living near a well with a manual pump is like being in Eden.

3. After awhile, even gold can lose its lustre. But there is no luxury in war

quite like toilet paper. Its surplus value is greater than gold’s.

4. If you had to go without one utility, lose electricity – it’s the easiest to

do without (unless you’re in a very nice climate with no need for heat.)

5. Canned foods are awesome, especially if their contents are tasty without

heating. One of the best things to stockpile is canned gravy – it makes a lot of

the dry unappetizing things you find to eat in war somewhat edible. Only needs

enough heat to “warm”, not to cook. It’s cheap too, especially if you buy it in

bulk. Spam shelf life is 50 years.

6. Bring some books – escapist ones like romance or mysteries become more

valuable as the war continues. Sure, it’s great to have a lot of survival

guides, but you’ll figure most of that out on your own anyway – trust me, you’ll

have a lot of time on your hands.

7. The feeling that you’re human can fade pretty fast. I can’t tell you how many

people I knew who would have traded a much needed meal for just a little bit of

toothpaste, rouge, soap or cologne. Not much point in fighting if you have to

lose your humanity. These things are morale-builders like nothing else.

8. Slow burning candles and matches, matches, matches.

As economic conditions continue to worsen, you can also expect an increase in desperation among your fellow humans. Protection in the form of weapons, money, food, and supplies, no matter if life continues as normal, is not a bad investment. Food and supplies continue to go up in price each day. So in reality buying a little extra today could actually save you money in the future. Plus, in the event that a catastrophic storm or even global economic meltdown occurs, you will have the necessary supplies to continue to live in the event of looting and mass chaos, as was seen in recent years – Katrina.

So, how will you cope with the global economic collapse? It is our hope that you hope for the best, but prepare for the worst!

Here are 100 items that Guns, Grub and Gold recommends that you have available to you, in the event that an “unforeseen” incident takes place. Regardless, preparation and reliance on yourself should remain key and within the forefront of your families survival within ANY event.

1. Generators (Good ones cost dearly. Gas storage, risky. Noisy…target of thieves; maintenance etc.)

2. Water Filters/Purifiers

3. Portable Toilets

4. Seasoned Firewood. Wood takes about 6 – 12 months to become dried, for home uses.

5. Lamp Oil, Wicks, Lamps (First Choice: Buy CLEAR oil. If scarce, stockpile ANY!)

6. Coleman Fuel. Impossible to stockpile too much.

7. Guns, Ammunition, Pepper Spray, Knives, Clubs, Bats & Slingshots.

8. Hand-can openers, & hand egg beaters, whisks.

9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugar

10. Rice – Beans – Wheat

11. Vegetable Oil (for cooking) Without it food burns/must be boiled etc.,)

12. Charcoal, Lighter Fluid (Will become scarce suddenly)

13. Water Containers (Urgent Item to obtain.) Any size. Small: HARD CLEAR PLASTIC ONLY – note – food grade if for drinking.

16. Propane Cylinders (Urgent: Definite shortages will occur.

17. Survival Guide Book.

18. Mantles: Aladdin, Coleman, etc. (Without this item, longer-term lighting is difficult.)

19. Baby Supplies: Diapers/formula. ointments/aspirin, etc.

20. Washboards, Mop Bucket w/wringer (for Laundry)

21. Cook stoves (Propane, Coleman & Kerosene)

22. Vitamins

23. Propane Cylinder Handle-Holder (Urgent: Small canister use is dangerous without this item)

24. Feminine Hygiene/Hair care/Skin products.

25. Thermal underwear (Tops & Bottoms)

26. Bow saws, axes and hatchets, Wedges (also, honing oil)

27. Aluminium Foil Reg. & Heavy Duty (Great Cooking and Barter Item)

28. Gasoline Containers (Plastic & Metal)

29. Garbage Bags (Impossible To Have Too Many).

30. Toilet Paper, Kleenex, Paper Towels

31. Milk – Powdered & Condensed (Shake Liquid every 3 to 4 months)

32. Garden Seeds (Non-Hybrid) (A MUST)

33. Clothes pins/line/hangers (A MUST)

34. Coleman’s Pump Repair Kit

35. Tuna Fish (in oil)

36. Fire Extinguishers (or..large box of Baking Soda in every room)

37. First aid kits

38. Batteries (all sizes…buy furthest-out for Expiration Dates)

39. Garlic, spices & vinegar, baking supplies

40. Big Dogs (and plenty of dog food)

41. Flour, yeast & salt

42. Matches. {“Strike Anywhere” preferred.) Boxed, wooden matches will go first

43. Writing paper/pads/pencils, solar calculators

44. Insulated ice chests (good for keeping items from freezing in Wintertime.)

45. Work boots, belts, Levis & durable shirts

46. Flashlights/LIGHTSTICKS & torches, “No. 76 Dietz” Lanterns

47. Journals, Diaries & Scrapbooks (jot down ideas, feelings, experience; Historic Times)

48. Garbage cans Plastic (great for storage, water, transporting – if with wheels)

49. Men’s Hygiene: Shampoo, Toothbrush/paste, Mouthwash/floss, nail clippers, etc

50. Cast iron cookware (sturdy, efficient)

51. Fishing supplies/tools

52. Mosquito coils/repellent, sprays/creams

53. Duct Tape

54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes

55. Candles

56. Laundry Detergent (liquid)

57. Backpacks, Duffel Bags

58. Garden tools & supplies

59. Scissors, fabrics & sewing supplies

60. Canned Fruits, Veggies, Soups, stews, etc.

61. Bleach (plain, NOT scented: 4 to 6% sodium hypochlorite)

62. Canning supplies, (Jars/lids/wax)

63. Knives & Sharpening tools: files, stones, steel

64. Bicycles…Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc

65. Sleeping Bags & blankets/pillows/mats

66. Carbon Monoxide Alarm (battery powered)

67. Board Games, Cards, Dice

68. d-con Rat poison, MOUSE PRUFE II, Roach Killer

69. Mousetraps, Ant traps & cockroach magnets

70. Paper plates/cups/utensils (stock up, folks)

71. Baby wipes, oils, waterless & Antibacterial soap (saves a lot of water)

72. Rain gear, rubberized boots, etc.

73. Shaving supplies (razors & creams, talc, after shave)

74. Hand pumps & siphons (for water and for fuels)

75. Soy sauce, vinegar, bullions/gravy/soup base

76. Reading glasses

77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)

78. “Survival-in-a-Can”

79. Woollen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens

80. Boy Scout Handbook, / also Leaders Catalog

81. Roll-on Window Insulation Kit (MANCO)

82. Graham crackers, saltines, pretzels, Trail mix/Jerky

83. Popcorn, Peanut Butter, Nuts

84. Socks, Underwear, T-shirts, etc. (extras)

85. Lumber (all types)

86. Wagons & carts (for transport to and from)

87. Cots & Inflatable mattress’s

88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.

89. Lantern Hangers

90. Screen Patches, glue, nails, screws,, nuts & bolts

91. Teas

92. Coffee

93. Cigarettes

94. Wine/Liquors (for bribes, medicinal, etc,)

95. Paraffin wax

96. Glue, nails, nuts, bolts, screws, etc.

97. Chewing gum/candies

98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)

99. Hats & cotton neckerchiefs

100. Goats/chickens

Guns, Grub and Gold March 2010 News Letter

https://www.gunsgrubandgold.com/forum/index.php

–
About the Author:
Financial planner / writer / computer scientist / survivalist
Article Source

Seasonal Affective Disorder, a resident of the Pacific Northwest for centuries, saw the improving weather in the northwest as a threat to her livelihood. She packed up all of her possessions in the fall of 2009 and moved to “greener pastures” of the Midwest, the South, and, eventually, the East Coast. Her arrival in the Midwest was greeted by the giant storm of global cooling plaguing the area. The two storms collided head-on in what was described as a “perfect storm.” Record cold and snow blanketed the entire eastern half of the U.S. Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Sioux City, Oklahoma City, and even Dallas, Texas recorded history making snowfalls. Residents are now reporting all of the symptoms of SAD, normally confined to the Pacific Northwest: depression, social withdrawal, lack of energy, decreased concentration, increased appetite and weight gain, increased stress, sleep disorders, fear, problem solving issues, and a general lack of interest in life’s adventures.

Reporters across the region related heart wrenching stories of men and women ravaged by the horrendous storm. An unnamed source in Tennessee recounts the sad story of a 62 year old retired son of a tobacco plantation owner. This man’s rise to fame after two failed runs for the Presidency of the U.S. culminated in his sharing of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007. Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. had devoted years of his life to promoting the fears of global warming. Once the media darling of MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and CSPAN for his attention grabbing headlines, he has been abandoned by the same media as a result of the fraud uncovered in the reports used to support his data. Some have said that Mr. Gore has been hibernating in the comforts of his recently renovated 10,000 square foot mansion in Nashville. His recent remodel in which he spent millions to save hundreds of dollars in huge energy bills has quieted some of his critics, but he still hides from the media. He was last seen in Copenhagen for the Climate Change Summit 2009. Al Gore was showing the symptoms of SAD. He exited his carbon billowing private jet wearing an authentic Australian oil-coated raincoat over a Pacific Northwest flannel shirt, jeans, and Gore-Tex lined boots. He had obviously added several pounds since his last public appearance. His steps were slow and lethargic. He lacked energy and wanted nothing to do with the requests for interviews from the press. His short presentation to the Summit lacked his usual concentration and enthusiasm for the subject that gained him his notoriety. It was obvious to all that he had been wallowing in the grips of Seasonal Affective Disorder.

People are now resorting to talk therapies, home-made light remedies, and un-regulated melatonin supplements and other over-the-counter medications to try to allay the symptoms while they wait for their numbers to be called by their doctors and psychiatrists. The new health care process has been taxed and overloaded by the hundreds of thousands suffering the SAD syndrome. Some estimates for appointments are as far out as 2013. In the meantime these patients run the risk of substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, sleep deprivation and other psychological problems.

Doctors from the Mayo Clinic and psychiatrists world-wide recommend that people affected with SAD take the following immediate measures:

See a doctor as soon as possible.
Stick to the treatment plan. Medications and therapy are essential.
Take care of yourself. Eat well, rest well, exercise, and sleep well. No alcohol.
Take stress management measures. Yoga, breathing exercises, reading, and warm baths before bed help you relax.
Socialize. Get together with friends and relatives. Conversation and humor help.
Take a trip to a warm, sunny climate. The Caribbean would be great.

If you are unable to get immediate medical attention, and your symptoms continue to get worse, the U.S. Government prescription suggests that you pull your shades, keep your room dark, hibernate (a la Al Gore), have a “good night’s rest,” and hope that Spring and Summer come quickly.

–
About the Author:
Recently retired after almost twenty years in the retail mattress world, I finally have the time for my passions: my family, reading, research, and writing. My new book, “Shop for Sleep and Survive the Bite” is now available through Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book retailing sites. I enjoy blogging and Sleeplessandtired.com takes up much of my time. Topics are usually sleep related although I do venture off into humor, satire, and current events. Many of my articles have been published on the web. The ultimate goal is to continue my career of assisting the consumer in his quest for the “treasure” of a “good night’s rest.”
Article Source

And what about “intelligence” as in intelligence agency? Properly speaking, intelligence is a attribute of human beings. As such, organizations cannot be intelligent. Intelligence is distinguished from intellect by being applied to concrete or individual exhibitions of the powers ascribed to the intellect. People are animals endowed with intellect, not intelligence; intelligence refers to the extent to which a person is able to use his intellect. An organization cannot use its intellect, because it has none.

America has a vast “intelligence” conglomerate of organizations. The NSA, CIA, FBI, various branches of the military have “intelligence” groups, and other agencies, too, are involved in so called intelligence. This conglomerate is likely the largest the world has ever known, and its costs are huge, the total cost of which is a deeply held secret. It has vast technical apparatuses used to watch people, see what they do, hear what they say, read what they write. And yet, all of the money spent, all of the people employed, all of the apparatuses used are insufficient. These agencies have shown, over and over again, that they rarely learn what they seek.

The information gathered is derived from many sources. Much is speculative, some is contradictory. It often amounts to little more than hunches. Some is correct, much is not.

In Afghanistan, NATO and US forces grossly underestimated the Taliban’s capacity to mount a vicious counteroffensive. No one predicted the use of suicide bombings. In Somalia, the U.S. backed warlords that had ruled Mogadishu for two decades were suddenly overthrown by a bunch of lightly armed mullahs called the Islamic Courts Union. Few in the State Department seemed to have heard of this grassroots movement before it took over the country. The United States also failed to predict that Uzbekistan would close down the American base that had been there since 2001, downgrade relations with Washington and tilt decisively toward China and Russia. After the Palestinian elections, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stammered that the victory of Hamas came as a complete surprise to her. The mother of all intelligence failures, of course, was the CIA’s inaccurate prediction that Saddam Hussein’s regime would be found to have weapons of mass destruction. One of the main charges against the CIA and FBI post-9/11 is that they failed to join up the dots beforehand. The killings at Ft. Hood resulted from an intelligence failure. The FBI had information about Hasan’s extremism, but didn’t investigate enough. Intelligence agencies apparently cannot make connections between bits of information to make a coherent whole. But who can blame them. Bits of information scattered here and there can be likened to needles in multiple haystacks. Too much information is as impossible to deal with as none.

So what’s wrong with this picture:

The United States of America, in all likelihood, has the largest and most expensive intelligence gathering service the world has ever known. We can assume it operates everywhere, even Timbuktu.
The United States of America tortures prisoners to acquire intelligence.

If the huge intelligence gathering service works effectively, why is the torture necessary? And if torture is necessary, doesn’t it mean that the huge intelligence gathering service doesn’t work? One or the other has to be unnecessary. Which one?

People who believe, as our leaders seem to, that both are necessary are involved in contradictory thinking which distorts every rational thought process. Is it any wonder that American policies are ineffective? Only insane people think this way! Intelligence gathering does not produce intelligence. As the results mentioned above show, only ignorance is produced. Given all the means 21st century snoops have for gathering information, why do they have to resort to medieval methods? The only possible answer is that the practices employed by the agencies don’t work. But history has shown that torture doesn’t either. The Grand Masters of the Inquisition immolated many who were completely innocent.

When a nation as powerful as the United States goes to war on the basis of bad information, where does that leave the world? “We have squandered thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, we have projected force without intelligence—and that is folly. . . . That is how nations fall and that is how nations lose power.”

©2010 John Kozy

–
About the Author:
Retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer for various private companies. He’s an active blogger. His pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/.
Article Source