Sunday, January 12, 2014

Night Watch
North Korea: On 9 January, the government in Pyongyang rejected South Korea's proposal for a round of separated family reunions during the celebration of the Chinese New Year holiday on 31 January.

A message conveyed to the Ministry of Unification in Seoul by North Korea's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said, "On the South side, war exercises go on without end and large scale combined US-ROK military drills will soon take place. Could scattered families and relatives reunite with peaceful hearts amidst the shells and bullets?"

"Scattered families' and relatives' reunions were originally raised by us last year and reached the stage of being put into action, but then they could not be realized due to the arrogance and hostility of the South side authorities."

"If the South side's proposal for reunions of scattered relatives and families over the New Year stemmed from a sincere desire to reduce the pain of division and improve North-South relations, then good. If nothing else takes place on the South side and there is the intent to discuss our proposal together then we will be able to talk at a good time."

Comment: The North's rejection is significant for several reasons. Despite Kim Jong Un's unctuous statements about improving North-South relations in 2014 in his new year's message, obviously, the North is not prepared to make good on his promise or it was just another lie.

The second point is that South Korean President Park called Kim's bluff on improving relations and found that it is phony.

Finally, the implication of this exchange is that the North's leadership is not sufficiently stable to handle a major foreign policy initiative. Park's offer has proven to be an excellent tactic to clarify the leadership's stability in Pyongyang. The conclusion is that it is not stable or confident enough to talk about separated families, which all Koreans consider a national tragedy.

Agriculture. Defector news outlets have confirmed that Agriculture is the main thrust of economic development this year. As one source said, the regime is promoting 2014 as the year of "putting farming first."

The communist party cadre has received orders to implement the new national priority and has been badgering people three months early to increase the fertilizer quota, which consists of humus, animal waste and human night soil. Every person has a quota to fill or has to buy a waiver chit. The goal is to achieve a bumper harvest.

According to reports from inside the North, people who are scatologically challenged are stealing human night soil to meet the quotas.

Comment: For those analysts who misunderstood Kim's speech, the main thrust for 2014 is inward. The era of outreach and innovation died with Chang Sung-taek. This year appears to be a giant leap backward.

The last time food production was the highest national priority was in 1993 when Kim Il-song replaced military first production with agriculture and production of consumer good as the top national priorities. Kim Il-song also terminated the national planning bureaucracy that year because all of the North's Seven-Year Plans had failed. The country was destitute.

Kim Jong Un lacks the authority and charisma to enable him to mimic his grandfather's action or even to pursue the profitable connections that his late Uncle had created. He continues to try to act as if he is the reincarnation of Kim Il-song, but consistently shows he has none of his grandfather's experience or leadership credentials.

Thus, Kim's new year's speech urged the farmers to apply more science and technology to improve the harvest as a major priority. Whoever wrote the speech deceived little Kim or its out of touch because there is no money for fertilizer and no science or technology for farming. Nevertheless, the Party cadre did the best it could and ordered everybody to collect more feces.

In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Noel Canning versus the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This case arose when President Obama made several so-called recess appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012 when the Senate was not formally in recess. This landmark case is expected to determine how much leeway the President has to make appointments without Senate confirmation, and more significantly, it will have serious implications on the broader powers of the presidency itself and the system of checks and balances.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit already correctly ruled that these appointments were unconstitutional. The most significant reason President Obama’s actions are inconsistent with the law is the NLRB “recess” appointments were made when the U.S. Senate was in continuous “pro forma” sessions, meaning that the Senate was not actually in recess. The President merely declared that Senate was in recess and arrogated himself the authority to make the appointments.

The court’s findings show that President Obama has set a very dangerous precedent by completely bypassing the traditional nomination process and circumventing the Senate’s constitutional authority to advise and consent. The framers never intended for any president to have the unilateral power to appoint people to high-level positions except during a legitimate recess; hence, the U.S. Constitution specifically included a clause that gave the Senate the power to give its "advice and consent" to presidential appointments. As many of our county’s students learn, the framers created a system of checks and balances, for the purpose of avoiding presidential overreach.

President Obama effectively circumvented the Senate’s advice and consent, preventing any due process from taking place. In fact, two nominees failed to complete a Senate committee’s basic questionnaire that would have disclosed potential conflicts of interest, let alone the scrutiny of testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. This vetting should and quite possibly would have disqualified Obama’s nominees from taking office in the first place.

Then-nominees and now-General Counsel Richard Griffin and Board Member Sharon Block, Obama’s two recess appointments in question, have a dubious past of advocacy on behalf of the unions and in some instances a much more sordid history. Most notably, Richard Griffin was previously a lawyer for one of the country’s largest labor unions and according to The Wall Street Journal was “named as a defendant in a federal racketeering lawsuit that claims he was complicit in covering up a union embezzlement.” On the other hand, Sharon Block worked as a labor counsel for one of organized labor's most partisan supporters and has routinely sided with them in matters before the Board. Griffin and Block’s close ties to Big Labor is categorically defined as a conflict of interest at a federal agency where the government is supposed to act as an impartial arbiter between businesses and unions.

When the National Labor Relations Board was first constituted by Congress, George Meany, the former president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), was vociferously against the appointment of labor lawyers who had represented either unions or employers because he believed that they would not be able to act neutrally.

Times have changed and President Obama is completely beholden to his union boss friends, which ultimately led him down this disasterous path, including nominating someone to the Board who came directly from organized labor. The President, a former constitutional law professor, knows better and his actions are those of someone exhibiting willful ignorance. More significantly it is a breach and overstep of presidential powers that our Founding Fathers sought to protect our country from.

When outside influences and special interest groups are able to successfully infiltrate the government and exert their influence over elected officials in a quest to seek preferential labor policies, it is bad for business and bad for our country. While the Supreme Court should certainly strike down Obama’s appointments as unconstitutional, it is not enough. Congress must go a step further, and take it upon itself to reform the NLRB, so that the Board and its members cannot carry the water of the

President’s political donors as opposed to functioning as a reputable, taxpayer-funded independent agency, which it falsely claims to be.
The economy is sluggish and job creation is almost non –existent. That means it’s time for politicians and government bureaucrats to control yet even more of our money – right?

If you really believe that government is the entity from whom all blessings flow, and if you really believe that politicians and government bureaucrats do better things with your money than you do, then yes – it’s time for more government control of our economy.

That’s what President Obama was calling for last week in his speech about “income inequality,” the buzz phrase of choice for 2014 among those who believe, as he does, that politicians can and do spend our money better than “ordinary” citizens. And with the President having established the phrase, its now up to like-minded liberals in the worlds of academia, media, entertainment and government to repeat that phrase incessantly between now and November’s elections.

That’s why it was no surprise to see University of California – Berkley Professor and former presidential advisor Robert Reich combine the President’s “income inequality” phrase with the disastrous employment report from December in an editorial that calls for – “shocking!”- more control of our economy by politicians! Mr. Reich won’t be persuaded to rethink his views, but his ideas will be reiterated all year by people who have no alternative ideas of their own, so be prepared to hear both the President’s and Mr. Reich’s rhetoric to be frequently repeated.

Below is a list of some of Mr. Reich’s plan, with accompanying details that he, and other “government knows best” liberals prefer to ignore:

Launch a major jobs program to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure: Mr. Reich is correct, that huge chunks of our nation’s infrastructure are “crumbling.” What he ignores is the fact that President Obama and the previous congress already launched what was promised to be a “major jobs program” to rebuild our infrastructure – it was called the “Economic Stimulus Bill.”

Remember Senator Obama’s promises of “shovel ready jobs” once he took office? That’s what the President’s stimulus plan, officially known as the “American Recovery and Reinvestment” Act, was supposed to have produced. It began with a price tag of $787 billion and ended up costing about $831 billion (note: only government can get away with miscalculating by $50 billion, not private businesses). Our infrastructure is still crumbling, but current and future generations of Americans are nonetheless saddled with the $831 billion in debt (and that isn’t including the interest).

Rehire all the teachers, social workers, police, and other public service employees who were laid off in the recession: This sounds and “feels” terrific – why wouldn’t everybody want full employment for teachers, cops, and so forth? The real question, however, is this: how badly were federal, state and local government workers actually hurt by the recession, as compared to us lowly people who work in the private sector?

In truth, huge chunks of President Obama’s “stimulus bill” funds were spent either on state and local government workers themselves, or on government programs that provided things for already existing government employees to do. The Obama Adminstration’s “Race to the Top” program for public schools took $4.35 billion out of the stimulus bill fund, and gave employed teachers and school administrators lots of hoops to jump through. The Administration’s “Booty Call” sexually transmitted diseases education program spent another $335 million of the stimulus funds, and gave government social workers lots of important things to do (although one can imagine that this program, in particular, stimulated something other than the economy).

Indeed, state and local government workers (as well as federal employees) have done relatively well since the recession, as compared to the rest of us. Combine this with the fact that most all government employees receive a defined benefit retirement pension that is backed by taxpayers (where do you fine retirement like that in the private sector these days?), and a government job looks pretty confortable in light of the frailties of the private sector.

Raise the minimum wage at least to its inflation-adjusted value 40 years ago — which would be well over $10 an hour: Once again it feels good to propose such an idea, as long as you don’t look at the consequences – and higher wage requirements imposed by governments almost always bring about a decline in business and job growth.

Worse yet, Reich makes no reference in his recent editorial to the actual source of genuine job creation: the local small business owner who is willing to work hard, take risks, and hopefully create genuine authentic wealth over time. If liberals would listen to what small business America is saying, they might learn about the perils of a lack of small business lending, or the fear instilled in the hearts of business owners by an out of control I.R.S. and E.P.A. and U.S. Department of Justice.

But to acknowledge that government agencies and programs might be a part of our economic problem is incomprehensible to the government-centric liberals among us. Hopefully there are sufficient numbers of our fellow Americans who do comprehend this reality, and make better choices in the elections that lie ahead.

Letter from Egypt about how ‘great’ life could be under the Obama-supported Muslim Brotherhood

From Bare Naked Islam


For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the author’s identity. It’s a shame no Western media outlet would ever publish this.

Dear friends, 


Please look at the video below. It reveals the truth about the Moslem Brotherhood (MB’s).


[SARC ON] These are the peace loving Moslem Brothers that the West, led by the United States, are defending. See how docile and sweet they behave. Listen to the kind words they utter and the friendly songs they sing. See their gestures full of love and friendship. Watch how they mold in the society and integrate with the various nationalities.


See how they respect the laws of the countries they invade. They do not want to impose their Sharia Laws, nor dictate their customs and traditions. They follow the fashion with clothes. Many of them hide their faces because they are simply ‘shy.’ They always keep their words and never double cross. [SARC OFF]


Because of all these fine qualities the United States and Western countries are backing them with all their might and money to defeat the democracy in Egypt. The Western Media is giving all their might to assist in this challenge. Taxpayers are sharing with billions to achieve this objective. How short sighted can the human being be? Don’t those leaders and heads of states recognize decent human beings from terrorists? Is it logic that all the actions committed by those barbarians are accepted as ‘friendly?’ What do you term as terrorist?


Does the West not realize that these people have no limits, and that their aim is to invade the World and to impose the Sharia Law all over the globe. Was the sample of 9/11 not an eye opener? Are the criminal acts they perform in Egypt daily not examples of their real behavior? 

Yet they call it friendly and peace loving.

They burn churches (80 to date),. They kill Christians and steal their businesses.
They kill policemen and army officers and mutilate the officers and soldiers and then cut their bodies and drag them in the streets.
They lynch cadets on vacation. They lie them on the ground, tie their hands behind their backs and then shoot them in the back of their heads at 20 centimeters distance.
They throw children from the top of buildings.
They use orphan children, five and six year old, as human shields.
They rob banks and commercial centers, killing the employees. They bomb government buildings all over Egypt.
They stop fire trucks from reaching fires that are started by them.
They invade universities trying to disrupt studies and exams. They beat up professors and teachers. They try to forbid regular students from getting to their classrooms and attend sessions.
They burn cars of innocent civilians, and attack foreigners to give the impression that Egypt is unstable, which they are achieving as an objective, but only because they are very strongly backed by the president of the United States both physically and economically, and by drawing them the plans for them to follow, since they are incapable of doing that on their own.


Why are the International Organizations not doing their jobs? Where is their conscience? I mean the UN, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNDP, and FAO, etc. etc? Why are they all hiding from reality? Is this honest and fair? I leave it to you to answer. 


We are fighting them and defending the World from their terrorist actions, because if they get past us here, they will reach you as their next target, before you realize it. In fact the West should bless their lucky stars that we are taking this attitude and action. You are placing your bets on the wrong horse. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up!


See video here:


A real liberal anti-Semitic piece of shit...

Juan Cole: Recognizing Israel as Jewish State akin to saying U.S. is "white state," Kerry should "slap down" Netanyahu

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


This is what passes for "academic discourse" in America today. Unconscionable. Note that John "Juan" Cole never says a word about the "Islamic Republics" in the world today. "Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is like saying the US is a White State," by Juan Cole at the ironically named Informed Comment, January 6:
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is adding a fifth demand to his negotiations with US Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas: That the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.” 
For Netanyahu’s demand to make any sense, he first has to define “Jewish.” “Jewish” has a number of possible meanings. It can mean “those recognized by Talmudic law as members of the Jewish ‘race’ via maternal descent.” The latter is the legal definition of Jewishness in Israeli law itself, and for this reason we must presume that it is what Netanyahu has in mind. It can also mean “adherents of the Judaic religion,” and we can explore those implications, as well.
Of the some 6 million self-identified Jews in Israel, about 300,000 are not recognized as “Jewish” by the Chief Rabbi and there is no prospect of them being recognized as Jewish any time soon. They were allowed to immigrate to Israel because they had at least one Jewish grandparent, but if their mother was not Jewish neither are they.
So if Israel is a “Jewish” state, is it a state for these (largely Russian and Ukrainian) “non-Jewish” Jews? Many of them are Jewish by religion, but not all are. None of them are Jewish by the Talmud....
In any case, Sec. Kerry should simply slap Netanyahu down over this new demand, which is illogical and unreasonable and above all sinister. if Netanyahu won’t accept a two-state solution, then he or his children or grandchildren will likely have to accept a one-state solution. Kerry is trying to do him a favor, and if someone doesn’t want your favor, you don’t humiliate yourself to deliver it.