Afghanistan, in Today's News 10.05.09

Afghanistan. Is the Obama team actually considering declaring victory in Afghanistan and reducing the American presence? The reportage of the administration debate on strategy for Afghanistan indicates that a foundation for this alternative is being built.

Today's Wall Street Journal (page one): Some in the administration discussion advocate a "campaign consisting of missile strikes and covert action inside Pakistan, rather than a broader war against the Taliban, the radical Islamist movement that ruled Afghanistan for years and provided a haven to al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden. Their reasoning: The larger threat to America remains al Qaeda, not the Taliban; so, best not to get embroiled in a local war that history suggests may be unwinnable." [!!]

It sounds like the administration is considering making a deal with the Taliban: The US will leave them alone if they agree to keep al Qaeda out of the Afghanistan. (Afghan President Karzai take note: all of this is going on behind your back, and much of it has your back as the target.)

Would this new approach work? Probably not. To keep al Qaeda out of Afghanistan is virtually un-do-able given the terrain of the area. Plus the idea of missile strikes and covert action to control or defeat al Qaeda is nonsense.

But this approach would buy some time for Obama, which is what he has been trying to do all along. Obama wants Afghanistan on the back burner so he can deal with health care, financial reform, Iran, Israel, etc.

One difficulty: Israel will not like it. Anything that reduces American strength or presence in the Arab east will be seen by the Israelis as a big problem.

Health Care, in Today's News 10.02.09

Health Care. During the acceptance of accreditation from the new US Ambassador to the Holy See, Pope Benedict made remarks on the issues being considered in the American health care debate.

The Pope highlighted the need for clear discernment on "issues touching the protection of human dignity and respect for the inalienable right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, as well as the protection of the right to conscientious objection on the part of heath care workers, and indeed all citizens."

The American Bishops at about the same time issued a statement on the health care debate that echoed the Pope's thought. Namely that the proposed legislation should not include language allowing for abortion and not allowing conscientious objections.

The Church leaders have repeated this position over and over again. It is obviously a correct thing to say. But, it entirely misses what is going on in the United States in the health care debate. Namely, that both political parties are agreed that the health industry needs to be brought under government control and run on a cost-reduction basis. This step will transform the practice of medicine that the Catholic Church brought into the world. We will go from compassionate health care to bureaucratic health care based on the cost-control dictates of the insurance companies and the government. 

In short, now is a moment of truth for the Church leaders. To remain silent on the key issue and development, as they are doing, will bring a significant reduction in health care to the faithful, and everyone else.

Just today doctors put forward a protest on an aspect of this very topic. The Wall Street Journal reports (page a5): "Doctors are trying to remove a provision in the Senate's latest health bill that would cut Medicare payments to those [doctors] who administer the most tests and treatments. The proposal...is one of several proposals...that could change how doctors are evaluated and paid. ...the provision is a blunt instrument that would discourage doctors from taking the sickest and oldest patients." One doctor said, "Those things are very imperfect, imprecise and they depend on data that often doesn't really reflect what's going on."

And what is this proposal based on? Cost-reduction, of course.

Do the Church leaders have a position on this type of change which is the central difficulty of the health care legislation?

The Church leaders' statements clearly give the impression that if abortion and conscientious objection are handled correctly and everyone has health coverage, then the legislation is okay. 

This stance is wrong, wrong, wrong!!! The Church leaders inability to see the fundamental question in the health care debate will have long-term negative effects on the faithful. One wants to scream at the Church leaders to try to wake them up!!! 

Iran, in Today's News 10.02.09

Iran. The United States-Israel hype about Iran's potential for nuclear weapons is all a ruse, of course. The real goal of these two powers is to bring Iran to its knees so that Israel has predominant power in the middle east. The nuclear-weapons accusation is just the best way of covering the real aim.

But, since the accusation is false, it is relatively easy for Iran to defuse the propaganda. They just stick to the facts and its disarms the opposition.

Case in point is today's reported events. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit the now famous 'secret' new nuclear facility that got Obama and his buddies so excited a few days ago. Because there is no nuclear weapons production or potential at the site, the inspection should go moderately well and Iran will have undermined the recent widely trumpeted charges of secret facilities.

One can almost hear the frustration of the war planners. Here they had a perfectly nice little justification for war building up, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad goes and spoils everything.

Another case in point. Iran has agreed to transfer the bulk of its nuclear fuel to other countries to enrich it. This decision so upset the war-planners that the Wall Street Journal couldn't help editorializing that Iran was faking it. Here's a first-paragraph quote from the page one WSJ article, "The officials said the surprise move could temporarily reduce Tehran's potential to make bombs, but analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program."

Translated: they completely out-maneuver us, but we are  going to keep saying the same things anyway.

Pope Benedict XVI, in Today's News 10.02.09

Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict, in accepting the credentials of the new US Ambassador to the Holy See, made the following quote, which is representative of his thought.

"The continuing international economic crisis clearly calls for a revision of present political, economic and financial structures in the light of the ethical imperative of ensuring the integral development of all people. What is needed, in effect, is a model of globalization inspired by authentic humanism, in which the world's people are seen not merely as neighbors but as brothers and sisters."

Several comments:

1. "continuing international economic crisis." This phrase tends to buy into the false consciousness about reality and the economy developed by the cryptocracy's spokesmen. The myth that the cryptocracy wants everyone to believe is that these crises are just part of the normal swings in the economic life of the world. The reality is different. The cryptocrats are manipulators before anything else. The current economic crisis was precipitated by the cryptocracy to establish an atmosphere where they could make a number of economic and political changes to enhance their power.

The Pope's words tend to gloss over the reality of the conspiracy by the cryptocracy to gain unchallenged world power. The world's faithful and the rest of the population need to know the truth about their world, especially the truth of who is ruling the world and for what purpose. It seems one ought to have the expectation that the Pope would help educate on what is actually occurring in the world. For the Pope to just throw in a phrase about the continuing crisis without explanation, doesn't do it.

2. "revision of present political, economic and financial structures."  Everyone in the world is for such changes. The problem is the Rothschilds also have this program. And the Rothschilds are the ones who have predominant power in the world today. If one calls for revision of structures without specifying exactly what is meant, one's position naturally becomes associated with the position of the cryptocracy. The changes the Rothschilds desire are not in the interests of the world's population or of the faithful.

3. "ethical imperative of ensuring the integral development of all people." This is just Vatican II gobbledygook. Just what is an 'ethical imperative?" And were did Jesus ever call for "integral development?" 

4. "model of globalization." The Pope has clearly approved of globalization many times before. Here he is assuming globalization will occur and is looking for the proper model for the transformation. But in focusing on what kind of globalization, he dodges the questions of why globalization, who is behind it, and what do they want to accomplish. Globalization is the Rothschilds' baby. There is no way to sort of out-smart them by being for globalization with qualifications. Once you approve of globalization you are in their play pen.

5. "inspired by authentic humanism." Not humanism, but "authentic humanism." Again, it is important to return to the teachings of Jesus which nowhere mentions humanism, authentic or not. If questioned, the Pope would undoubtedly say that authentic humanism is Jesus' thought. But if that is the case, why not just say so. Why not declare for the reign of Christ the King, in which humanity would experience the most profound humanism ever known. But, of course, the Church leaders seem to develop a bad case of stutters when the possibility of mentioning the reign of Christ the King comes along.

6. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict, often used formulations in his writings that on the surface seemed sound and correct, but ambiguous. His formulations could often be interpreted different ways orthodox and not. The same occurs with the statement discussed here. 

The evolution of the Church is at the stage of euphemisms. Those who would change the centuries-old teachings of the Church do not have the strength or courage to say clearly what they intend. Instead they produce wordage that can lead in different directions.

7. Traditionalists, for the most part, look to a restoration of the Latin mass, and a return to the glory days prior to VII. But the battle to determine the post-VII orientation is done. That war is over, and the good guys lost. Any military expert will tell you that a sure way to lose is to attempt to re-fight the previous war. Fighting for the Latin mass and return to the good old days is precisely fighting the last war.

There is a strong current in the Church who want to change the Church dramatically. Their continual pressure is bringing the next war that will determine the health of the Church. The key to this war for those who want Church based on the teachings of 2000 years, is to concentrate on the big picture of the direction of the Church. In general, as Benedict's statement demonstrates, the direction is toward finding a way to agree with the cryptocracy but with certain reservations. This strategy has led to all kinds of disasters, such as the enshrinement of the holocaust, multiple attempts to appeal to the zionists, failure to defend a priest under world-wide attack for his views, etc.

The traditionalists would be well-advised to pay attention to the general 'political' approach of the Church leaders and where that approach is taking things.

Obama, in Today's News 10.02.09

Obama. It is astounding that Obama would go to Copenhagen for the Chicago-Olympics decision without having the decision all tied up. Such a move is pure stupidity for a seasoned politician. 

Obama associated his personal authority with the decision on Chicago. If effect, he was saying 'a vote against Chicago is a vote against me' and vice versa. To raise the stakes in the decision to that degree without knowing how the vote would go is nothing short of amazing. Taking such a risk definitely raises questions about his judgement.

Obama's behavior since he became President is beginning to show a character flaw. He seems to persist in assuming that his personal authority and standing can overcome all obstacles. It didn't work on his health care national speech; it didn't work on his address to Wall Street executives on financial reform; and it didn't work in Copenhagen.

Obama has turned out to be a risk taker. But his risks are not well thought out. He or his advisors don't seem to calculate the various factors. The Obama team bypasses real politics by relying on the Obama 'magic.' This approach becomes more and more foolish as time goes on.

Chicago's dramatic loss says a lot about the public's assessment of Obama. Obama is more popular around the world than even in the United States. Plus if there ever was a politically correct committee it has to be the Olympic leadership. Yet with all this going for Obama, Chicago lost pathetically with the lowest vote total of the four competing cities.

The loss seems to indicate that the illusions about Obama are fading away. Public sentiment is beginning to realize that Obama is not what they thought he was. The public is less willing to put their confidence in him.

Afghanistan, in Today's News 10.01.09

Afghanistan. President Obama is playing with a political time bomb in Afghanistan. His failure to decide on a course of action means the situation in Afghanistan could blow up politically on him at any time.

Obama has three possible decisions in the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan: send in more troops, stand and fight, or get out. Each of these possibilities has grave difficulties for Obama. Obama seems to have no decision that will leave him a winner.

Instead of deciding, Obama has chosen to play for time. He now has yet another policy review going on to gain time for a possible miracle to occur.

It seems that the Obama team is leaning toward not sending more troops to Afghanistan. They even induced Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reverse his position of support to the military leaders who are asking for more support.

This is all well and good for the administration, but it does leave a kind of a gap. Namely what policy replaces sending troops. Apparently no one knows. The Wall Street Journal today quotes a Pentagon spokesmen, "His [Gate's] thinking on this is evolving. I don't think he has come to a final determination on what he believes to be the appropriate course going forward."

In other words, they are completely stuck in the mud and have no idea how to get un-stuck.

Vice President Joe Biden, always known for his brilliant ideas [sarcasm], came up with the proposal to use a 'counterterrror' strategy. Instead of fighting the war, Biden would have the US focus more narrowly on using drones and small teams of Special Operations forces to kill senior al Qaeda and Taliban figures.

If the Biden alternative were to be chosen, the situation in Afghanistan would go to hell in a hand basket in a remarkably short time. Not that the situation isn't already at that stage.

As Obama flits from one top priority to another (health to financial reform to Afghanistan to Iran to plugging Chicago for the olympics) he finds himself always looking to gain time. It won't work. First of all, one of the priorities is going to become a crisis if he waits and waits. Second, he will end up accomplishing nothing with all these pots boiling without resolution. Third, and as a result, the public will begin to sense that the man is not the leader they voted for. Fourth, his employers, the cryptocracy, are going to be very unhappy.

Bank of America, in Today's News 10.01.09

Bank of America. Well, they finally got their man. Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth D. Lewis, under enormous pressure, announced he will resign. The cryptocracy has been trying to force him out of BoA from day one of the economic crisis.

Why the cryptocracy so dislikes the man is for them to know. They're certainly not going to tell us the real truth. But for months the cryptocracy has tried one foray after another directed at removing Lewis. He fought some of the attacks off, especially the congressional hearing stunt. But, it seems that the grind of constantly fending off these attacks got to him.

There is not much good to say about Lewis. What is significant about his case is what it reveals about the cryptocracy. If someone is not with the cryptocracy 100% and if they don't like you, the cryptocracy will stop at nothing to get rid of you, as Karzai in Afghanistan is about to find out.

Lewis was always sort of an outsider in the fraternity of bank leaders. The cryptocracy evidently felt they could not trust him in the new world of central planning.

One of the purposes of the economic crisis was to thin out the ranks of the banking and financial company leaders. The idea was to install executives who were tried and true loyalists to the cryptocracy. To this end an unprecedented number of executives have been show the door. Among them are Chief Executive Officers at Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch (fired by Lewis), Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, American International Group, Wachovia, and Citigroup.

If you thought the cryptocracy was not ruthless, think again.