Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts

Friday, February 24, 2017

Trans - lost?

Cox told The Hollywood Reporter on Thursday that she feels like "our government is not acknowledging the humanity of trans people, not acknowledging that we are who we say we are."

So, perhaps a little light on that drama is appropriate -

The Trump administration Wednesday revoked federal guidelines issued by former President Barack Obama ... in May ... that allowed public school students to use restrooms and other facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

Now how does that deny the humanity of anyone in light of the following ....

Obama's directive did not "undergo any formal public process" or explain how the directive was "consistent with the express language of Title IX," the federal law outlawing sex discrimination in education and activities.

In English - he wrote it up without any thought or process to its implementation.

Instead, the argument goes ... "This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said. "Schools, communities, and families can find -- and in many cases have found -- solutions that protect all students."

And further - 
"Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”


In a letter to the nation's schools, the Justice and Education departments said the earlier guidance "has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms."

And as for treatment of trans students -

Anti-bullying safeguards would not be affected by the change, according to the letter. "All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment."

So, again, where is the humanity being denied.  And isn't the state, your town where you directly elect a Mayor or City Council or Board for the school, isn't that a very simple and easy place to begin to help all students.

Why does it need to come from the top down, where the top didn't think through before acting.

I really don't believe this is useful, but -

The argument about federal versus states is a very old debate in which over 600,000 men died before this issue was seemingly resolved.   We call that event the Civil War.

Forcing an issue from the top, without any awareness of the implications and consequences on all levels, is not a prudent or responsible action.  Instead, beginning with your local school board members who were elected by fewer than a few thousand votes, you can make a change.  Or your city council who were elected by ten thousand or less votes, or your mayor who really wants another 100-500 votes you could provide if they support your cause.  Or the state legislators who were probably elected by less than a few thousand votes.  That process is easier to work through.  It is localized and with people who know the situation well, in your community, rather than someone far removed with no understanding of anything.

Some businesses, like Apple could provide multiple bathrooms to anyone if they chose, WITHOUT federal guidance.  Local decisions are better left to the people you can most directly affect by your vote.  It works better. In cases where you are the minority, work up the chain to governor.  In the state of California, I am sure the legislature will support any cause or mission and will grant you whatever it is you believe fair.

However, not all states are like that.  In cases such as this, legal requirements rising from actions before the US Supreme Court will provide direction.

Trump's removal of a decision from 10 months ago is not equivalent to dismantling civil rights actions from 1964.  It was simply DIRECTION, not a DEMAND to do.  Get real.




Friday, January 27, 2017

Obama v Trump on Press Freedom

 
‘Folks like Rush Limbaugh, some commentators on Fox News, that hot house ... has been harmful to the country’

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.
 After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponent," insisting, "we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

The Obama administration made good on that threat. Soon thereafter, the administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based," the Washington Post wrote at the time.

And it wasn't just Fox News. The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "Along the way, we found out that the government had spied on virtually every aspect of James Risen’s digital life from phone calls, to emails, to credit card statements, bank records and more," the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.
With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Economic Morass

Trump Election: Retreat from the World

It is true everyone has a right to their opinion, but some opinions are weighted differently than others!

I recall during the election, and immediately thereafter - the inane punditry from the misinformed and uneducated, that Trump would retreat from the world.  Trump would step back from action around the globe and would instead build fortress Americana and relinquish our role in the world.

Do you all recall such drivel?

I do.  It was daily, and in multiple reports.  Sometimes repeated 2-3 times in an article.

And then there was Henry Kissinger.

Not someone you could say was an isolationist.  He was there for some of the most COLD of the Cold War period.  From Vietnam to China to the Soviet Union ... not a Dove by any measure.

Interesting.  With more than 40 years of experience.  Well, on CBS Face the Nation, the former Secretary of State made an insightful comment -


"Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven't seen." 

 
 
 
Hmmm.  Just the opposite of all that drivel we heard.  In fact, an insight for the Obama supporters - he did just what many people claimed he had been doing ... withdrawing from the world, leaving opportunity for disaster.
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, August 29, 2016

Happy Talk: None of that depressing true stuff. There is nothing called Islamic Extremism. Just bad Christians.


I don't want to hear it.  I don't want to know.  Don't tell me.  You're wrong. 
I think this guy's creds are in order.


Exclusive — Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn: Obama, Hillary Ignored Intelligence They Did Not Like About Middle East, Only Wanted ‘Happy Talk’

by Matthew Boyle

NEW YORK CITY, New York — Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as the director of President Barack Obama’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.

Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book The Field of Fight, Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing intelligence that did not fit their “happy talk” narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials wanted to hear—rather than what they needed to hear—helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening the United States on the world stage.
“The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with ‘Radical Islamists,’” Flynn said during the interview. “And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly Al Qaeda—although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase ‘radical Islamism’ out of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back.”
Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East—only some of them.
“There’s a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to hear—instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear,” Flynn said. “Now, there’s a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power—meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people.”
Because of the President’s and the Secretary of State’s—among other officials in the Obama administration—unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn’t want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.
“The President has said they’re jayvee, they’re on the run, they’re not that strong, what difference does it make what we call—that’s being totally dishonest with the American public,” Flynn said. “There’s one thing that Americans are, and we’re tough, resilient people but we have to be told the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It’s a lot of happy talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that’s why I’m sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities—the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that’s the President of the United States.”
The Obama administration’s refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, “has allowed an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life.”
“That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations,” Flynn said. “Most people don’t know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands—I’m talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right now. This is the problem—it’s a big problem. In fact, if we don’t change this we’re going to see this strengthening in our homeland.”
Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama Administration has ignored.
“The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house in order, which this administration has not done,” Flynn said. “We have to figure out how are we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it’s one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years, but I also say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The ‘mother may I’ has to go all the way back up to the White House.”
He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded Communism on the world stage.
“There’s no enemy that’s unbeatable,” Flynn said. “We can beat any enemy. We put our minds to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there’s no ideology in the world that’s better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles, our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution—we should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life on us. That’s what we did against the Nazis, that’s what we did against the Communists for the better part of a half a century—in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another Ism, and that’s radical Islamism, and we’re going to have to fight it—and we’re going to be fighting it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we’re doing right now.”
Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.
“My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency—that’s almost a 20,000 person organization in 140 plus countries around the world,” Flynn said. “I was also the senior military and intelligence officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told ‘hey, you know what, what you’re saying we don’t like. So you’re out.’ To Donald Trump, though, and I haven’t known him that long but I met him a year ago—in fact a year ago this month. The conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say, ‘he gets it.’ He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he’s turned it into this phrase of ‘Make America Great Again.’”
Flynn said Trump’s campaign theme of wanting to “Make America Great Again”—along with his detailed policy speeches on foreign policy, economic policy, immigration policy and more—means that Trump is a “guy who sees our country like I see it.”
“The elements of that, and the things that you hear him talking about—particularly recently with his foreign policy speech and his economic policy speech and his immigration policy speech,” Flynn said. “Some of the things he is saying, this is a guy who sees our country like I see it. I will tell you, and I lay this out in the book—you know, Matt, I can clearly see what it is that we are facing. It’s not just the rise of radical Islamism, it’s also the direction that China is going and it’s also the direction that I see Russia taking. We have an alliance of nations that are opposed to our way of life and we should not kid ourselves and think that we’re just going to be around forever because we’re the United States of America. Countries only last so long, and in order to last, you have to fight for that belief system that we have, and I like to say it’s American patriotism—that’s the Ism that I’m for—and that’s where Donald Trump steps in, because here’s a guy who when you look at what he did over the past year just slaying the Republican establishment and he’s facing a current adversary in Hillary Clinton whose criminal behavior and just dishonesty is just stunning. Yet there’s still people who are trying to, that are weighing in to bring her back into government? Oh my God, I mean, to me this is an easy choice. This is a choice about the direction of the United States of America going forward.”
Flynn noted that the impacts of the choices voters make in this upcoming presidential election will affect the United States for generations—perhaps centuries—to come.
“And Donald Trump is not doing this for Donald Trump,” Flynn said. “Donald Trump is not doing this for the next four years. Donald Trump is doing this for the next 40, or the next 400, years. I have children, I have grandchildren, I have a son who has served overseas in the combat zones three times. I have a couple of grandchildren. My God, I want those grandchildren to grow up in a country that is recognizable to those of us that are in this country today. Right now, it’s starting to become unrecognizable and if we continue down the path that this administration has set over the past eight years—and that includes the path that Hillary Clinton was part of setting—we are going to find ourselves waking up one day in America saying ‘this is not America anymore. This is not what we were founded upon.’ Frankly, in order to keep that belief system that we have, we have to sort of fight for it and we’re going to have to fight for it overseas, and we’re going to have to fight for it here in the homeland and the way we do it here in our country is we do it at the voting booth. People have got to get out and vote.”
Flynn bashed the so-called “Never Trump” Republicans who say they will never vote for Donald Trump in November as “part of the problem” in America, too. He said that based on his own conversations with Trump, he believes he is seriously interested in helping the United States win again on the world stage.
“All these sort of Republican establishment types who are having a very difficult time checking their egos at the door, well, check your egos at the door because you’re part of the problem,” Flynn said. “The establishment that we’ve had, all they do is whine, whine, whine. And they have no solutions—what I want to start seeing is solutions. That’s where Donald Trump comes in because this is a guy—in my conversations with him, he’s like ‘alright I’m done talking about the problems, what are we going to do to fix it?’ That’s what I like about him. He was very serious about those—that’s the conversations that I’ve had, multiple conversations, now about solutions and how do we get to those solutions? That to me is the sign of a leader, back to your use of Churchill and what I talk about in the book, people don’t recognize people for who they are. Donald Trump is not kidding—he’s not kidding. He wants to Make America Great Again, like many of us—and that’s why I’m with him.”
If the United States doesn’t elect Trump, and seriously start dealing with the enemy, Flynn believes the problem is only going to get worse—and continue spreading more into the United States.
“If we don’t deal with it, then we’re going to be fighting it for a long, long time—and frankly, as a military guy, I’m sick of just participating in conflict,” Flynn said. “I want to win.”
Flynn said that the FBI is currently working on cases in every U.S. state—all 50 of them—regarding people who are allegedly aiding the Islamic State.
“Our FBI director, our current FBI director, has stated that the FBI is working a thousand—one thousand—cases right here in the homeland of the Islamic State,” Flynn said. “And he’s working those cases in all 50 of our states. So there’s a problem at home, and we definitely have a problem overseas, and our current President and frankly this administration to include Hillary Clinton—they denied the existence of it. And they tried to say ‘this is a religion of peace.’ Islam is Islam. It is a political ideology.”






















Friday, September 21, 2012

Obama Lied

The Obama Administration's fabricated story on the killing of bin Laden fell apart when one of the Seal team members involved in the shotting, told a different version.

The Obama Administration lied to the American people and the world.

Lied.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Befuddled and Confused: Obama Administration on Parade



U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

_________________________________________________________

So what this woman would have youi believe is -
- all the protests in the Arab world, and in fact, everywhere, are spontaneous.  People in regions without internet or phones, somehow know.  That everyone just plugs into the atmosphere some how and knows. 
- that when people protest in Libya they carry rpg's with them. 
- that trucks of men with weapons routinely show up to protest

And that when the Libyan President said:


"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

Apparently he didn't know what he was talking about.

And that when US diplomats were warned several days before, the threats were ignored:
 

 
and when al-qaida says it carried out the attack in Libya
 
 
 
Does Obama know how foolish he looks.  Does he realize how much respect is lost when his administration stares into the face of al-qaida and denies it was responsible.
 
All we need is Biden prancing about.
 
 
 
 

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Obama: World Respect





In February, Obama said, “One of the proudest things of my three years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world, a belief that we are not just defined by the size of our military.”

Three years ago in Cairo, Obama stressed his leadership would be dramatically different than former President George W. Bush’s: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”



Apparently the Muslim world didn't pay any attention to his claims of being a unifier.

Nor did the rest of the world fall into prostration -

Germany:  Merkle said he was a man she could not trust.
India:  FM - his policy is barking up the wrong tree and he should mind his own business.
Russia:  He should be more interested in his country and leave the rest of the world alone.
China:  The US has no right to explain human rights to anyone.
Canada:  The PM rarely speaks to Obama and is rarely spoken to by Obama.
England:  the attitude in Downing Street and Whitehall is one of disregard.  He only becomes necessary when the PM visits the US or Obama decides to go to England.
Australia:  dictated to about prisoners and keeping terrorists in their prison system.  Their Parliament voted against the imposition of the prisoners by the US, onto Australian territory as a risk and threat.
France:  Under Sarkozy the relationship was near 0.
Italy:  barely registered on a friendship scale.  Distrust and animosity between the US and Italian government over a range of issues).

Let's see ... who else.  Built up respect?  No.  He has harmed our nation world-wide.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Parallel Universes


http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/

Carney: Protests not directed at the United States

'This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims'
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

White House: Control the News, Ask the Questions



by Keith Koffler on August 21, 2012, 11:20 am

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June.

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly.

Under sequestration, if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year, harsh automatic spending cuts will occur. Each of the network reporters were from cities with major military facilities that could be unduly impacted if sequestration occurs.

Two of the reporters were from Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, both presidential battleground states. The third was from San Diego.

The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at:

“What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?” she asked.

Donna Deegan of FCN Jacksonville initially seemed to apologize for not broaching the appointed subject right away.

“Mr. President, I know we were asked to talk about sequestration today,” she said, but then added she wanted to talk about something else first. Finally, she got to it:

“Let’s talk a little bit about sequestration, because I know that’s why you invited us here,” she said.

Obama used an interview with WVEC Norfolk to specifically bash Republicans.

“The only thing that’s standing in the way of us getting this done right now is the unwillingess on the part of some members of Congress, and folks in in the Republican Party, to give up on some tax breaks for people like me who don’t need them,” he said.

The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.








obama

Monday, July 9, 2012

The Taliban

This administration (in the US) started off in December 2008, with an overture to the Taliban - make peace with us and let us leave your god-forsaken rock.  Obama wanted out very badly, still does.  Damn all the indications the Taliban has not reformed.  Just make the deal and let us escape from that hole.

Why should we remain.  I am not certain we should, but we should be quite sure what we leave in charge of that place and the people, and make no mistake we are not dealing with civilization or a civilized people.





19 June 2002

ZARMINA'S STORY

From Anton Antonowicz In Kabul




MILLIONS of people have watched this woman die. Yet none saw her face.

Only a handful of people know the real story which led to 35-year-old Zarmina being executed on the penalty spot in Kabul's Olympic Stadium in Afghanistan.

The image of this mother of five children being driven to her death in a Toyota pick-up for the crime of killing her husband shocked the world.

This anonymous woman being dragged across the pitch in front of 30,000 spectators and being made to kneel before the goalposts until the tall, thin Taliban rifleman blew out her brains.

The scene was recorded with a hidden video camera and smuggled into Pakistan by the brave women of RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of Women from Afghanistan.

Later, it marked the opening scenes of Beneath the Veil, Channel 4's award-winning documentary of life inside Afghanistan under the fanatical Taliban.

Here was the truth of life in a nation wracked by 23 years of war yet largely ignored until that day.

When the Mirror first published photographs of Zarmina's death in June last year we were inundated by calls and letters from readers.

Few knew of real life under the regime which came to power in 1996. September 11 changed all that.

But one, simple question remained unanswered. One which obsessed me from the moment I first saw that secret footage in spring last year.

If the claim that Zarmina had murdered her husband was true, what was the desperation, knowing the Taliban's brutality, which ultimately led her to her death?

And what, if anything, did it tell us about the life of women under the fanatics' yoke?

These were the questions which took me to Afghanistan. To a secret rendezvous. To a filthy prison. To a cemetery. To houses where doors slammed in my face. Where men with guns threatened to kill me if I continued asking questions.

FINALLY, last Friday, a thin airmail letter arrived on my desk, post-marked April 6.

It contained three pages of green biro notes ripped from a school exercise book, confirming details which myself and colleague Tom Newton Dunn discovered during two separate Afghan assignments.

It also held a tiny photograph, the size of a thumbnail, from a police file - the face of Zarmina, the woman beneath the veil.

The letter came from a young "fixer" I hired in Kabul. It followed a meeting I had arranged with a woman police inspector who had promised that somehow she would ensure Zarmina's real story was told. Rana Sayeed works at the central police station in Kabul. It was sheer chance that we first found her on a rain-lashed day in late February standing at the entrance to the women's jail.

Rana, a mother in her late 40s, appeared different from most Afghan women. She did not wear a burka. Her manner was loud and confident.

She spoke of her training as a detective and told how she was sent to Moscow by Afghanistan's former Soviet puppet regime.

Rana said she had been a police officer for some 20 years. "Even the Taliban needed some women to apply law and order," she said, suddenly lowering and shaking her head. "Even the Taliban..."

She took us across the mud-caked compound into the charred basement of the police HQ.

The room held two desks and one old typewriter. The air was still heavy with the stench of smoke from hundreds of fires the Taliban started in Kabul before they fled.

She asked us to wait until her boss gave her clearance. When eventually the newly-appointed chief of Kabul's police told her to give us every assistance, she began.

"At last Zarmina's story can be told," she said. "It is the story of one woman. But it is also the story of Afghan women under the Taliban, under brutes who turned our country into a zoo and our women into dogs.

"I thought Zarmina would die when they brought her here. They beat her for two days with steel cables until she confessed.

"But she was a tough one. As she lay on the floor of the cell, she pointed to her one-year-old twins - the girl Silsila and the boy Jawad - and said she would fight for life, fight as the mother of these babies.

"There were other children. Zarmina had a son Hawad, who was 11, and two beautiful daughters Shaista, 14, and Najeba just 16.

"It was her love for all of them which drove her to do what she did. The tragedy is that it made life a thousand times worse for them."

Zarmina, from northern Kabul, was married at 16. It was an arranged union but blossomed into love.

She was an attractive, feisty woman. Her Pashtun husband, Alauddin Khwazak, from the village of Paghman an hour's drive away, was a policeman who also owned a small general store.

It was a marriage which flowered in the face of war and seemed at first to survive the violence in Kabul.

But almost imperceptibly, perhaps inevitably, the relationship began to fall apart. Relentless bloodshed changed everyone. And it destroyed Zarmina's husband.

The bombings, mass rapes, and murders brutalised Khwazak's mind, infecting it with an insidious poison.

A NEIGHBOUR told me: "He had been a mild man but slowly he turned into a monster. Perhaps, as a policeman, he had seen too much.

"He'd rage. He became violent. He was mad with jealousy, convinced that Zarmina was seeing other men. It was rubbish. But his head was wrapped in madness."

When the Taliban took control of Kabul in September, 1996, they effectively handed Khwazak a licence for that madness.

For these fundamentalist "students" from the south, Kabul was Satan's playground. A place where women were allowed to wear miniskirts and attend high school and university. A world of sin.

Women had no rights in Taliban Afghanistan. They existed only to obey.

They were drones to bear children, cook and satisfy men. They were lashed for their high heels, had their fingertips amputated for revealing varnish and and were stoned to death for prostitution.

Two women charged with adultery were hanged from a crane. A boy of 10 was given a gun to shoot his father's killer and a girl of seven whipped for wearing white shoes.

Girls were forbidden to attend school and summary justice wrapped in a medieval robe was the creed. Ruthless in pursuit of purity and perfect proof that no crime is too awful if justified by religious belief.

Khwazak's moods matched the new doctrine. His brother, a dour and unforgiving man, hailed the Taliban's fundamentalism and fed his sibling's fevered brain.

Rana said: "Khwazak beat his wife every night. He abused her and her elder daughters. I don't know if there was sexual abuse, but it was something Zarmina could no longer bear. So she plotted with Najeba to kill him. And finally they did it."

The murder was carried out early one summer night five years ago.

Some say Zarmina put opium in Khwazak's food. Rana says she laced his meal with sleeping pills. As he fell into a drugged sleep Zarmina woke her daughter.

Rana said: "She told me that there, at the final moment, she couldn't do it."

It was Najeba who took the 10lb mason's hammer and killed her father with one blow to the head.

Rana said: "They ran from the house screaming that robbers had broken in and attacked Khwazak. They said the men were 'shadows in the night'.

"Some believed them, others weren't so sure. Zarmina's brother-in-law was the first to accuse and called the Taliban.

"They never found the hammer, but they got their confession. That was all that mattered.

"Zarmina said she was the murderer. That she acted alone. She stuck to that story all the time she was tortured. It was only two years later when she knew me well that she admitted the truth. And I wasn't going to tell anyone."

ZARMINA was taken to the central jail and held there with her twins for nearly three years.

Sometimes her mother would come with food. But she condemned her daughter for bringing shame on all of them and said she hated her.

She told Zarmina other women in jail would kill her. Yet it was those prisoners who helped keep her and her children alive.

Rana went on: "They'd give them scraps. I gave her a few blankets. Somehow she stayed alive.

"She was a brave woman and fought desperately against her fears. She told the Taliban she was a mother and that what she'd done was for her children."

Rana said: "She asked what would happen to her children without a mother? She pleaded with them to lash her and let her go to tend her precious kids.

"She had dreams in which her husband appeared. Then she said she knew she would die."

Zarmina's elder girls and son were given to her brother-in-law, according to tradition.

He was Taliban and demanded blood law refusing to let her escape death. Then, two months before the execution, he told Zarmina's mother he had sold Najeba and Shaista into sex slavery.

"That nearly killed Zarmina," said Rana. "Everything she'd done was for her children. Now it had taken her girls to a living hell.

"The brother-in-law even made sure she knew the price, 600,000 Pakistani rupees for Najeba and 300,000 for Shaista. Sold to a man from Khost."

Khost, seven hours south east of Kabul on the Pakistani border, is a name which echoes loud.

The city was a Taliban stronghold. The place where al-Qaeda had its main training camp and the tunnels from which Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa to kill Americans and their allies.

"Zarmina beat herself, smashed her head against the jail wall," said Rana. "Of course her daughters were sold to Taliban, but who? To Afghans? To fanatics? To bin Laden? She knew she'd never see them again."

Then, on November 15, 1999, the radio announced there would be an execution in two days time.

Zarmina knew nothing of this. She had spent nearly three years in jail and knew there would be punishment. But still she convinced herself they would not kill a mother.

EVEN when the guards came for her she said she expected to face 100 lashes, but no more.

She put on three dresses - two borrowed - underneath her burka, hoping they would soften the blows.

Rana said: "I was ordered to accompany her with two women police officers.

"We climbed into the pick-up with her and prayed together. I couldn't stand it. I left before the truck entered the stadium.

'And I'll tell you that after what happened next, those two colleagues never worked again. One had a nervous breakdown. The other is plagued by nightmares to this day." As the stadium crowd settled, an announcer described what was to happen: "Zarmina, daughter of Ghulam Hasnat, is to be executed for killing her husband with a hammer."

He falsely said the murder happened "five months ago". But the truth would not have fitted the Taliban creed of swift justice.

The reality was that her execution was delayed until a premium price was haggled and paid for her virgin daughters.

The video takes over. It first shows the Toyota twice circling the pitch, the driver parading his passenger before the spectators.

Zarmina, flanked by her two female escorts, sees little. Surgeons in masks stand to one side, ready for amputations which will follow the main event.

The next clip shows the two women guards escorting Zarmina to the goal area. She is told to sit. For the first time, the crowd of men, women and children falls silent. Slowly a tall Taliban steps forward. Zarmina tries to crawl away. What is not shown is the first shot.

The executioner's hands are shaking. The cries from the crowd to spare Zarmina unnerve him. Officials refuse all pleas for clemency. They claimed there were too many in the crowd who wanted to see death.

The first shot creases Zarmina's hair telling her at last what her fate would be. Her precious children brought for the spectacle can only stand and stare.

Zarmina cries out. She says she cannot sit or kneel without falling. "Someone take my arms," she pleads.

Her last request went unanswered. The gunman aimed his Kalashnikov again. And Zarmina was dead from a single 7.62mm bullet. The executioner turned away, blood law sated. He was Zarmina's brother-in-law. The man who sold her precious girls. The man who, Rana is sure, escaped to Pakistan with so many others. A man with money in his pocket.

ZARMINA'S body was taken to the Wazir Akbar Khan hospital.

Her body lay unclaimed in the mortuary for 20 days. Her mother, Shah Sultan, refused any responsibility, telling Rana: "She brought shame. She deserved what she got. She is not even a memory to me."

Zarmina was buried in an unmarked grave 300 yards from her unforgiving mother's home.

Rana took me to the cemetery in Khair Khana, in District 11, north Kabul. She stayed in the car while I tried to find the grave.

She said it was safer that way. That locals might object to her being in the company of foreign men. The gravediggers denied any knowledge of the executed woman. One man produced a gun and told myself and photographer Phil Spencer we had no business there.

Then a young fellow, perhaps 20 and dressed in a red blazer, drew up on his bike. "I know what you are looking for," he said.

"Everyone knows about Zarmina. They don't want trouble. They don't want reminding. But they are ashamed of what happened to that woman and her girls."

People know when a wrong has been done. But there was palpable fear that Afghanistan's turmoil would once again overwhelm them.

That the Taliban were all around. That they would return and exact vengeance upon anyone who might now question their actions.

The cyclist ignored those fears. He led us through the cemetery. A stark moonscape of a place. So little colour. So much misery. So many newly dead. Just scores of the thousands who died young in an incessant war.

My guide pointed out a mound with two stones facing each other flat on. The positioning meant it was a woman's grave.

But there was nothing else to determine whose it was. Just the anger of the gunman and other armed men nearby, the embarrassed faces of the gravediggers and the cyclist pointing and saying "This is Zarmina".

He refused my offer of money, saying "It is time Zarmina's story was told." And of course there are so many of these stories to be told.

"There were so many nightmares here," Rana said as we drove to The Herat, Kabul's best restaurant. The place is little better than a greasy spoon. But Rana would not enter.

"It's OK. You go, you sit. Just ask them to bring me some food in the car." That is how it still is in Afghanistan. The Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies may be put to rout but still women's rights are hardly a footnote on the agenda.

WE speak to a beggar woman by the restaurant door. She has three children all under five. Her husband is dead.

She tells me life should be better now. She receives about 50p a day.

She says all this through her burka. A Pushtun barges through the crowd, bends over her and strikes her head. "Get lost, you whore-bitch!" he shouts. And the woman scrambles away with her children.

I ask Bashir, our "fixer", why he did that. Was he related to the woman? "No. He's just a Taliban type. Any woman is ripe for a beating. They don't need an excuse."

We ate with Rana in the car. She said: "I remember another stadium execution where the man had 10 bullets in his body. His victim's family took turns to shoot him.

"I remember a woman the Taliban accused of having a walkie-talkie. There were 16 of them beating her with cable wires until she pissed blood. All the time they made sure her head and face were covered so they should not be tempted by her looks.

"I tell you I thank God for September 11. Not for the innocent deaths. But, without that day, we'd still be treated like animals.

"The whole place was run by Pakistanis and Arabs. No one dared say anything against them.

"It was the same the day Zarmina died. Everyone knew she did not deserve to die. But nobody said anything. Nobody dared."

Now some do dare to speak. Rana and Zarmina's neighbours tell me the twins, now six, and their brother Hawad,16, have been cast adrift.

Unwanted by their fleeing uncle. Unacknowledged by their grandmother. They beg, they rag-pick at the local dumps. But nothing has been seen of Najeba and Shaista.

Five children all lost because of a mother's desperation to give them a better life. "Yes," Rana repeated, "Zarmina's story must be told."

So, with that photograph arriving on my desk last week, it has been told. It cannot be the whole truth but from what we have found and checked, it is nothing but the truth.

The story of a woman beneath veils of violence, madness and terrible sadness. A woman so many saw die. But never knew how she had lived.



Monday, July 2, 2012

The Amateur - He certainly is.

After fleeting Supreme Court victory, Obama remains the amateur

Published July 02, 2012
 FoxNews.com
In ancient Rome, whenever a general was given a victory parade, he would be accompanied in his chariot by a slave who whispered into his ear, “Heed not the call of the crowds, for all glory is fleeting.”

Someone ought to be whispering that advice into Barack Obama’s ear right now, for if ever there was a fleeting victory, it was the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional—a decision that will lead to the largest tax increase in American history and leave Obama and the entire Democratic ticket vulnerable at the ballot box in November.

But don’t count on David Axelrod, the president’s top political strategist, to perform the duty of the prudent Roman slave. These days, Axelrod isn’t whispering; he’s shouting from the rooftops that the Supreme Court ruling is proof that a new, politically skillful Obama has replaced the callow, arrogant incompetent that I describe in my book "The Amateur."

And Obama has joined this chorus of self-congratulation. Minutes after the Supreme Court’s ruling, he got on his smart phone and tweeted: “Still a BFD”—a reference to Vice President Joe Biden’s “big f—king deal” comment when Obama signed the health care legislation.

The notion that Obama has changed his stripes, that he is actually a better and more effective president than any of us suspected, is pure hogwash.

Talk about a “New Obama” reminds me of the effort on the part of Richard Nixon’s PR people in the 1960s to repackage him as the “New Nixon.” During the presidential election of 1968, voters were treated to TV commercials and carefully planted stories claiming that the old, mean-spirited Nixon had matured, and that a more tolerant, magnanimous “New Nixon” had taken his place. It was a brilliantly orchestrated campaign, but as we learned during Watergate and the subsequent release of Nixon’s Oval Office tapes, there never was a “New Nixon.”

The example of Richard Nixon’s non-makeover makeover should tell us something about the efforts of the Obama political team to reframe his image and resell him to voters. The entire story of ObamaCare—from inception to Supreme Court—reeks of amateurism.

It is the hallmark of a political amateur to ignore the advice of wise men and women who tell him what he doesn’t want to hear and, instead, embrace those who cater to his inexperience, vanity, and worst instincts. This has been the pattern of the Obama presidency. And that was exactly what happened in the case of ObamaCare.

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama received ample warning that he was headed for disaster if he went for broke on health care. His then chief of staff Rahm Emanuel urged the president to push for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults. Both his vice president, Joe Biden, and his top political adviser, David Axelrod, sided with Emanuel and raised a red flag.

But Obama wouldn’t listen to his wisest and most experienced advisers. Instead, he chose to listen to his wife Michelle and to Valerie Jarrett, his powerful behind-the-scenes confidante. It was Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett who persuaded the president to side with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of far-leftwing Democrats and push for an enormously complex Rube Goldberg health-care bill.

Obama’s arrogance, his sense of superiority, and his air of haughtiness—but above all, his amateurism—led him astray and encouraged him to focus initially on a “public option” in his health care bill. Rick Scott, the health care executive who launched and ran the successful campaign to kill the public option in 2009, parlayed that victory into winning the governorship of Florida in 2010.

When Scott and his group, Conservatives for Patients Rights, defeated the public option, Obama was then stuck with going along with an “individual mandate,” which he had vigorously campaign against during the Democratic primaries. He denied time after time that the mandate was a tax, only to allow his Solicitor General to argue before the Supreme Court that it is, in fact, a tax.
Only a rank amateur could have turned months and months of debate over a widely unpopular health care bill into something even worse—an onerous tax on the middle class.

Only a rank amateur could have turned a government-run health care system that suffers from hundreds of billions of dollars in annual fraud, and is already on life support, into a $1.5 trillion Rube Goldberg machine that will destroy American medicine and deliver a poorer quality of health care to millions of people.

Only a rank amateur could conceive of a “solution” to our health care problems that cuts benefits to seniors by $500 billion and established rationing boards known as “death panels.”

Only a rank amateur could threaten to turn America into Sweden—and possibly even Greece—by passing an ill-conceived piece of legislation whose major goal is to earn him a place in history.

Only a rank amateur could levy a series of new taxes on America’s small businesses, under the guise of ObamaCare, that will raise unemployment and stall an already anemic recover.

Only a rank amateur could hand his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, an electoral game changer.

Yes, Barack Obama is still The Amateur.
















obama

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Billions for Green Jobs and No Jobs






June 20, 2012
cnsnews



 (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.

The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.

The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.

For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.

In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.

These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.

The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.

For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”

The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.

The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”

Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.

Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.











obama

Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.