Middle East

Trump Made No ‘Classified’ Leak, Someone Else Did…..


The Washington Post reported Monday that President Trump revealed “highly classified” intelligence to Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during their recent meeting at the White House.

But the Post forgot to mention that the President’s conversation with Lavrov is itself among the most secret and classified matters our government holds – and the leak of key parts of that conversation is likely a crime.

This is now the third time in a short period that the president’s most secret and private discussions with a world leader have been leaked to The Washington Post.

During his first week in office, the full transcripts of President Trump’s phone conversations with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto were quickly leaked to the Post.

Such leaks are a serious and illegal attack on the presidency. They undermine the country, trust in the president and his ability to maintain global leadership.

There is a lot more of the onion to peel with this Washington Post story.

If you are watching CNN and MSNBC you may think the president committed a crime or even a horrific act of treason by sharing with the Russians secret intel and even super-secret sources.

But when we continue to peel this noxious onion we discover the facts just don’t measure up to the allegations.

The Post headlines that the president revealed “highly classified” information, suggesting this was perhaps either illegal, improper, or both.

Forgive me, but the last I checked the president is commander-in-chief.

He can decide what is a classified secret. He decides what can be shared with allies, adversaries, or even the public. That’s his decision – not some bureaucrat’s!

So, what was that intel the president shared that was so secret?

If the Post story is believed, Trump told Lavrov the U.S. had intelligence of an ISIS terror plot.

Although the Russians are not allies, we do share a similar goal to wipe out ISIS. Trump has publicly expressed the hope we can work together on this goal.

Even if Trump shared this about ISIS, the likelihood of the Russians tipping off their enemies in ISIS seems quite small.

But thanks to an illegal leak made to The Washington Post, this information is now public and certainly known to ISIS.

Is anyone concerned about this?

Having been a student of American history, I have little doubt that U.S. presidents have shared “highly classified” intelligence with friends and foes in their private discussions.

But The Washington Post makes another unfair and unsubstantiated allegation: that President Trump himself revealed the actual source of U.S. intelligence.

This is a grave allegation.

Here’s the key line from the Post: “Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.”

Citing unnamed sources, the Post claimed Trump has “jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.”

But Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said Monday, “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

Still, the Post continued its attack: “The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved.”

It’s a very big stretch to suggest that just by revealing the city of an ISIS threat to the Russians, they or anyone else could identify the source of this intelligence.

It’s not a stretch to me – or anyone with a thinking cap on – to realize when U.S. officials leak the president’s most secret conversations they are putting our national security at serious risk.

Lavrov-Trump-600-AP

Categories: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Secrets, Middle East, Muslims, Politics, Trump, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crusader Shipwreck Discovered off Israel’s Coast, gold coins and more…


Archaeologists have found the wreck of a ship belonging to the Crusaders, dating back to their expulsion from Acre in the thirteenth century CE, off the coast of northern Israel.

The Crusader stronghold was destroyed in 1291 CE when the Mamluk Sultanate captured it, driving the Christian armies from the region. Golden coins dating to the era were found alongside the wreck, making it easy to pinpoint when the ship sank in the waters outside Acre, according to an article appearing in Haaretz.

Taking Acre was a major victory for the Mamluks, as Christian European forces had long used the site as a landing point for countless knights and soldiers. When Jerusalem fell out of Crusader hands after being recaptured by Saladin in 1187, Acre became the new Crusader capital in the Holy Land.

Marine archaeologists from Haifa University Prof. Michal Artzy and Dr. Ehud Galili spearheaded the investigation of the Crusader shipwreck. The ship itself suffered damage while the modern harbor of Acre was being dredged during its construction; the surviving wreckage includes some ballast-covered wooden planks, the ship’s keep, and a few sections of its hull.

Carbon dating has revealed the wood used to construct the hull dates to between 1062 CE and 1250 CE, firmly within the window for Crusader activity in the region. In addition to the associated golden coins found near the wreckage, marine archaeologists also discovered imported ceramic bowls and jugs from southern Italy, Syria, and Cyprus; corroded pieces of iron, mostly nails and anchors, were additional finds.

The biggest find, however, is certainly thought to be the gold coins found with the wreck. A total of 30 florins were found, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority’s coin expert Robert Kool; minted in the Italian republic of Florence – where the coins get their name – the florins were minted from 1252.

Speculation as to how the ship – and the florins – ended up on the bottom of Acre’s harbor is closely tied to the Siege of Acre, as historical eyewitness accounts from the event reported nobles and merchants fleeing from the besieged fortress by boat, often after bribing the owners of these boats with valuables. Many never made it out of the harbor, thought to have drowned there with their riches as the Christian defenders sought futilely to buy them some time to escape.

The Crusader fortress fell on May 18th, 1291, after more than 100 years of Frankish rule. The final defenders, a contingent of Knights Templar, refused to abandon their holdfast. As a result, when Mamluk sappers undermined the walls of the Templar fortress, the entire edifice collapsed, killing the remaining defenders – and around a hundred of the Sultan’s own soldiers as well.

The fall of Acre was the last gasp of the Christian crusades during the medieval era. Once the stronghold was taken by the Mamluks and summarily destroyed, the Catholic Church and the European nobles that supported it abandoned their quest to “liberate” the Holy Land.

th

Categories: Ancient Treasure, Archaeology, artifacts, gold, gold coins, Legends, Lost Treasure, Middle East, Muslims, sunken ships, treasure, treasure diver, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Life and Death of Wasil, the Taliban-Hunting Child Warrior….


When his father was murdered, Wasil Ahmad vowed revenge. He was barely old enough to hoist a rifle, but still he trained to fight the Taliban. Finally, when the insurgents returned, Wasil found his chance. What he did next made him a legend. And then it made him a target.

All wars breed heroes, but some come in unexpected form. Wasil Ahmad was one of the unlikeliest. He was only 8 years old when the war in Afghanistan, already a family affair, set him on a path for vengeance.

One morning, about an hour’s walk from the family compound where Wasil slept, his father and three uncles stood guard at a newly built police checkpoint. For years, as the Taliban and the Afghan government had traded control of this stretch of southern Afghanistan, Wasil’s family seesawed between both sides. Now, with the Americans pulling out, the men in Wasil’s family glimpsed new opportunity—and new jobs—as leaders of a U.S.-backed police force. They pledged to fight the Taliban, to defend their valley from the insurgents.

They girded themselves for battle, which came that morning in the summer of 2012, as the Taliban swept down from the hills of the Uruzgan province and attacked the new checkpoint of the Afghan Local Police. Soon, the crack and pop of gunfire rattled through the valley of Nawa Sultan Mohammad, and the fighting spilled into the surrounding fields. The police, commanded by Wasil’s uncle Samad, fought the insurgents throughout the afternoon and into the evening, managing to kill ten Taliban fighters before the attackers were subdued. But three of their own had been gunned down, too—including Wasil’s father, Hamidullah.

That night, as darkness enveloped the family’s three-story mud-brick compound, Wasil’s uncles shuffled Hamidullah’s bloodied corpse inside. The boy drew close, his cheeks wet with tears. In the low light, he could see the blood that stained his father’s clothes. He was a child, yes, but he knew enough of his world to realize, without even asking, who had killed his father. And he knew what it meant for him.

In the weeks that followed, Wasil’s anger hardened into a grim and brutal ambition—one that would launch him toward fame and then toward tragedy. “Teach me how to shoot,” Wasil said to his uncle Samad when he had resolved himself to retribution. “I want to kill my father’s killer.”


At first, Wasil’s family managed to steer the boy away from his quest for revenge. “We convinced him to keep going to school,” Merwais Ahmad, one of Wasil’s other uncles, told me. But as he grew, Wasil refused to forget. Like very few things in Afghanistan, the boy’s hatred for the Taliban was simple. It was also unwavering—which was another rarity in a part of the country where the Taliban aren’t always the enemy.

His family’s own complicated relationship with the Taliban went back years, to the days before 9/11, when the group first came to power and Wasil’s uncle Samad became an eager climber in the local power structure. It wasn’t religious devotion that drove Samad but, rather, expediency. Like many, he wanted what the Taliban could offer. “At that time, I didn’t know what was good or what was bad,” Samad told me. “Everybody likes to have vehicles, a little power, to be on the government’s side. The Taliban provided us with fuel, with a better life.”

When the Americans arrived, three years before Wasil was born, Samad fought to repel them. He had battled invaders before—fighting the Soviets as a mujahideen warrior in the 1980s. Now, toiling for the Taliban, Samad buried IEDs in roads and under bridges and fashioned explosive vests for suicide attacks. Samad was a Taliban commander when Wasil was born—and as the boy grew, he became entranced with his uncle’s stories of courage and valor.

But by the time Wasil was 8, Samad was having doubts. In early 2012, as American and Afghan authorities were working hard to win the loyalties of fighters like him—offering them jobs and other incentives—Samad broke ranks with the Taliban. Along with 13 of his men, he pledged allegiance to the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

Whether or not Wasil could grasp the complexities of shifting allegiances, his family’s fortunes were changing. Samad, now a sworn enemy of the Taliban, was promptly appointed to run a unit of the Afghan Local Police, the region’s lone security force. He hired Wasil’s father, Hamidullah, a farmer and taxi driver, and his two other brothers—along with 30 ex-Taliban fighters and 40 other locals. They set up five fortified checkpoints and began keeping watch.

It was only a matter of time before the Taliban, eager to repay Samad and his men for their defection, roared down from the highland one morning and put a newly fatherless child on a mission for retribution.

In the months that followed, Wasil pleaded to join his uncle’s police unit. And by the time he turned 10, his nagging became too much. As Merwais told me, Samad finally relented. “He had to keep him happy. He was saying, ‘Okay, this is a pistol. Just shoot it like this.’ And he started teaching him.”

Thus began the training of a uniquely gifted child soldier.


When Wasil wasn’t at school, he and his uncle—sometimes accompanied by other policemen from the unit—would grab guns and hike into the hills. “We started with pistols, and then I gave him an AK-47,” Samad recalled. “He became very good at hitting targets a great distance.”

Samad’s men were impressed—the boy was a natural marksman, and as he graduated to more powerful weapons, he seemed surprisingly unaffected by the recoil of the guns. Before long, Wasil was firing rocket-propelled grenade launchers. “That got him excited,” Samad said. “He was shouting, laughing, and having fun.” Then came mortars, shot from a three-legged stand. Wasil asked his mother to stitch him a police uniform, which he proudly wore nearly everywhere. “He was not on a salary, he was not a legal policeman, but he trained with us,” Samad said.

In some ways, Wasil wasn’t unusual. In Afghanistan, a stew of factors—the intractable poverty, the primacy of family honor, and the high desertion and casualty rates within fighting forces—conspire to press children into war in large numbers, especially as foreign forces have pulled out. Last year, half the police checkpoints surveyed in Uruzgan were staffed by officers under 18, according to researchers from the organization Child Soldiers International.

child-warrior-0117-GQ-MOCW03-02.jpg
COURTESY OF FAMILY

The Taliban, which have stormed back to power in recent years all over the country, have been using child soldiers in even larger numbers than the government. In the north, in the Kunduz province, where the Taliban briefly captured the capital last year, insurgents used the schools to train children to fight on the front lines—instructing them in making and planting IEDs and detonating suicide vests at checkpoints. “The Taliban’s apparent strategy to throw increasing numbers of children into battle is as cynical and cruel as it is unlawful,” said Patricia Gossman, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Between September 2010 and December 2014, suicide attacks were carried out by 20 boys under the age of 18, according to a report from the U.N. In one incident, an IED was attached to a bicycle that a boy was made to push toward an Afghan National Army vehicle. The blast killed eight civilians as well as the child.

Still, as he joined the growing army of kids being called to fight, Wasil was different. Deeply committed and poised beyond his years, he was eager to fight. And unlike the rest of the child soldiers of the war, Wasil would soon be asked to lead.


By early 2015, Samad had a new reason to let his young nephew inch his way toward the fight: He needed the men. Across Afghanistan, the resurgent Taliban were a gathering threat. It hadn’t helped Samad that some of his own policemen—newly powerful and suddenly unruly—were making the prospect of a return to Taliban rule a bit more enticing to the locals in the valley. Several of his men had been implicated in assaults and robberies. And in a bid to amp up security, his cops increasingly resorted to harsh tactics: They rounded up elders and cut their beards to punish them for cooperating with the Taliban; they ordered the villagers to leave their doors open at night, in case the police wanted to search their homes.

Just 20 miles from the family compound, a force of roughly 2,000 newly emboldened insurgents had ventured from the mountains to besiege the Afghan Local Police’s district headquarters in Khas Uruzgan. From here, the Taliban set their sights on Samad’s unit and the valley from which he’d evicted them three years earlier.

By late May, the Taliban had begun their assault, targeting police checkpoints and forcing Samad’s fighters to withdraw farther and farther. In July, the police gathered their loved ones and planned one last retreat: They’d fall back to Samad’s three-story compound, where Wasil and his family were already ensconced. From there, they’d wait for rescue—or make their final stand.

Primed for what could come, Wasil was wearing the tiny gray police uniform his mother had stitched. He was 11 years old. He’d gotten pretty good with a rifle, but he had never fired a shot in battle, had never experienced the adrenaline rush and the terror of combat. But this was what he’d been training for.

child-warrior-0117-GQ-MOCW03-01.jpg
As the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan, police units—like Wasil’s—took up the fight against the Taliban.


As the police and the families made their way to the compound, Taliban snipers opened fire on them—killing two policemen and cutting down Samad, who took a pair of bullets, one in the leg.

From the roof of the compound, Wasil could see beyond the walls to where his uncle lay in the dirt, possibly dying; the Taliban were bearing down. Wasil’s uncle Merwais remembers vividly what happened next. He watched Wasil, crouching behind sandbags, take careful aim with a Russian-made machine gun. The boy squeezed the trigger and began working to pin the Taliban in place, buying enough time for the men inside the compound to reach the dead and injured and to haul them in.

A wounded Samad was hustled to a second-floor bedroom, where he named his nephew the surrogate commander. The police unit contained 26 men at that point—and putting a boy in charge as the battle began, Samad told me, made perfect sense. “He was intelligent, brave, and calm under fire, and well trained.”

“You guys are not men,” Wasil screamed over the radio. “Just give us time to take the children out.”

The child leapt to duty, now commanding a makeshift fortress of last resort. Outside, the Taliban soon had the place surrounded, hundreds of them firing from the mountains above and the valley below. Day and night—across what would eventually become a three-week siege—Wasil kept watch from the roof, pointing out Taliban positions to his fellow marksmen. “Wasil was telling the soldiers to go to this position, that position, and giving them ammunition, and shooting the heavy machine gun,” said Merwais. He may have been only a boy, but Wasil cut the figure of the military leader he had now become.

In early August, as Wasil worked from the rooftop, a Taliban gunner sent a rocket-propelled grenade into the thick mud-brick wall on the compound’s second floor. From a corner bedroom rose the smoke and flames of burning mattresses and wooden furniture, as two terrified children trapped inside cried out for help. Throughout the compound, there was confusion, but Wasil was calm. He grabbed a radio receiver and shouted to a Taliban officer on the other end.

“We want a cease-fire,” he screamed, his voice high-pitched and crackling over the radio. “There are two kids in that room, and we need to get them out.”

More shots rang out.

“You guys are not men,” Wasil screamed over the radio. “Just give us time to take the children out.” There was something about Wasil’s insistent tone, his confidence in the face of danger, that the Taliban commander admired. He gave the order that silenced the Taliban’s guns. Wasil had the children pulled from the burning room.

But the truce was short-lived. The hardships stacked up. Food ran low, and Wasil’s men were reduced to eating grass boiled into a kind of porridge. Throughout August, as the siege dragged on, Wasil and Samad pleaded with army commanders and government officials to get them out. But the Taliban held the roads.

Unbeknownst to those trapped in the compound, Taliban engineers had been digging a tunnel toward them. And on August 21, they used it to place about 3.3 tons of explosives beneath the rampart. A deafening explosion blew a hole in one of the mud walls, killing two of the policemen. Amid the confusion, Wasil got on the radio to the chief of police in Tirin Kot. “They’ve broken down the wall. They’re coming to get us. We need a helicopter rescue,” he begged.

Twenty-four hours later, four Russian Mi-17 helicopters filled with Afghan special forces flew out of Tirin Kot toward the compound. A U.S. gunship accompanied them, raining fire on the Taliban and sending them scurrying for cover. The four Mi-17’s touched down in front of the mud fortress, and Afghan soldiers raced inside. Samad, Merwais, 15 more fighters, Samad’s two wives, Wasil, his three brothers, three cousins, and his mother dashed out, ducking low beneath the swirling rotor blades and rising dust, and climbed aboard. A short time afterward, according to the district governor, the Taliban swarmed the compound and burned it to the ground.

“They’re coming to get us. We need a helicopter rescue,” Wasil begged.

The Taliban had taken the compound and the entirety of the valley, but stories were already spreading, tales that would captivate the country. Reports of how Wasil had fired 120 mortar rounds in a single day’s fighting; how he’d manned a Kalashnikov long enough and well enough to take out six Taliban fighters, how he’d coordinated food and ammo drops that saved his soldiers’ lives. Stories spread of how he had negotiated the rescue of those children—and of how, finally, he had arranged that daring evacuation by helicopter. “He fought with the courage of 100 men,” the district governor would say. He was hailed as a “lion”; even the Taliban would speak of him with a measure of respect. But it was too soon to know what that growing fame would eventually inspire.


Wasil stared out of the helicopter as it sailed over green valleys, barreling toward Tirin Kot. “We’re out of danger, we can relax now,” he told his 9-year-old brother, Rabbani. Then, having comforted the boy, he turned back to the disbelieving men who’d just rescued him, the troops from the Afghan special forces who wanted to know how this boy had defended the compound for three harrowing weeks.

Just beyond the gates of Tirin Kot, the chopper zipped over the blast walls of the heavily fortified Afghan National Army base and came to rest on the ground. Rahimullah Khan, then the deputy police chief of the Uruzgan province, was waiting for them at the airfield. The boy, his uniform covered in dust, a sidearm on his waist, shook Khan’s hand and then jumped into the front seat of a police car. “He was tired, and happy to be out of the war,” Khan told me.

Tirin Kot, a sprawl of mud-walled houses, was, then as now, a city under siege. The Afghan government’s control extended for just a few miles beyond the walls. Checkpoints and sandbagged posts ringed the city of 70,000, but Taliban infiltrators had still managed to slip into town and strike periodically, planting IEDs on the streets.

To help ease Wasil back toward normalcy, deputy police chief Khan put the family up in his guarded guesthouse, gave them a monthly stipend, and arranged for Wasil to attend a nearby school. Khan also removed the boy’s sidearm. “The pistol is our enemy,” he told me. “When you have a pistol, you are a target, you are in the fight.”

It wasn’t easy for Wasil to accept that his fight was over. Family members and others who had survived the siege treated him like a legendary warrior. Samad, in particular, was proud of his nephew’s celebrity and wanted to honor him as a hero. He resented anyone who downplayed the boy’s achievements. “We fought with the Taliban for many, many days, fighting 500 people,” he said. “They should have given us medals.”

This sort of hagiography worried Khan, who was stunned to see Wasil’s family play up his heroic exploits on social media. “They said, ‘Wasil did this.’ ‘Wasil did that,’ bragging about the kid, how he killed this person and that person,” he told me. The deputy police chief urged the family to lower the boy’s profile. He was afraid that Wasil’s growing status as a folk hero was likely to put him in the Taliban’s sights. He pleaded with Samad to protect his nephew. But Samad, always ambitious, brushed off the warnings. “The family didn’t accept my help,” Khan told me. “They went the wrong way.”


After a couple of months, Wasil’s family moved out of Khan’s guesthouse, saying that they needed more space. Samad was eager to keep stoking the mythology growing around his nephew and cultivated in the boy a sense that he wasn’t beholden to the same rules that governed other people: He allowed the 11-year-old to drive around town in a police-issue Ford Ranger pickup truck. Khan thought the truck was a bad idea: Giving a boy a police vehicle was hardly going to encourage him to behave like a kid. “I was trying to get Wasil into a school in Kabul to get him more educated,” Khan told me. “But his mind was being changed again.”

Wasil was being pulled in conflicting directions. “He played soccer and cricket, but he was not like a child,” a schoolmate told the press. “He was more like a grown man—always serious.”

Most mornings, after breakfast, Wasil, along with his brothers and cousins, worked for three hours with a tutor who taught English, Persian, and chemistry. And by all accounts, Wasil was making progress—despite a frequent preoccupation with his past life as a soldier. “He was an intelligent guy, with an open mind; he was grasping things quickly,” Wasil’s teacher, Mahmoud Khan, told me. “But he was thinking about guns, he was talking about guns. I told him, ‘You should leave these things behind. You should focus on learning.’ ”

In early February 2016, six months after the siege, Wasil and two of his cousins finished their midday prayers and strolled outside their compound, hoping to buy some fruit. Normally, the family discouraged them from venturing into the streets without police guards, but there was a fruit-and-vegetable stall just across the wide road, a 30-second walk away.

Wasil crossed the road while his two cousins peeled off and headed for another shop. As he inspected the oranges, bananas, and apples and chatted with the grocer, two men on a motorbike pulled up behind Wasil.

Then two pistol shots rang out, and Wasil staggered back. “After the first shot, he was just saying, ‘I’ve been hit.’ Then the second bullet hit him in the head, and he fell,” a witness recounted. “The apples he bought were covered in blood.” The assailants raced off on their bike and disappeared.

“If some kids are seeing this, what will they think? They will just leave the school and tell themselves, ‘I am going to become a hero.’”

At home, Samad had been napping but was roused suddenly by his shouting nephews. “Wasil’s been shot,” they cried. Wasil’s uncle ran outside and saw the boy lying in a pool of blood, unconscious. An ambulance rushed Wasil to the local hospital, and then he was airlifted to Kandahar. Wasil died en route.

The next day, Wasil’s family wrapped his body in a white cloth shroud and bore him in his Ford Ranger to the cemetery. Six hundred people attended his burial. The sight of the small boy’s body moved many to tears. “This was a small child,” the journalist Najeed Lattif, who attended the funeral, told me. Samad was also crying. “He was saying, ‘They killed my right-hand man,’” Lattif said.


Six weeks after Wasil’s assassination, I joined his younger brother Rabbani and his uncle Merwais on a visit to Wasil’s grave. (Samad had relocated to Khas Uruzgan to begin a three-month trial as the district police chief. “He is a good fighter,” Uruzgan’s new governor, Wazeer Khararoti, told me. “He knows how to fight the Taliban, but you have to rein him in like a horse and not let him go so far.”)

We crammed into an armored four-by-four and joined a convoy between a black Land Cruiser and a Humvee filled with a dozen policemen. We reached a barren hillside covered with grave markers—spindly branches strung with decorative flags. The police took up positions, and I followed the uncle and brother to Wasil’s grave, crudely marked with stones, chunks of cement, and two willow branches adorned with colored cloths. It was only temporary, Merwais told me. “We will take him home,” he said, “as soon as Nawa Sultan Mohammed is no longer in the Taliban’s hands.”

child-warrior-0117-GQ-MOCW02-01.jpg
After news spread of Wasil’s feats in battle, his family was urged to downplay the heroics—lest the growing mythology inspire the Taliban to kill the boy.

In the days just after Wasil was shot, as paeans to his bravery flooded social media, the Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination, according to The Independent. But when I reached the insurgents’ spokesman on the phone, he backed off, saying only that it “was possible” that the Taliban had killed him. He rebuked the Afghan police for encouraging the boy to fight and for then celebrating him as a hero.

That sentiment—that the breathless tales of Wasil’s exploits had contributed to his death—is shared by the region’s governor, Wazeer Khararoti. “He was a child, and we don’t have a right to make him a hero,” he told me. “If some kids are seeing this, what will they think? They will just leave the school and tell themselves, ‘I am going to become a hero.’”

But among the hard men who fight and die in Afghanistan’s violent backcountry, the governor’s perspective is not widely shared. There’s a grudging acceptance of the grim cycles that war perpetuates.

When I was in Kabul, I met with an old mujahideen fighter—a loyal friend of Samad’s—who now serves in parliament. His name is Haji Obaidullah Barakzai, and five years ago a Taliban fighter assassinated his 27-year-old son, as his son—Barakzai’s grandson—watched from a nearby car. The incident was eerily similar to the one that had put Wasil on his path for revenge, and it inspired in this boy the same response. He’s 8 now, and he’s been consumed by one thought. “I want to kill the Taliban who killed my father,” he told me shyly.

Barakzai hadn’t yet taken him to the firing range, but that day, he said, was not far off. “I’m buying plastic guns for the boy,” he told me, “so that he will be ready.”

child-warrior-0117-gq-mocw03-02

child-warrior-0117-gq-mocw02-01

Joshua Hammer wrote about the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 in the March 2016 issue of GQ.

This piece originally appeared in the January 2017 issue, with the title “The Improbable Life and Stunning Death of a Child Warrior.”

Categories: Middle East, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Hacking Through Partisanship in the U.S. Electoral Scandal……


DECEMBER 13, 2016 | 03:54 GMT

More than a month after the U.S. presidential election, the tumult shows no sign of dying down. In fact, the noise around the roles of hacking and cyber intrusions in the vote rose several decibels Monday, following a weekend of charges that Russia put its thumb on the scales in November’s election. But the resulting political debate, fueled by accusations that President-elect Donald Trump’s supporters and potential Cabinet members were complicit in the hacks or, alternatively, that the Democrats are sore losers trying to undermine the incoming administration, is obscuring the larger geopolitical issues at play. What’s more, it overlooks the fact that cyber intrusions are only the latest tool in a time-honored tradition of electoral meddling.

At issue in the current maelstrom is not the sanctity of the voting process itself, but rather the manipulation of voter sentiment by foreign powers. America’s voting method varies from state to state, or even county to county, and uses hundreds of systems to track millions of paper and digital ballots cast by different means at different times. By inadvertent virtue of this arcane system, U.S. ballot boxes are more resistant to direct hacking than perhaps any other voting platform in the world. But the American electorate is not tamper proof.

The U.S. electoral process, flawed though some claim it is, remains the backbone of the country’s political system. The system is designed to be resilient in its complexity, to avoid (or at least deter) the over-concentration of power, and to enable each to express his or her opinion. At the same time, it is also designed to ensure a level of continuity and stability. Trust in the political process, even when the results are dissatisfactory, is essential to preserving national unity and preempting extra-constitutional attempts to alter the political landscape. If the process is seen as faulty or manipulated, national cohesion and the perceived legitimacy of political power will suffer. Consequently, foreign manipulation of U.S. elections is a serious issue.

It is not unprecedented, however. Foreign powers have long used information campaigns, propaganda and political messaging to try to create doubt around one candidate or another and to shape the narrative ahead of elections. The Iranians may well have delayed the release of hostages in part to create an environment conducive to President Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, hoping for a better deal. In 1996, Chinese fundraising scandals surrounded the re-election of President Bill Clinton (who later paved the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization) and Democratic congressional candidates. In fact, there may even be precedent for a president’s complicity in electoral manipulation; Richard Nixon’s campaign tried to influence the collapse of Vietnamese peace talks to facilitate his own election. Russian disinformation campaigns have also been around for years, from rumors of U.S. chemical and biological weapons during the Korean War to stories, allegedly planted by Moscow, of the FBI’s role in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination. One could even argue that European leaders, or at least media and interest groups, fetted Barack Obama during his first run for the presidency, highlighting his differences with his predecessor, with the clear intention of reshaping U.S. policy direction.

Furthermore, the United States is not always the victim of these tactics. Washington has frequently been accused of interfering, more and less overtly, in other countries’ elections, most recently after the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines made critical remarks about Rodrigo Duterte during his bid for office. From Radio Free Europe to the National Endowment for Democracy, America has an array of “soft power” tools at its disposal to shape not just foreign elections, but foreign political systems as well. Attempts to interfere in, or at least influence, elections are the norm in international politics rather than the exception. Though no one wants to admit that his or her victory may have been shaped in part by foreign powers, the world always seems to have its vote, particularly in U.S. elections.

In addition to trying to influence elections directly, foreign powers are always looking for internal information on candidates and parties that they can use to anticipate shifts in U.S. policy or adjust their language and behavior to shape policies. Compared with older techniques such as wiretapping, bugging, breaking into offices or devising ruses to ply information from insiders, cyber tools are far more expedient and less risky. They are also harder to trace, further adding to the confusion.

Despite the outcry over Russia’s hacking activities, we are not on the cusp of a new Cold War. In many ways, however, the world is far more complex than it was during the Cold War — though, on the plus side, the threat of thermonuclear war no longer looms quite as large. The United States and Russia are once again at odds with each other, divided along an array of geopolitical lines, and the former Soviet periphery is once again the scene of heavy competition between the two. But the ideological, political, economic and security dichotomy of the Cold War has since given way to a more diverse global landscape. Today, power is more diffuse, the lines between friend and foe are blurred, and economic integration often coexists with strategic competition. Each nation still has its own interests, but the global framework of “West” and “East” no longer provides an easy rubric.

There is little doubt that Russia, among other countries, tried to craft information campaigns with the intent to shape the U.S. presidential elections. Moscow may even be said to have actively interfered in the race if it did, in fact, selectively release emails. Still, it is hard to argue that its activities were enough to tip the balance, even in a close race. By politicizing the latest instance of foreign electoral meddling to the point where each side of the political spectrum is reduced to solely accusing the other of lying, we risk misplacing the focus on partisan instead of strategic issues.

Perhaps a more productive way to assess the accusations is to ask a few different questions: Is hacking significantly different from a disgruntled staff member’s leak, from loose talk at a bar, or from stolen or misplaced documents? Is a campaign or political party staff member’s email a national security issue or a matter of basic information management? Is U.S. government information better protected than private information? How quickly and effectively is the U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence community adapting to the changing information landscape? How does one balance privacy, freedom and security (a perennial question in the United States)?

And, maybe most important, are U.S. elections at significant risk of true foreign manipulation, or are they simply vulnerable to attempts at information-shaping? The latter we know how to deal with. The former is a fundamental threat that merits dispassionate investigation.

Categories: CIA, Congress, Democrats, Government Secrets, Law suit, Middle East, Obama, One Government, Saudi Arabia, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sandpit view of the Afghan War Zone….


A very interesting read, a Marine’s View of what is really going on.  This young man is articulate and has a flare for colorful language, and descriptive prose,  Scorpions, Chiggers & Sand Fleas.  It’s a great letter, a must read for every American citizen.

From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan:

From the Sand Pit

It’s freezing here.  I’m sitting on hard cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountains, along the Dar’yoi Pamir River, watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave.  Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.

I also glance at the area around my ass every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting.  I’ve actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but the scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod.  Hurts like a bastard.  The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.  The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water.  That requires couriers and that’s where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy.

I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the hand held, and shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware.  We bash some heads for a while, and then I track and record the new movement.  It’s all about intelligence.  We haven’t even brought in the snipers yet.  These scurrying rats have no idea what they’re in for.  We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.  But you know me; I’m a romantic.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This country blows, man.  It’s not even a country.  There are no roads, there’s no infrastructure, there’s no government.

This is an inhospitable, rock-pit shit-hole ruled by eleventh century warring tribes.  There are no jobs here like we know jobs.  Afghanistan offers only two ways for a man to support his family, join the opium trade or join the army.  That’s it.  Those are your options.  Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu, if that’s your idea of a party.  But the smell alone of those ‘tent cities of the walking dead’ is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.

I’ve been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pashtu’s, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, are Huns, actual, living Huns.  They LIVE to fight.  It’s what they do.  It’s ALL they do.  They have no respect for anything; not for themselves, their families, or for each other.  They claw at one another as a way of life.  They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor.  Just Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other’s barbarism.  Cavemen with AK-47’s.  Then again, maybe I’m just a cranky young bastard.

I’m freezing my ass off on this stupid hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice, and I can’t recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours.  Oh yeah!  You like to write letters, right?  Do me a favor, Bizarre.  Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban “smart”.  They are not smart.  I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is “cunning”.  The Taliban are cunning, like jackals, hyenas, and wolverines.  They are sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, they are cowardly.  They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else.

Smart?  Bullshit!  Yeah, they’re real smart,  Most can’t read, but they’ve spent their entire lives listening to Imams telling them about only one book (and not a very good one, as books go).  They consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil.  They’re still trying to figuring out how to work a Bic lighter.  Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen.   Eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.

OK, enough.  Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to my hole.  Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but I’m good at it.

Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV sets and move on with your lives.  The story line you are getting from CNN and other news agencies is utter bullshit and designed not to deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen so you will watch the next commercial.  We’ve got this one under control.  The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we’re doing over here.  You have no idea what we’re doing, and you really don’t want to know.  We are your military, and we are only doing what you sent us here to do.

From a Jack Recon Marine in Afghanistan, Semper Fi.

“Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps is paying most of your share”.

Send this to YOUR FRIENDS so that people there will really know what is going on over here.

God Bless America.

PS  Why would any civilized country want to bring these barbarians into their cities or states.  To do so is total suicidal insanity!

Categories: CIA, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Secrets, Illegals, Liberals, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 5 Comments

What Obama Got Wrong in the State of the Union….


Heritage Foundation experts weighed in on the policies President Barack Obama mentioned in his last State of the Union address. Here is what they had to say after the president’s speech.

Economy

The Economy Is Far From Booming

President Obama boasts America is in the “middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.” On paper, he is right. But the economy is far from booming.

While the labor market has improved, it remains much weaker than before the recession hit.

As Obama noted, the unemployment rate has fallen and the economy has added jobs. Unfortunately, much of this improvement comes from Americans dropping out of the labor force. People not looking for work do not count as unemployed.

Yet, they still lack jobs.

The employment rate for 25-54 year olds remains over 2 percentage points below pre-recession levels. Most of the hiring the president touted was simply job creation keeping pace with population growth.

Those Americans who did lose their jobs still have a hard time finding new work. The average unemployed worker has spent over six months jobless. That is longer than any time between the end of World War II and Obama’s inauguration. Workers have good reason to feel anxious about the economy.

– James Sherk, research fellow in labor economics

Obama’s Backwards Thinking on Economic Value of Renewable Energy

President Obama boasted that “On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills and employs more than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.”

Proponents of renewable energy consistently argue that renewables create more jobs per kilowatt hour and thus are a good investment. If that’s the recipe for job creation and economic growth, we can scrap using machinery to pave roads and grow crops.

By Obama’s logic, we can create more jobs by giving people shovels to perform those duties. That would certainly create jobs, but it would also significantly reduce productivity. If we can produce more energy with less labor, that frees up human resources to be productive elsewhere in the economy.

Importantly, there are several key omissions from Obama’s statement. Heavy-handed regulations devoid of any meaningful environmental benefit are driving out coal as an important, reliable energy source and destroying jobs in the process. Solar benefits from generous taxpayer-funded subsidies and while the costs are coming down, solar still remains one of the priciest ways to generate electricity.

If Obama wants to tip his hat to something, he should point to that fact that market-driven small drilling technologies have put money back into the wallets of families. According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration,

“Wholesale electricity prices at major trading hubs on a monthly average basis for on-peak hours were down 27 percent-37 percent across the nation in 2015 compared with 2014, driven largely by lower natural gas prices.”

As Obama said, “I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy.” The oil and gas boom is but one shining example.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

It’s Obama’s Economy, Not the Robots, Workers Should Fear

The President argued that automation has become uniquely challenging for American workers. It’s a strange problem to highlight, for two reasons. First, economists have found no historical relationship between automation and employment rates. In the past, workers who lost their jobs because of technology always found new work. Automation only seems like a threat because finding new jobs in Obama’s recovery has been historically difficult.

Chart2

Second, the rate of automation has slowed sharply since 2003. Employers are finding fewer new ways to automate labor in this decade than they did in the last. Increased automation increases labor productivity; it allows employers to produce their goods with fewer man hours (and more machine hours) than before. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds labor productivity has slowed for the past decade. Automation has become a smaller challenger for workers than it was in the past.

The economy faces many challenges. Robots broadly eliminating the need for human labor is not among them.

 – James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

Government Policies Caused the Financial Crisis and Made the Recession Worse

No, recklessness on Wall Street did not cause the financial crisis, a host of terrible government policies did.

President Bill Clinton’s National Partners in Homeownership set a completely arbitrary goal of increasing home ownership, and it turned out most qualified homebuyers already owned homes. All the additional lending helped to create a housing bubble and increased consumer debt, and the capital requirements that federal regulators imposed on the financial system spread risky loans throughout the markets.

The ever-increasing socialization of losses, by both implicit and explicit government guarantees, added fuel for the fire. The system that gave us the crisis – affordable housing goals, shaky underwriting standards and Fannie and Freddie – remains largely in place.  If we want to prevent another crisis,these policies need to be reversed.

Norbert Michel, research fellow in financial regulations

We Dont Need Government ‘Investments’ in Energy

Energy is one of the last sectors of the economy that needs help from the federal government or a centralized plan. The laws of supply and demand work quite well. We have an abundance of resources, and a great deal of suppliers producing energy from a mix of energy sources. The global market for energy is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity.

One energy consulting firm estimated that in 2011, world expenditures for energy totaled more than $6 trillion – 10 percent of global Gross Domestic Product and the second largest expenditure behind health care.

The International Energy Agency projects that that tens of trillions of dollars of energy investment will be necessary to meet global energy demands over the next twenty years. Any company that has a viable technology will not need any help from the taxpayer or a government program. Profits will reward innovative ideas and promising technologies.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow

Obama-Era Regulations Cost Taxpayers $80 Billion a Year

President Obama tonight stated that “there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut.”

He is right. But he has said that many times before. And, despite all the talk, his administration has done virtually nothing to reform or repeal the unnecessary red tape. Instead of rooting out outdated rules, he has added on record numbers of new ones.

Overall, according to our annual “Red Tape Rising” report on federal regulation, 184 major new rules have been imposed on the American people since Obama took office, costing some $80 billion each and every year. The number of such rules pared back: only 17. So much for cutting red tape.

Rather than the careful assessment of new and old rules the president spoke of, in practice his regulatory policy has been a one way ratchet toward ever more rules from Washington governing the lives of Americans.

James Gattuso, senior research fellow in regulatory policy

Squeezed Earnings Happened Under Obama’s Watch

President Obama talked about long-term economic trends squeezing workers. He should have made it clear this squeeze is a recent phenomenon.Congressional Budget Office data shows that workers at every income level prospered between 1979 and 2007.

During that period non-elderly households in the middle quintile saw their labor market earnings rise by a third. Households in the poorest quintile saw their labor market income rise well over 50 percent. From the Reagan Presidency until the Great Recession, American economic opportunities expanded up and down the income ladder.

Chart

Since the Recession and the slow Obama recovery that has changed. Between 2007 and 2011 (the most recent data available) labor income for non-elderly households in the middle quintile dropped roughly 10 percentage points.

No wonder Americans are down on the economy. But these problems have predominantly occurred on Obama’s watch. That should make Americans skeptical that doubling down on his preferred policies would fix them.

James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

No Presidential Leadership on Entitlement Reform

President Obama stated in the State of the Union tonight that “Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them.” Beyond catering to his political base, Obama offered no details on how he would strengthen these programs.

Obama failed the nation during his term thus far when it comes to reforming Social Security and Medicare. Despite his 2009 promise that “some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else,” we’ve seen very little action from the president on accomplishing this feat. Unsustainable, poorly conceived cuts to Medicare from Obamacare and a bailout of Social Security’s disability program can hardly be counted as entitlement reform.

One of every $10 produced by the U.S. economy in fiscal year 2015 was spent on only three federal programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

These three programs alone consume more than half of all federal spending and they are growing rapidly. The next president must lead on entitlement reform upon entering office.

Romina Boccia, deputy director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Grover M. Hermann Research Fellow

When Job Training Hurts, Not Helps

The Hippocratic oath enjoins doctors to “first, do no harm.” The president should keep that in mind with his job training proposals. He suggested sending unemployment insurance recipients through federal job training. But evaluations find one of the major federal job training programs makes it harder for workers to get jobs.

The federal government funds “Trade Adjustment Assistance” benefits for workers who lose their job to foreign trade. The program includes generous federal subsidies and free job training. You might expect this to improve displaced workers’ incomes. But when Mathematica evaluated the program, it found participants made $27,000 less than workers outside the program.

What happened? Trade Adjustment Assistance encouraged jobless workers to enroll in federal job training programs instead of looking for new work immediately. But the job training didn’t improve their job prospects. So they wasted over a year they could have spent job hunting in a training program employers didn’t value. Workers never fully recovered from missing those potential job opportunities. Even the federal subsidies only partially made up their losses. The unemployed workers would have made more money skipping the training program, even if it meant forgoing the federal subsidies.

Congress should think carefully before creating another federal job training program. They could easily wind up hurting the workers they want to help.

James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

The Same Tired Line on Federal Infrastructure Spending

Once again, President Obama made a cursory mention of infrastructure in his State of the Union, claiming that if only the federal government would spend more taxpayer money (gleaned from higher taxes on fossil fuels), the government can “put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.” But as innocuous as this agenda sounds, it fundamentally misses the mark.

Using government spending to stimulate job creation was a cornerstone of the Obama stimulus plan that ultimately failed to produce the “shovel ready” jobs the president promised. A big problem is that infrastructure projects take a long time to plan and require highly-skilled labor, meaning that spending on these projects is ineffective at creating new jobs for recently unemployed Americans (most of whom lack the necessary job skills). The federal government has a very poor track record as a job creator, and spending on infrastructure is no exception.

Instead, transportation infrastructure should focus scarce resources on enhancing mobility and relieving congestion so that American workers, businesses, and travelers all over the country can get where they need to go. At this, the top-down federal transportation program has been ineffective. The federal gas taxes that were originally intended to maintain the Interstate Highway System – a true national priority – are diverted to various special interests by Congress and federal bureaucrats. Over a quarter of gas taxes are siphoned to projects that are not proper federal priorities, such as local transit and bike-share programs, while a mere six percent goes to the actual construction of major projects.

Due to perennial overspending on transportation projects, the federal Highway Trust Fund has required over $140 billion in bailouts since 2008. And even though the president pledged that we should not “subsidize the past”, the federal government spends millions in subsidies incentivizing cities to build cumbersome and expensive streetcar projects, which last saw their heyday in the early 20th century.

Federal promises of job creation and effective infrastructure investment have floundered. Rather than continuing the one-size-fits all approach out of Washington that has left millions of Americans stuck in traffic, the federal government should get out of the way to empower the states and private sector–who can best gauge local priorities–to truly build a 21st century transportation system.

Michael Sargent, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Presidents Obama vs. President Reagan on Trade

In his final State of the Union Address, President Obama suggested the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would “open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership.”

The key factor for Congress to evaluate will be whether TPP really doespromote open markets and economic freedom. If it does, workers and the environment will benefit. The latest rankings of trade freedom around the world in the Heritage Foundation’s forthcoming 2016 Index of Economic Freedom confirm that citizens of countries that embrace free trade are better off than those in countries that do not. The data continue to show a strong correlation between trade freedom and a variety of positive indicators, including economic prosperity, low poverty rates, and clean environments.

Obama missed an opportunity to explain the benefits of trade when he said, “Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise.” In fact, the global economy brings enormous benefits to workers, both through importsused by American manufacturers to compete, and through jobs provided to nearly 6 million workers thanks to foreign investment in the United States.

As President Ronald Reagan observed in his final State of the Union address: “One of the greatest contributions the United States can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs.”

Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel senior policy analyst

Education

President’s Preschool Push Entangles Washington in the Care of the Youngest Americans

President Obama’s suggestion that government should become further entangled in the education and care of the youngest Americans would not serve children or taxpayers well.

Washington already has a poor track record engaging in K–12 education, with federal spending more than doubling over the past three decades while academic achievement and attainment has languished, particularly among low-income students.

Further federal intervention in preschool and childcare will crowd out the private provision of care, increase costs for taxpayers, and will fail to create lasting academic benefits for children, as recent evaluations of state and federal programs have demonstrated. A large-scale evaluation of the federal Head Start program found the program had no impact on the academic outcomes, social-emotional well being, health outcomes, or parenting practices of participants.

A recent evaluation of Tennessee’s voluntary pre-K program (TN-VPK) had similarly unimpressive outcomes. Researchers from Vanderbilt found that in Tennessee’s program, which is lauded as a model of state preschool programs by proponents, by second grade,

the [experiment and control] groups began to diverge with the TN-VPK children scoring lower than the control children on most of the measures. The differences were significant on both achievement composite measures and on the math subtests.

More federal intervention in preschool and childcare will also fail to address deeper social issues while being largely duplicative of existing efforts, as nearly three-quarters of four-year-olds are already enrolled in some form of preschool.

Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education at The Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity

More Federal Subsidies Will Not Solve the College Cost Problem

The president’s proposal to provide “free” community college is not the solution to the college affordability problem. Students who are low-income already have access to federal student aid such as Pell Grants, which can be used to finance the cost of attending community college. So the proposal will serve as little more than a federal handout to the community college system. Community colleges also face their own challenges, with less than 20 percentof first time students enrolled in community colleges graduating within three years.

America’s $1.2 trillion student loan tab presents a serious problem in our economy. Americans would be better served by policies that actually help to lower higher education costs, making higher education an engine of upward mobility for American who choose to pursue it. That goal requires broad reforms to accreditation, reforms to federal student aid programs, and streamlining and reducing burdensome regulations and requirements that permeate higher education today.

Mary Clare Reim, research associate in education policy 

Foreign Policy and National Security

No Strategy, Only Spin When It Comes to Fighting ISIS

A few years ago President Obama described ISIS as the “JV team.”

Today, the terror group poses more of a threat to the world than ever before. As recent Heritage Foundation research pointed out, in the past two years ISIS has established a presence in 19 countries. Foreign fighters are flocking to the wannabe caliphate in droves.

In Syria and Iraq, ISIS controls territory the size of Maryland and rules over a population equivalent to Virginia’s. Although ISIS was recently kicked out of the Iraqi town of Ramadi, it still occupies Mosul—Iraq’s second largest city of almost 2 million people.

Obama’s remarks tonight reaffirmed what everyone already knew: that there is no strategy to defeat ISIS and he cannot wait to pass the buck to his successor.

Even though the U.S. dropped 22,110 bombs against ISIS in 2015 (by comparison, during the first 30 days alone of the 2003 Iraq invasion the U.S dropped 29,000 munitions) the air campaign has achieved minimal success on the ground. The administration’s program to train and equip so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels has been a complete failure—to the tune of $500 million. More importantly, the U.S. has failed at drumming up more support on the Arab Street to take on ISIS.

Sadly, the next U.S. President will inherit a mess in the region.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A Delusional National Security Review

When it came to national security issues, President Obama’s State of the Union address veered from delusional to dishonest. He presented the American people with a series of false choices, straw arguments and inaccurate assessments regarding his track record.

Regarding Islamic State (ISIS, or ISIL), Obama tried to downplay the existential threat they posed. The president has past form on this. It was, after all, his complacency towards the gathering strength of the group in 2013/14 (when he referred to them as a “jayvee team”) that helped ISIS grow into the threat it now truly is. Rather than learning this lesson, he instead focused his ire on those who “build [ISIL] up”.

Obama went on to provide a list of initiatives that the U.S. was spearheading in the war against the group, which included efforts to “cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology.” These were unusual examples to cite, because on every count, these efforts have failed. ISIS is stocked with foreign fighters, its ideology has spread across the globe, it has launched attacks in mainland Europe and it remains financially strong.

Obama also dismissed the idea that theology could be at the heart of ISIS’s appeal, dubbing them simply “killers and fanatics”. Yet a refusal to acknowledge the religious component to ISIS’s activities is counter-productive. It is only by understanding the group’s appeal and its beliefs that we can subsequently cut off the sources of its recruitment.

Obama constructed another straw man by claiming that “the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq” was that the U.S. cannot “try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis”. This was particularly absurd. No one seriously believes that the U.S. could or should take on such a role. It also ignores the fact that what Obama claims to be his “smarter” approach has led to disasters in Libya, Syria and Yemen, to name but three. Attempting to argue that his “patient and disciplined” strategy meant the U.S. was “leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace” in Syria was a particularly deluded attempt at recasting the situation there as anything other than an utter disaster.

Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow

US Lacks a Grand Strategy to Deal With Russian Aggression

Almost seven years later, the so-called Russian ‘reset’ policy is now a Russian regret. Russia still occupies 20 percent of Georgia’s territory. Moscow’s imperialism has resulted in the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea and a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Russia is testing NATO in the Baltics, rebuilding its military bases in the Arctic, and has intervened in the Syrian Civil War with no regard to the consequences.

Since taking office President Obama and many of those around him have assumed that Vladimir Putin is someone you can do business with, that Europe is no longer important, and that military power no longer buys the same influence on the world stage as it once did. These assumptions have led to bad policy decisions (such as the removal of 10,000 U.S. troops from Europe and drastic cuts to the U.S. military) by this White House that has emboldened Russian aggression and tested the transatlantic alliance to its limits.

During the State of the Union address Obama glossed over Russia’s aggression. Astoundingly, the upcoming NATO Summit in July 2016, Obama’s last, did not even get a mention in the Commander in Chief’s 5,438 word long speech. In fact, the word NATO was not said at all.

Just because a problem is ignored does not mean it will go away. As Heritage Foundation experts have pointed out, the U.S. needs a comprehensive grand strategy to deal with Russia. Unfortunately, it looks like America and her allies will have to wait for 2017 because this becomes a possibility. No doubt Putin will be taking advantage of the situation during the meantime.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A Disconnect on Middle East Policy

President Obama remained in denial about the disastrous nature of his Middle East policy throughout the small parts of his state of the union speech that dealt with foreign policy.

He said that: “Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks.” That certainly was not the case in his last state of the union speech, which was the first that did not mention al-Qaeda since George W. Bush’s 2002 speech. He glossed over the uneven results of his half-hearted, slow-motion incremental response to the rise of ISIS and fumbling responses to the deepening crisis in Syria, where his administration has been consistently behind the curve.

His optimism on defeating these two terrorist networks would be reassuring if he wasn’t the same misinformed person who told Americans that the war in Iraq had ended, that ISIS was a “J.V. team” and that ISIS was contained the day before it launched the Paris terrorist attacks that killed 130 people.

He also made no mention of Iran’s terrorist network, which is sure to be boosted when Tehran collects up to $100 billion in sanctions relief under his risky nuclear deal. But perhaps he believes that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship will swayed by his optimism that “the unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

– James Phillips, senior research fellow for middle eastern affairs

Yet Another ‘Close GITMO’ Promise

Once again, President Obama used his State of the Union speech to urge Congress to work with him to close the terrorist detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO). But it is worth reminding everyone that GITMO is open for one reason and one reason only: because Obama failed to close the facility when the stage was set for him to do so.

In 2009-2010, Obama’s own party held a 59-41 majority in the Senate, and a 257-178 advantage in the House of Representatives. If the president needed any legislation to close Guantanamo—a debatable point—or simply the political backing of the majorities in both houses of Congress, the stars were aligned for him to do so.

But instead of working with Congress to close GITMO in 2009-2010, the administration engaged in a series of controversial moves that caused a bi-partisan uproar, resulting in the Democrat-controlled congress passing legislation that each year since 2009 has made it more difficult to close GITMO.

Failing to lead has serious consequences. The window to close GITMO has come and gone.

Today, the threats from al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, ISIS and associated forces are very real. Transferring some of the 103 remaining detainees and moving the rest to the United States – in direct violation of a congressional statute passed with Democratic support – is not prudent.

Changing the zip code of where we keep terrorist detainees will not alter the terrorists’ hatred for and attempted attacks against the United States one bit.

– Cully Stimpson, manager, national security law program and senior legal fellow

Obama’s Failed Cuba Policy

The facts clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of President Obama’s radical new Cuba policy. Diplomatic recognition and increased commercial opportunities to the Castro regime have emboldened the military dictatorship. This has directly resulted in historic levels of repression against the anti-Castro opposition.

It’s also resulted in a continuation of hostility against U.S. national security interests.

Despite a year chock full of unilateral concessions, Havana continues undermining the U.S. and our interests. Dissidents have suffered historic levels of repression, even during Pope Francis’s visit to the island.

Recently, it was discovered the regime has been in possession for over a year of an inert U.S. Hellfire Missile, which was shipped from Spain to the island. The administration has not been able to answer how it got there, or if other hostile countries have obtained sensitive defense technology from it.

We must also keep in mind that it was only two summers ago when the Cuban government violated U.N. Security Council sanctions by clandestinely shipping weapons to North Korea.

It was incredibly shameful for the president to laude his overtures to Havana as a “success.”

– Ana Quintana, policy analyst, Latin America and the Western Hemisphere

A Presidential Lecture

Perhaps one of the most petulant presidents in modern history, lectured the country during the State of the Union not to assume that people who disagree with them act with malice. And this same president, known for a slew of controversial executive actions on such important issues as immigration and the right to bear arms, grumbled that he could not act alone, but needed Congress.

Yes, just three months after pouring invective on governors and congressmen who disagreed with him on refugees as not simply leaders with whom he disagreed; they were “un-American” and “shameful,” President Barack Obama said in the State of the Union message that “democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.”

Obama appeared close to coming to grips with the fact that his peevish, sullen approach to politics has made things worse in Washington. “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency – that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide,” said Obama.

But then, Obama added, “But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task – or any president’s – alone.” Tell that to a Congress that keeps complaining that Obama does go alone whenever he doesn’t get his way on Capitol Hill.

Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy

Obama Tries to Downplay ISIS Threat (Again)

First President Obama called the Islamic State a “JV Team,” then he said they were “contained,” just before an ISIS inspired terrorist attack. Now Obama has characterized ISIS as “masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks” during the State of the Union address.

The president’s most recent characterization of ISIS again tries to downplay the terrorist group’s capabilities, suggesting it is something far less formidable than it actually is.

ISIS is, however, armed to the teeth with tanks, Humvees, surface-to-air missiles, and artillery. It fields a conventional force that has routed a far-larger Iraqi military that was trained and equipped by the United States. It still controls swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria, and millions live under its subjugation. It is carving out a presence in Libya, and making a push to control that country’s lucrative oil fields.

ISIS lost approximately 14 percent of its territory in 2015, but it is far from defeated. It is certainly not a ragtag band of second-tier terrorists, which is how Obama too frequently portrays the group. During the State of the Union, the President decried the mistrust between Republicans and Democrats. Frequently mischaracterizing the ISIS danger that is obvious to most Americans is precisely the sort of thing that breeds the very suspicion the president laments.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A False Foreign Policy Alternative 

President Obama offered his usual false alternative between occupying and rebuilding “every country that falls into crisis” (an option that literally no one is proposing), or agreeing with his foreign policy. Putting it that way is a cheat, not a choice.

But let’s take the president at his word, which is that he wants the U.S. to “help remake” the international system that the U.S. built after 1945.

Even he doesn’t seem sure about this, because a few lines later, he suggests instead that we should be seeking to strengthen that order, not remake it. And a president more grounded in history might wonder if it’s wise to want to remake the order: from 1815 to 1918 to 1945 to 1991, the system has been at its most flexible after the world has been exhausted by a major war, which isn’t what any of us want.

Nor did the president suggest a single measure that would genuinely re-make the world order: from fighting terrorism to complaining about ungoverned spaces to lecturing Russia to talking about trade deals, his proposals (or rather, his applause lines) were all old hat. But yet, if his goal really is to remake the order, he’s actually doing a good job of it. That order was grounded on U.S. pre-eminence – but from Ukraine, to Syria, to Iran, it’s American weakness, not its strength or its leadership, that’s on display.

A world order without American leadership would indeed be a new one. But it’s not one that most Americans, or most people around the world, would like.

Theodore R. Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations

Climate Change

Reasons You Should Not Feel Lonely If You’re Questioning Whether Climate Change Is a Problem

President Obama said feel free to question the science behind climate change but doing so will leave you “pretty lonely” because “you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

This “problem” of climate change is hardly one at all. Natural variations have altered the climate much more than man has. Proponents of global action on climate change will argue that 97 percent of the climatologists agree on climate change. There is significant agreement among climatologists, even those labeled as skeptics, that the Earth has warmed moderately over the past 60 years and that some portion of that warming may be attributed to manmade carbon dioxide emissions. However, there is no consensus that temperatures are increasing at an accelerating rate and we’ve seen them plateau for nearly two decades now.

Even studies that have attempted to refute the 18-year pause in global warming show that the temperature trend is much less than that projected by climate models. And even though man-made greenhouse gas emissions have increased, the world has not experienced trends in the increased frequency or magnitude of extreme weather events.

Heritage research has shown that the statistical models that the administration relies on to quantify the economic impact of climate change are heavily dependent upon certain assumptions and extremely sensitive to very reasonable tweaks to these assumptions.  In fact, under some assumptions one of the models that the administration relies on suggests that there may even be net benefits to global warming. That’s right: benefits.

The climate data simply does not suggest that man-made global warming should be at the top of the list of public concerns. Most importantly, even if you do believe the planet is heading toward catastrophe, the Obama administration’s climate agenda will drive up energy costs by driving out affordable energy sources for no meaningful climate reduction. We could grind all economic activity to a halt, hold our breaths forever, and cut carbon emissions to zero in the U.S. — and still only wind up lowering average temperatures by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

Politicians might want to start listening to those “lonely” climate voices and have an objective, scientific debate on climate change.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

Kevin Dayaratna, senior satistician and research programmer

Obama’s Climate Agenda Will Cost the Economy, Not Grow It

When discussing taking action on climate change, President Obama said that it doesn’t really matter if you believe in climate change because “why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?” He went on to say, “But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve – that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.”

But the reality of a government-forced shift away from carbon-emitting natural resources such as coal, oil and natural gas will be a net cost to the economy – not a net gain. And the math isn’t even close. At a time when 80 percent of America’s energy needs are met by these carbon-emitting energy sources, restricting their use will drive up costs for households and businesses.

Carbon dioxide cutting policies will do nothing but kill jobs and stifle the American economy for years to come. Heritage research has found that the policies associated with these carbon cutting regulations will reduce aggregate gross-domestic product (GDP) by more than $2.5 trillion and kill hundreds upon thousands of jobs over the course of the next decade—all for a negligible impact on global temperatures. Manufacturing employment throughout the country will be hit particularly hard.

Obama’s climate agenda is all pain, no gain.

– Kevin Dayaratna, senior statistician and research programmer

Nicolas Loris, Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow

Agree or Disagree With Catastrophic Global Warming, There Are Serious Problems With Obama’s Approach

President Obama continues to distract from the legitimate disagreements Americans and their representatives in local, state, and federal levels of government have with this administration’s global warming agenda. Obama focused on painting a picture of “lonely” opponents who are anti-science. But even people who believe that global warming is a problem have disagreed with the President on how he has attempted to address it.

Most notably, the cornerstone of Obama’s agenda – a pair of greenhouse gas regulations known as the Clean Power Plan – fail to meet the standards of the American system of government. The Clean Power Plan rules require states to meet carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for existing power plants and to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from new power plants to levels that are so low as to effectively prevent any coal power plant from running without carbon capture and sequestration technology (technology which has yet to be proven feasible).

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, put it eloquently in saying that representative government, not the pros and cons of addressing climate change, is at issue:

“At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution. … Accordingly, EPA’s gambit would mean citizens surrendering their right to be represented by an accountable and responsive government that accords with the postulates of federalism.”

As Obama said, “Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.” But that system breaks down when decisions normally left to states and individuals are centralized in Washington.

Regardless of political party or position on climate change or global warming, there are serious problems with the climate agenda that the Obama administration has attempted to push through.

– Katie Tubb, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

The Energy Investments ‘We’ Made

President Obama boasted during his State of the Union address that “Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.”

The trouble isn’t investing in alternative technologies like wind and solar; as with other energy resources, these should have the opportunity to compete in a truly free market of energy choices. The problem is who Obama means when he says “we.”

Rather than leaving energy choices to American families and businesses, “we” has consistently meant forcing taxpayers to subsidize politically preferred energy technologies. And here are some of those results:

  • Americans footed the bill for billions of dollars in federal energy spending under the Obama stimulus package, which increased federal energy spending by over 2,000 percent. And yet politicians keep buying into the same mentality that got us Solyndra, which cost American taxpayers millions.
  • $23.8 billion in tax credits will go to subsidize wind, solar, and other renewables over the next decade by the yet-again extension of production and investment tax credits for these energy sources. The wind production tax credit has been extended, re-extended, and retroactively extended 10 times, and the solar investment tax credit as it’s known today has been around since 2005 (though it goes back to the 1970s).
  • As Obama pointed out, jobs in the solar industry have increased and solar energy is becoming more affordable. The same can be said for wind. And yet these industries have become dependent on federal support in the form of loan guarantees, targeted tax favors, and government programs. In the long run, targeted subsidies only hurt the industries they’re intended to help.
  • Even the president’s stated goal of impacting global temperatures cannot be listed as among the benefits of forcing taxpayers to subsidize green energy technologies. According to the National Academy of Science, eliminating the tax credits would increase greenhouse gas emissions by only 0.3 percent. In fact, if the president were truly concerned about environmental impacts, he might consider that a very efficient wind farm would need 260 times the amount of land to produce the same amount of electricity as a typical nuclear power plant requires, the latter which produces virtually no emissions.

Instead of defining the rules of the game as the government should do, the president’s vision for “all of the above” energy choices has consistently meant special treatment for his politically preferred energy resources.

– Katie Tubb, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Health Care

Less Competition and Less Access to Doctors

President Obama and his allies in Congress said that the Affordable Care Act would increase competition. In fact, there is no evidence that the law has increased the number of carriers in the insurance market. The absence of competition at the county level is stark.

Another Heritage Foundation analysis of health plan participation at the state level shows that in 2013, there were 395 individual market carriers, and in 2015, under the exchange, there were 310, a 21.5 percent reduction.

The president also said that if a person liked their doctor they would be able to keep their doctor. In fact, the law has made that access increasingly difficult. Insurance plan changes, and the loss of previous coverage, often resulted in a loss of physician or health care provider networks. For example, in April 2014, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the exchange plans had much narrower networks than they anticipated.

While the narrowing of networks reduced plan costs and thus the cost of the government insurance subsidies, the effect has been to constrict enrollee access to medical providers.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Public Opinion on Obamacare

President Obama claims his health care law is a success. Yet public opinion does not follow. According to the Real Clear Politics average, the health care law has yet to see approval outweigh opposition. In its latest average, from November to January – public support flounders at 43.3 percent while opposition is at 51.7 percent.

– Nina Owcharenko, director of the center for health policy studies

Health Insurance Costs

President Obama and his allies in Congress sold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a measure to lower health care costs for individuals, businesses and the federal government. The president even stated, repeatedly, that his version of health reform would lower health insurance premiums for the typical family by $2,500 per year.

The exact opposite of what the president promised has occurred. Beginning in 2014, as Heritage has shown, the first full year of Obamacare, premiums in the individual market sharply increased in most states. In some states, the increases were dramatic; for 50-year-olds alone, there was a premium increase of 50 percent or more in 13 states. The administration likes to emphasize that premium subsidies are available to paper over the premium costs; but no person with an annual income above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $47,000) is eligible for those subsidies. This is a big hit on the middle class.

In 2015, there was indeed a moderation of premium increases, but insurance deductibles continued to skyrocket: for the “silver” plans in the exchange – the benchmark plans – the average deductible was $2,927 for an individual and $6,100 for a family plan. In comparison, employer-based plans had traditionally low deductibles.

The biggest “rate shock” hit those persons transitioning from employer to exchange coverage. (The average deductible in employer based health insurance – nationwide – is a little over $1,200 for individual coverage). As with premiums, there are also government subsidies to paper over the costs of these high deductibles.

But no person with an annual income above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,425) is eligible for those subsidies, and moreover, that assistance is only available if they enroll in a “silver” exchange plan – not bronze, gold or platinum plans. This is another big hit on the middle class.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Health Plan Enrollment

While the law has increased some insurance coverage, enrollment has fallen well short of the robust official projections. For 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that there would be 21 million in the exchanges. More recently, the Obama administration conceded that the enrollment would be much less: a little more over 10 million.

Based on previous experience, there is every reason to be skeptical of projections. In the Spring of 2014, the administration claimed that over 8 million persons selected plans on the government website. It later corrected itself and reported that the number of those selecting plans was 7.3 million. Toward the end of 2014, around the time of the Christmas holidays, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the correct number at 6.7 million.

For 2015, CBO projected 13 million people in the exchanges. But then, HHS said that 11.7 million signed up. HHS later announced that between 9 to 9.9 million were expected to enroll by the end of 2015. About 17 percent of 2014 enrollees, HHS projected, would not renew in 2015.

Enrollment depends on a variety of things: how people felt about their experience, the cost the deductibles, the networks, their satisfaction with their coverage in the exchange, the opportunities to re-enroll in employer-based coverage, and various other factors.

Projections are, of course, a poor substitute for raw data. Examining the final data for 2014 confirmed the ACA’s enrollment pattern due mostly to expansion of coverage through Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program, where roughly one in three enrollees have trouble finding a doctor to care for them is hardly progress toward an expansion of quality care.

At the time of passage of the Affordable Care Act, the president  also insisted, routinely, that if persons like their current plan, they would be able to keep their current plan. That also turned out to be untrue. Heritage research showed that for the first three quarters of 2014 while Individual private market coverage in the exchanges grew by over 6.3 million, the number of persons with employment based coverage declined by 4.9 million. So, based on the raw data, concern over a loss of employment based coverage was justified.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Alternatives to Obamacare

While not raised tonight, the president and his allies in Congress repeatedly charge that congressional opponents have no alternative health plans.

This charge is flat out false. Republican Sens. Hatch, R-Utah, and Burr R-N.C., and Rep. Upton, R-Mich., produced a health plan replace blueprint. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and members of the Republican Study Committee have authored comprehensive health plans. Before that Speaker Paul Ryan included major health reforms in his “Road to Prosperity” proposal.

Meanwhile, conservative public policy institutes including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Goodman Institute, and many others, have outlined comprehensive plans to reform the health care system. All are united on common objectives: the reform of the tax treatment of health insurance, reform of Medicare and Medicaid, the reduction of federal regulation and the creation of open markets driven by consumer choice and competition.

 – Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Taxpayer Costs

President Obama has previously said that no taxpayer making less than $250,000 would face increased taxes. This was also clearly untrue. In fact, as Heritage Foundation analysis has shown, the bulk of the taxes imposed through Obamacare would directly impact middle or low income persons or be passed on to them in higher health care costs. This is particularly true of the tax penalties that accompany the individual and employer mandate, the medical device tax, and the federal health insurance fees. Taxes imposed on companies such as the so-called “Cadillac Tax” on high value health plans, the elimination of the employer deduction for Part D drug subsidy will also directly affect middle income citizens.

– Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Legal

The President is Correct to Support Criminal Justice Reform

At the beginning of his speech, President Obama voiced his support for bipartisan criminal justice reform. The President is correct that this does present an opportunity. Indeed, Republican and Democratic governors have been leading that reform effort throughout the country, as incarceration rates have continued to fall due to innovative approaches to fix our criminal justice system.

Congress will have the opportunity to consider bipartisan proposals such as the Smarter Sentencing Act, the Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Enhancement Act, as well as much-needed mens rea (criminal intent) reform, all designed to make our criminal justice system more fair and more effective for all Americans. Proposals along these lines merit serious consideration.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

The President has the Wrong Perspective on Campaign Finance

The president stated that “we have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections – and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.” This statement ignores the fact that individuals have a First Amendment right to spend their money to engage in political speech, as the Supreme Court has recognized.

Moreover, the notion that “a handful of families and interests” bankroll our elections is inaccurate and misleading. Put simply, there is no need “to find a real solution” to a supposed campaign finance “problem” that does not exist.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

The President’s Discussion of the Voting System is Misguided

The president stated that “we’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. And over the course of the year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.” There is simply no credible evidence that voting is unnecessarily hard, nor that undefined “reforms” are needed to “modernize” it.

Rather, to the extent there are problems associated with voting, they arise out of the hundreds of cases of criminal voter fraud that have been documented and published on the Heritage Foundation’s website.

To deal with this problem, election officials should seek to guarantee the sanctity of the ballot box by taking steps to prevent fraud, including in particular cleaning up voter registration rolls and verifying voter IDs.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Life and Marriage

Expansion of EITC for Single, Childless Adults Would Increase Welfare System’s Marriage Penalties

President Obama talked about fighting poverty by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless adults. It’s a strategy that, as the President noted, has also been promoted by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

However, increasing EITC for single, childless adults would increase marriage penalties already rampant in the government’s means-tested welfare system. Absent fathers and other single individuals would only be eligible for the expanded tax credit until they married. Marriage is the greatest protection against child poverty.

Children in married-parent homes are 80 percent less likely to be poorcompared to their peers in single-parent households. Tragically, more than 40 percent of children are born outside of marriage every year. Rather than increase marriage disincentives in the government’s massive welfare system, policymakers should look for ways to reduce these penalties and strengthen marriage.

– Rachel Sheffield, policy analyst in policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society 

Categories: Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, gun control, Liberals, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Obamacare, One Government, Politics, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorists, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The tiny pill fueling Syria’s war and turning fighters into superhuman soldiers….



Captagon pills are displayed along with a cup containing cocaine at an office of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces, Anti-Narcotics Division, in Beirut in 2010. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images/File)

As The Post’s Liz Sly recently noted, the war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by “al-Qaeda veterans, hardened Iraqi insurgents, Arab jihadist ideologues and Western volunteers.”

On the surface, those competing actors are fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.

Just below it, experts suspect, they’re powered by something else: Captagon.

A tiny, highly addictive pill produced in Syria and widely available across the Middle East, its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the war-torn country’s black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new arms, fighters and the ability to keep the conflict boiling,according to the Guardian.

“Syria is a tremendous problem in that it’s a collapsed security sector, because of its porous borders, because of the presence of so many criminal elements and organized networks,” the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) regional representative, Masood Karimipour, told Voice of America. “There’s a great deal of trafficking being done of all sorts of illicit goods — guns, drugs, money, people. But what is being manufactured there and who is doing the manufacturing, that’s not something we have visibility into from a distance.”

A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as “fenethylline,” Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria’s fighters to stay up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.

“You can’t sleep or even close your eyes, forget about it,” said a Lebanese user, one of three who appeared on camera without their names for a BBC Arabic documentary that aired in September. “And whatever you take to stop it, nothing can stop it.”

“I felt like I own the world high,” another user said. “Like I have power nobody has. A really nice feeling.”

“There was no fear anymore after I took Captagon,” a third man added.

According to a Reuters report published in 2014, the war has turned Syria into a “major” amphetamines producer — and consumer.

“Syrian government forces and rebel groups each say the other uses Captagon to endure protracted engagements without sleep, while clinicians say ordinary Syrians are increasingly experimenting with the pills, which sell for between $5 and $20,” Reuters reported.

Captagon has been around in the West since the 1960s, when it was given to people suffering from hyperactivity, narcolepsy and depression, according to the Reuters report. By the 1980s, according to Reuters, the drug’s addictive power led most countries to ban its use.

The United State classified fenethylline (“commonly known by the trademark name Captagon”) as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act in 1981, according to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Still, the drug didn’t exactly disappear.

VOA notes that while Westerners have speculated that the drug is being used by Islamic State fighters, the biggest consumer has for years been Saudi Arabia. In 2010, a third of the world’s supply — about seven tons — ended up in Saudi Arabia, according to Reuters. VOA estimated that as many as 40,000 to 50,000 Saudis go through drug treatment each year.

“My theory is that Captagon still retains the veneer of medical respectability,” Justin Thomas, an assistant professor of psychology and psychotherapy at the UAE’s Zayed University and author of “Psychological Well-Being in the Gulf States,” told VOA in 2010. “It may not be viewed as a drug or narcotic because it is not associated with smoking or injecting.”

Five years later, production of Captagon has taken root in Syria — long a heavily trafficked thoroughfare for drugs journeying from Europe to the Gulf States — and it has begun to blossom.

“The breakdown of state infrastructure, weakening of borders and proliferation of armed groups during the … battle for control of Syria, has transformed the country from a stopover into a major production site,” Reuters reported.

“Production in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley – a traditional centre for the drug – fell 90% last year from 2011, with the decline largely attributed to production inside Syria,” the Guardian noted.

Cheap and easy to produce using legal materials, the drug can be purchased for less than $20 a tablet and is popular among those Syrian fighters who don’t follow strict interpretations of Islamic law, according to the Guardian.

Doctors report that the drug has dangerous side effects, including psychosis and brain damage, according to the BBC.

Ramzi Haddad, a Lebanese psychiatrist, told Reuters that the drug produces the typical effects of a stimulant.

“You’re talkative, you don’t sleep, you don’t eat, you’re energetic,” he said.

According to the news service:

A drug control officer in the central city of Homs told Reuters he had observed the effects of Captagon on protesters and fighters held for questioning.

“We would beat them, and they wouldn’t feel the pain. Many of them would laugh while we were dealing them heavy blows,” he said. “We would leave the prisoners for about 48 hours without questioning them while the effects of Captagon wore off, and then interrogation would become easier.”

One secular ex-Syrian fighter who spoke to the BBC said the drug is tailor-made for the battlefield because of its ability to give soldiers superhuman energy and courage:

“So the brigade leader came and told us, ‘this pill gives you energy, try it,’ ” he said. “So we took it the first time. We felt physically fit. And if there were 10 people in front of you, you could catch them and kill them. You’re awake all the time. You don’t have any problems, you don’t even think about sleeping, you don’t think to leave the checkpoint. It gives you great courage and power. If the leader told you to go break into a military barracks, I will break in with a brave heart and without any feeling of fear at all — you’re not even tired.”

Another ex-fighter told the BBC that his 350-person brigade took the pill without knowing if it was a drug or medicine for energy.

“Some people became addicted to it and it will damage the addicts,” he said. “This is the problem.”

Categories: Government Secrets, Middle East, Muslims, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia Is Set to Crucify Pro-democracy Teenage Protester…..


SAUDI ARABIA KING

Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr, a 17 year old Saudi Arabian, was arrested in February 2012, and is slated to be executed by crucifixion at the hands of the Saudi Arabian government, who disregarded any form of due process whatsoever to prosecute al-Nimr under the charge of “encouraging pro-democracy protests using a Blackberry.”

For this alleged crime, al-Nimr will be taken to a public square and have his head chopped off as onlookers watch, leaving his corpse hung there for people to see as a warning. Al-Nimr was tortured into giving a false confession, never had a lawyer, had his appeal done in secret without his knowledge. A criminal justice system as medieval and gruesome as this should not exist in the world today.

“Saudi Arabia may so far this year have executed at least 134 people, which already represents 44 more than the total for the whole of last year,” United Nations Human Rights Experts wrote in a press release. “Such a surge in executions in the country makes Saudi Arabia a sad exception in a world where States are increasingly moving away from the death penalty.”

To allow this crucifixion to occur is an inexcusable injustice and contradicts International Law as well as the law of the Saudi Arabian government. Saudi Arabia’s recent appointment to the UN’s Human Rights Council is a farce when they perpetuate egregious human rights violations and enact barbaric methods of punishment themselves.

The European parliament recently passed a resolution urging Saudi Arabia to stop the execution and issue a moratorium on the death penalty. The Prime Minister of France, Francois Hollande, has also spoken out to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Al-Nimr. The leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, has called upon the UK Prime Minister David Cameron to put pressure on the Saudis as well. As a global leader, the United States cannot be silent when such stark human rights violations occur at the hands of our presumed allies. The Obama administration

Al-Nimr’s family is extremely worried that his execution can come at any moment. The last time they spoke with him, he reported being kept in solitary confinement. The boy’s fate lies in the hands of 79 year old King Salman, who has already been under intense scrutiny over Saudi Arabian led bombings in Yemen that have killed thousands of civilians, and two tragic incidents in September, a crane collapsing and a stampede, that killed hundreds of people in Mecca.

The alleged reason for Al-Nimr’s arrest and sentence is surmised to be his relation to his uncle, Nimr al-Nimr, a well-known Shiite cleric. His uncle was a leader of protests against the Saudi government, demanding they treat Shiites, a minority in Saudi Arabia, as equals. The uncle was shot in the back of a police car in 2012. As subsequent protests increased, so did the charges filed against the boy.

Saudi Arabia is abusing its power to dissuade any forms of dissent, and has one of the highest execution rates in the World. The country has dismissed criticism as protecting the rights of the killer. The United Nations and global leaders need to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia to curb their human rights violations. Instead, Saudi Arabia was selected as one of the nations to oversee a United Nations panel on human rights. In September, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Geneva was elected chair of the UN Human Rights Council that appoints independent experts to investigate violation claims. The legitimacy of the council is completely undermined by having a leader presiding over it that perpetuates human rights violations within their own borders on a regular basis. The United Nations should be holding the perpetrators of human rights violations accountable, not rewarding them. Calling on Saudi Arabia to release Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr is an opportunity to reverse lax policies that accept such cruel forms of capital punishment to go without any sort of repercussions. The Death Penalty has no place in the 21st century,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in a press release. The words and policies of the United Nations are completely pointless if they refuse to capitalize on the opportunity to call out Saudi Arabia to change their practices.

Categories: Execution, Middle East, Saudi Arabia | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

hocuspocus13

Magickal Arts

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

That's How He Rolls

A 100% grassroots effort to fund a wheelchair van for Jaime

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

politicalconnection

Connecting the world to Truth, so that Justice can be served

Tourism Oxford. Click "New Blog Home" in menu for our new website

Visit our blog at its new home http://www.tourismoxford.ca/blog

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

Biblical Archaeology

The history and archaeology of the Bible

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Digging History

Metal Detecting, History, Birds, Animals, Fylde Coast, River Ribble and more....

River's Flow

Combat Vets for Combat Vets www.riversflow.net

My Encore Life In Focus

Life is a bowl of photos

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

%d bloggers like this: