Displaying posts published in

March 2014

JOHN WOHLSTETTER: PANAMA 100 YEARS LATER

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/panama-100-years-later

Begin with one of the most famous (to some, infamous) quotations from a generation ago: California Republican Senator S. I. Hayakawa (served 1977-83) said during the election preceding the 1977 signing of the Panama Canal Treaty, “We should keep the Panama Canal. After all, we stole it fair and square.” Yet in 1978 the senator would help shepherd the treaty through the Senate and win ratification.

A trip I recently took to Panama entailed becoming a member of the trip sponsor, the Theodore Roosevelt Association, whose namesake began building the Canal pursuant to the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903, 15 days after, with U.S. backing, Panama declared its independence from what had been Gran Colombia. The U.S. set up the Canal Zone as a separate entity, governed under Delaware law, with a U.S. governor. The September 7, 1977 Panama Canal treaty, which came into effect October 1, 1979, provided for transfer of full control to Panama on December 31, 1999. Spurred by pressures arising out of the shooting of demonstrating student-nationalists by U.S. soldiers – at the behest of an addled garrison commander – in 1964, the treaty negotiated between the Carter administration and Panama’s dictator, Omar Torrijos-Herrera, proved a rare foreign policy triumph for Carter.

Early plans to build a canal date back to the 16th century. It was after crossing the Panama isthmus that Spanish explorer Vasco Nuñez de Balboa discovered the Pacific Ocean in 1513. The one major failed attempt was a 15-year late-19th century effort by Suez Canal architect Ferdinand de Lesseps. His Suez success did not face the significant variations in terrain elevation that made Panama unsuitable for a pure sea-level canal.

It was the brilliant American engineer John Frank Stevens who saw that a sea-level canal would not work; he devised the locks system. Stevens resigned in 1907, and passed the torch to David DuBose Gaillard, who saw the project to completion, under the overall supervision of George Washington Goethals. In November 1906 Theodore Roosevelt visited Panama (and Puerto Rico), becoming the first president to travel abroad on official diplomatic business.

The Canal’s 27,609-person death toll combines an estimated 22,000 for the failed French effort plus 5,609 for the decade-long American effort. Most of the difference was disease; when William Crawford Gorgas directed the effort to conquer yellow fever, thousands of lives were saved. Nearly 40,000 workers toiled to build the Canal, mostly West Indians; the workers on the French and American efforts moved 268 million cubic yards of dirt – more than 25 times that for the (English) Channel Tunnel. The project cost the U.S. a total of $375 million ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars, reflecting a 25-fold depreciation of the greenback); the cost was a record for an infrastructure project up to that time.

The Panama Canal locks transit system consists of six locks, depicted here (place cursor over locks for video simulation), the first starting and the last ending at sea level. On the Pacific side there are three locks, two Miraflores, one Pedro Miguel, rising a total of 26 meters (85 feet) to the artificial Lake Gatun; the three Gatun locks on the north side lower the ships to the Atlantic side. Lake Gatun, at about 20 miles, is the largest share of the 50-miles transit, followed by the roughly 9-mile Culebra Cut (also known from 1915 through 1999 as the Gaillard Cut, after the engineer who directed its creation). When Panama took possession of the Canal it revived the original name, which had been used from 1903 to 1914. Initially 92 meters (302 feet) wide, the Cut has been expanded twice, and now is 192 meters (630 feet) in straightaway sections and 222 meters (728 feet) on curved sections. Alongside the Canal is the Chagres River, which is the only river running across the entire isthmus.

Our passage was blessed by a mostly sunny Saturday. We began on the Pacific Ocean side, which, as the Canal isthmus runs east-west, is on the south end, at a colorful place named Flamenca Island [sic]; the north side, at the Atlantic (actually, the Caribbean) end, reaches the port of Colon. Thus in 16th century parlance the Pacific was the Southern Sea (and the Atlantic the Northern Sea). Both ports rest at sea level; the Pacific tide runs 21 feet daily, whereas the Caribbean-Atlantic Ocean side runs a mini-tide of only 1-1/2 feet. All gates for locks on the Pacific side are higher, to allow for tidal flow. The existing gates have functioned for a full century, operating purely on gravity to move water in and out of the lock chambers. The gates on the Pacific side weigh 700 tons each.

We boarded our vessel, the Pacific Queen, at 7 a.m. By 7:15 we had passed under the Bridge of the Americas, rising 100 meters above sea level; across it runs the Pan-American Highway, which goes from Chile, with one gap, 30,000 miles all the way (not as the crow flies) to Alaska. Traversing the three locks on the Pacific side, we reached the midway point, Centennial Bridge, around 11 a.m.; the bridge spans Gold Hill to Contractor’s Hill. Gold Hill was named to help create a stock market commodity price bubble; a predictable frenzy ensued, as investors piled in only to be outmaneuvered by insiders. We see on the east bank a huge red and white construction crane, and are told that it had been used by billionaire magnate Howard Hughes to lift his monster Spruce Goose seaplane out of the water after its only flight, in 1947.

CAIR Gets Muslim TV Show Killed Over Ethnic, Religious Stereotyping

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/cair-gets-muslim-tv-show-killed-over-ethnic-religious-stereotyping

The terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has repeatedly proven that it wields tremendous power in the Obama administration and now the group is flexing its bulging muscles in Hollywood, successfully killing a new show on a major television network over negative stereotypes of Muslims.

This is the same nonprofit that got the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to purge anti-terrorism training material determined to be “offensive” to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal last summer and obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents revealing that a group of “Subject Matter Experts” determined certain anti-terrorism training curricula contained material that was offensive to Muslims. The excised files included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that “young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance … may fit the terrorist profile best.”

CAIR also got several police departments in President Obama’s home state of Illinois to cancel essential counterterrorism courses over accusations that the instructor was anti-Muslim. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands. The group responded with a statement commending officials for their “swift action in addressing the Muslim community’s concerns.”

Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, CAIR has also wielded power in a number of other cases during the Obama administration. It has impeded an FBI probe involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S., pressured the U.S. government to file discrimination lawsuits against employers who don’t accommodate Muslims and forced American taxpayers to fund “Islamically permissible” meals for Muslim prison inmates.

Boko Haram: How a Militant Islamist Group Emerged in Nigeria by Femi Owolade

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4232/boko-haram-nigeria

The Western influence of British colonialists caused a division among the people of Northern Nigeria, who were once united by Islam. This division saw, on one side, the so-called “civilized” — by Western standards — elite who were used by the British as agents of colonization; and on the other side, the commoners, who vehemently resisted Western influence in the region.

Dissatisfaction with Western influence also led to an emergence of Islamist fundamentalists among people of the Northeastern region of Nigeria.

The reason Mohammed Yusuf founded Boko Haram appears to be that he saw an opportunity to exploit public outrage at government corruption by linking it to Western influence in governance.

What developments might have triggered the emergence of violent Islamist group Boko Haram during the last decade in Nigeria? According to Umar Mamodu[1] — a scholar and key Boko Haram historian — its inception in 2002 resulted from a clash between the moderate Islamic teachings of the prominent Sheikh Jafaar Adam at the Mahammadu Ndimi Mosque in Maiduguri-Borno State in the Northeastern part of Nigeria, and the more militant interpretation of the Qur’an by his disciple, Mohammed Yusuf.[2]

According to Mamodu[3], Yusuf believed in the creation of a new order in which the wretched should inherit the earth, and for his extremist views, was expelled in 2002 from the Ndimi Mosque Committee.[4] Later that year Yusuf built a mosque in the northeast Nigeria to serve as a magnet for primary and secondary school pupils who, in response to his teachings, would abandon Westernized schools in the belief that Western education [Boko] is a sin [Haram]; hence the name Boko Haram.[5]

Congressional Muscle and US Foreign Policy Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

http://bit.ly/P8LdSa

On March 5, 2014, the US House of Representatives voted 410:1 to upgrade Israel from a “Major Non-NATO Ally” to a “Major Strategic Partner” – a congressional initiative, significantly expanding the mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation in the areas of missile defense, intelligence, national security at-large, technology, energy, cyber security, irrigation, space satellites, defense industries, etc. The Senate is expected to overwhelmingly support the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, highlighting the systematic bi-cameral, bi-partisan consensus support of Israel by the US constituent, and therefore by its most authentic representative: Congress – the independent, co-equal, co-determining branch of the US government.

For instance, when Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, was asked by the Secretary of the Navy to rescind an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill – upgrading the port of Haifa facilities for the Sixth Fleet – the Senator responded: “According to the US Constitution, the Subcommittee on Defense supervises the Department of the Navy and not vise versa….” The amendment remained intact, in defiance of the Administration, enhancing the operations of the Sixth Fleet in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean.

When requested to support initiatives of Democratic presidents, based on partisan loyalty, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who was an arch-defender of congressional power, stated: “I am the obedient servant of the Constitution, not the President!”

RUTHIE BLUM: TALK ABOUT BEING A TURKEY

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7875

While the latest twist in the trial of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert upstages the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Energy and Water Minister Silvan Shalom, a different type of scandal is unfolding that is worthy of far greater worry.

But with the Israeli media more interested in discussing Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s blocking of Twitter and YouTube, and broadcasting his sudden onset of laryngitis during an election rally, the real story involving Turkey has barely been reported.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon gave the green light to Turkey to complete construction on a hospital in Gaza, which it began building in 2011 by smuggling materials through illegal tunnels. The hospital will be run jointly by Turks and Palestinians.

Ya’alon’s permission grants Turkey the right to transfer 500 trucks of building materials and 70 trucks of electrical and communications equipment into the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave.

This gesture suggests that recent reports in the Turkish press according to which normalization with Israel is soon to resume are accurate. Indeed, for the past few days, Turkish newspapers have referred to a number of developments indicating that the four-year break in relations between Jerusalem and Ankara is on the brink of a resolution.

Ties between Turkey and Israel were severed in 2010, when a Turkish Gaza-bound flotilla with armed pro-Palestinian activists was intercepted by Israeli commandos. In the ensuing fray, during which the Israeli soldiers were viciously attacked with various weapons, nine activists were killed. Turkey never took responsibility for its part in the incident. Israel, on the other hand, has continued to try to repair the damage. At the behest of U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even issued a personal apology to Erdogan, and has been negotiating a compensation package for the families of those killed during the raid.

Erdogan keeps upping the ante, however, not only demanding greater sums of money than Israel originally agreed to pay, but setting as a condition for a settlement the listing of the siege on his terrorist buddies on Gaza. Nevertheless, Netanyahu has not rescinded his offer to pay compensation — a misnomer for acts of self-defense — due ostensibly to reasons of regional realpolitik.

This has not been working in Israel’s favor. Turkey under Erdogan has become increasingly hostile to its former ally. And it has a lot more to gain from good relations with the Jewish state than the other way around. In fact, after a four-year hiatus, Israelis are starting to plan vacations to Turkey again. This is a source of great revenue for the Turkish tourism industry, because Israelis spend lots of cash when they go abroad. Nobody is more keenly aware of this than Turkish shopkeepers.

WHO IS SENATOR CORI BERNARDI? UP FRONT DOWN UNDER

Cori Bernardi is an Australian politician. He has been a Liberal Party member of the Australian Senate since 2006, representing the state of South Australia. In Australia our winter is their summer and “liberal” is conservative.

Bernardi has written a book

Product Details
THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION by Cory Bernardi (Nov 1, 2013)

An unapologetic advocate for mainstream values, Cory Bernardi presents a bold vision for a stronger nation that is founded on conservative principles. He takes the fight to the political left and calls for an overturning of the existing moral relativism that threatens Australia’s way of life. Bernardi argues that the best way to tackle this threat is to protect and defend the traditional institutions that have stood the test of time, something that he has done during his time as a senator in the Australian Parliament. Bernardi’s work courageously promotes the conservative cause and sets out a path to a better Australia through a commitment to faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise. This volume reminds us that conservative principles – not the populist whims of the left – generate enduring stability, success and strength. That is why we need a conservative revolution.

And guess what? The lefties have gone viral in denouncing the book in the reviews section. Guess why? He’s pro-life…rsk

CLIMATE FORECAST: MUTING THE ALARM BY MATT RIDLEY

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579460973643962840?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj

Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.

Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.

OPEN “HILLEL” AND THE GUESTS FROM HELL: STEVE APFEL

Whoever heard of a Palestinian Solidarity Committee laying the welcome mat for Israel-supporters, opening its door to Zionists? “Open Hillel” is very, very, very, strange!

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4840/guests_from_hell

It would be guests from hell that demand the welcome mat, even as they convey a brittle dislike for the host and won’t put out the welcome mat when their turn comes. And they are banging on Hillel’s door.

Hillel, if you don’t know, is the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Jewish guests at the door are academic types that wince at everything Israel does or stands for. So for Hillel to adopt the motto, “Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel” is tantamount to winding up the wincers.

“It alienates students critical of Israeli policies”, they protest. “It also brings ideology into an otherwise religious movement,” add the young Jewish adults for good measure.

They belong to Open Hillel, the latest group to latch onto the cause that confers prominence. Give Israeli policy a spanking and you open a hundred doors. Groupies drawn to the cause célèbre are thus bound to find Hillel rules irksome, especially when they block anti-Israel speakers at campus events. Hillel actually keeps a blacklist; it bars people and groups that:

1) Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized boundaries.

KEVIN WILLIAMSON: HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374405/print

The Democrats, being still very much the party of Lyndon Baines Johnson, have never enjoyed a great reputation for integrity, but the past few days have been especially hard on them: California Democratic state senator and gun-rights foe Leland Yee was indicted as an illegal arms trafficker operating in partnership with a murder-for-hire operation headed by a Hong Kong gangster known as “Shrimp Boy”; the Democratic mayor of Charlotte, Patrick Cannon, was indicted on public-corruption charges related to local development and transit projects and to his allegedly accepting bribes in connection with a planned feminine-hygiene empire; in New York, a Democratic assemblyman’s office was raided on suspicion of misuses of travel funds; the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, was caught channeling thousands of dollars in campaign money to his granddaughter, while omitting her surname, which is his surname, from the record.

But, so far as we know, nobody had sex with anybody.

When Republican officials or would-be officials are caught with their pants down — and their numbers have not been insignificant — it is taken as an instance of hypocrisy that undermines the GOP’s platform regarding traditional moral practices and family arrangements. There is something to that, but not as much as our pharisaical friends in the press would have us believe: For one thing, there is a difference between having a moral failing and holding political positions insincerely, an important distinction that rarely if ever enters into these discussions; and, for another thing, it’s not as if Bill Clinton ran in 1992 on a platform of sodomizing the interns and perjuring himself to cover it up.

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times is fairly typical in his approach to the issue, writing about the case of Representative Scott DesJarlais, a putatively pro-life Republican congressman who urged abortions on both his wife and one of his half-dozen mistresses:

Which is more maddening — the absurd positions that right-wing Republicans take on abortion and other social issues, or the fact that they are so often shown to be complete hypocrites? . . . This happens an awful lot with right-wing Republicans who pound the pulpit of family values. When a right-winger suddenly starts talking about extra-marital sex, for example, I figure it’s about 48 hours before that politician ends up on the front page of a tabloid, outed for having an affair.

Obamacare’s Dependency Agenda A Pennsylvania Widow Resists Being Pushed Into Welfare. Deroy Murdock

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374415/print

Helen lives in Pennsylvania. Her experience with Obamacare has left her so humiliated that she wants to keep her surname to herself.

Helen’s pride and self-respect reflect her intense sense of independence. This 60-year-old widow, a self-employed house cleaner, has survived on an annual personal income of approximately $15,000. She pays her own Social Security taxes and tells me that she never has accepted a penny of public assistance. She always has wanted to rely only on herself.

Helen could not afford health insurance, but she deliberately avoided government medical programs. Instead, she was happy with the care that she had received for the last 20 years at Health Link in Southampton, Pa. At this free clinic, doctors donate their time to see self-employed people whose low incomes are documented via their tax returns. Among other things, Health Link arranged for Helen to see dentists and other specialists and receive no-cost pharmaceuticals.

Nonetheless, this lifelong Democrat considered it her duty to sign up for Obamacare. After all, it is the law. And Helen did not want to pay the penalty for violating the individual mandate.

So, last October, Helen visited HealthCare.gov and smacked into the same delays and diversions that have flummoxed so many Americans. She rang the HealthCare.gov help line and spoke with someone whom she described as sweet and friendly. The woman on the phone, who never gave her name, listened to Helen and then recommended that she seek public assistance.

“Public assistance?” Helen erupted. “That sounds like welfare. I raised my family my whole life and never took one penny of welfare — ever. Why would I want to take government aid now? This is why the system is the way it is today. I am an honest person, and this is why I am refusing welfare.” The woman kept firing questions at her. Helen felt as if the navigator wanted to derail her train of thought, break her down, and make her surrender and accept government aid.

Helen says the Obamacare navigator told her that she did not meet the criteria to qualify for Obamacare. Still, since Helen already had started the application, the navigator told her to complete it. This devoured another hour and 45 minutes. The application was filled with some three dozen deeply personal questions about her bank account, health condition, and even HIV status.