Posts Tagged featured story

In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Posted by on Thursday, 1 March, 2012

With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart. Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles. We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior. Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love. Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation : I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night. Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us. *** Media inquiries: jpollak@breitbart.com

Read more:
In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)


‘Hope and Change’ Only for America’s Enemies, Islamic Extremists

Posted by on Monday, 27 February, 2012

With the presidential election looming, I thought it wise to revisit president Obama’s 2008 campaign theme. He ran on the adage, “hope and change.” Let’s look into hope and change, Obama style. Islamism is so pervasive, so zany, so entrenched all over the world that I could throw a dart at the globe any random day and find a story to discuss involving extremism, violence, or oppression from its adherents. And it’s getting worse. Why is it getting worse, you ask? No doubt there are many reasons, but the one that sticks in my craw is that American weakness is largely responsible. Weakness will always invite aggression, and this president’s profound lack of leadership—weakness—has inspired our enemies the way fuel enrages wildfire. I guess we should have taken president Obama at his word and believed his conviction for “hope and change.” But hope for whom? What type of change? Allow me to share a few examples for whom hope (and change) springs eternal due to the feckless actions of the Obama administration. Iran Iran is our nemesis. It is also the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. It is largely Iranian weapons and expertise responsible for killing and maiming our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet in 2009, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest their totalitarian, anti-America, and anti-Israel government, president  Obama did absolutely nothing to help them . This was the perfect chance for strong United States to encourage the Iranian moderates to replace the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. What appeared then to be a missed opportunity was actually just the beginning of a pattern of inexplicable direct and indirect support for radical Islam. Just today in the news out of Iran is a story about Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two, who converted to Christianity in Iran. He has been  sentenced to death . What’s his crime? His conversion to Christianity, because Islam does not allow such apostasy under the penalty of death. Another current story on Iran is the IAEA now admitting it cannot allay the world’s fears that Iran is indeed close to creating their first nuclear weapon. The confidential IAEA report said Iran has, since late last year, “tripled output of uranium refined to a level that brings it significantly closer to potential bomb material.”  Yet, the Obama administration has been very measured in its censure and sanctions on Iran, ostensibly because of the effect this would have on oil prices—hint, hint—his reelection. Obama also refuses to seriously consider military action against Iran, and they know it. Nor will he sell Israel the bunker-busting bombs that could destroy the Iranian nuclear program in an aerial attack. This is the same Obama that naively terminated (for nothing in return from the Russians) the already agreed-to missile defense system that would have protected Eastern Europe from rogue states like Iran. Translation: Hope for Iran to  change the balance of power in the Middle East and perhaps the world. Muslim Brotherhood The Obama administration has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of the pro-democracy opposition, to lead Syria after the expected ouster of President Bashar Assad, says a report  posted on Jihad Watch . Herbert London from the Hudson Institute, a leading consultant to the Defense Department, asserted that the administration has decided to work with Turkey and the Brotherhood in Syria for a post-Assad government. “It would seem far more desirable to back the democratic influences—the political organizations that require cultivation and support—despite their relative weakness at this moment,” the report said. This is the same Obama that told us last year that the Muslim Brotherhood is reformed now–not to worry. At the time, other pundits and I presaged that we will soon regret the Arab Spring once it becomes the Arab Fall and Winter. Alas, it is upon us even as 16 Americans working for NGOs (Non-government Organizations) promoting democracy are detained and threatened with trial in Egypt by their ruling Islamists. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is also in serious jeopardy. This is one hell of a “thank you” from these radicals for supporting them over our own US ally, Mubarak. Mubarak was clearly a “son of a bitch,” but as President Roosevelt famously said, “at least he was our son of a bitch.” Tunisia and Libya are also quite clearly expressing their anti-West, anti-infidel rhetoric despite our support in overthrowing their respective regimes. And what is the American response to these third-world nations’ ungrateful insolence? Barely a peep. Translation:  Hope for the Muslim Brotherhood to  change the world by imposing Sharia in more nations than imagined in their wildest dreams. CAIR The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation. The FBI will no longer do business with them. CAIR is in the corner of every radical Muslim that tries to force-feed Islamist tradition, law, and custom down the throat of America. Recall Muslim teacher Sefoorah Khan, who was  dismissed last year by her Chicago area public school system. She was terminated for abandoning her students when she decided to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj— a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, after just 9 months’ employment. The  U.S. Attorney General under Obama joined a suit filed by CAIR on her behalf against the school system. The case settled with Ms. Khan being awarded some $75,000. It is also CAIR that encourages Muslims traveling in US airports to resist pat-downs and other efforts by TSA because safety takes a back seat—pun intended—to advancing the special rights and privileges of Muslims. CAIR is a major supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque and promotes legal actions against cities and towns across America that resist Muslim centers in the heart of their small, generally Christian towns. The Obama administration is typically in lock-step with CAIR in all of these and other controversies. Translation:  Hope for CAIR to  change the American landscape to one more and more accepting of Islamic and Islamist customs and mores . Apologists for Islamism Just last week the president added a chapter to his incessant apologies to Islam on behalf of America. Our soldiers  properly destroyed desecrated Qurans used by Muslim prisoners to communicate improper messages to each other. Obama’s apology, predictably, further stoked the flames of yet another irrational, violent, angry, and sadly lethal riot; Americans were killed. Silence would be bad enough from our president when world leaders (Germany, France, Switzerland and Britain) have the courage to decry the danger and failure of Islamist multiculturalism in their lands. They tell us the cultures of their nations are under great strain as a radical brand of Islam grows bolder–so bold that large swaths of many European cities are entirely off-limits to infidels such that even police and fire personnel dare not trespass. But silence isn’t enough for this administration. No, this president goes out of his way to promote acceptance of even the most opprobrious Islamic customs and religious edicts. In many speeches, president Obama has championed the “religious” rights of Muslims that are incongruent with western culture.  These statements include : “It is important that Western countries avoid impeding Muslims from practicing their religion ‘as they see fit’” and “ I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Why? In reality, of course, it is  political Islam masquerading as  religious Islam that is being offered protections it does not deserve. Translation:  Hope for Islamists everywhere but particularly in Europe where there exists progressive  change away from their rich cultures toward the homogeneity of fundamentalist Islam. The enemies of Israel Israel lives in a very, very bad neighborhood. No previous U.S. president has distanced himself from Israel. Why? Because weakening the bond between America and Israel would provide a frenetic and renewed hope to all of Israel’s enemies that finally, the destruction of Israel can be imagined. Obama has publicly humiliated Israel by blaming the lack of peace on Israeli settlements. He has also criticized Israeli demands that Hamas and Hezbollah recognize Israel’s right to exist. The president has recently rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu even while Congress honored him with an unprecedented seventy standing ovations during his address to the joint chambers. This president fatuously attempts to appease Islam at the expense of Israel. Translation: Heretofore unimaginable  hope has been infused into the global Arab and Muslim psyche that real change (Israel’s destruction) is finally plausible. So, hope and change are indeed upon us, just as president Obama promised. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of this hope and change are our enemies. We Americans and our allies are the victims.

See the original post:
‘Hope and Change’ Only for America’s Enemies, Islamic Extremists


Is It the Time for Peace in the Middle East?

Posted by on Saturday, 11 February, 2012

This week, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas informed the U.S. envoy, David Hale, that his new unity deal with Palestinian terror organization Hamas is a “ national need ,” and explained that Israel should nonetheless engage in peace negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by stating that clearly the PA had allied with terrorists, and that they needed to “choose between the path of Hamas and the path of peace. The Palestinians,” he added, “embraced terrorist organizations that call for Israel’s destruction.” Technically, of course, the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction. Despite the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin legitimized the PA and Yassar Arafat in the eyes of the world, the organization reflected both its leader and its supporters. It was terrorist in orientation and genocidal in intent. And yet those on the left continue to call for Israel to make concessions. President Obama has maintained that the real problem is Israeli settlement activity, as though the PA and Hamas cared more about a house built in Ariel than a house built in Tel Aviv. This is sheer nonsense – Israel has made concessions repeatedly. The problem here is simple: Israel accepts the legitimacy of Palestinian national aspirations, and the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of Israeli national aspirations. There is no common ground.  When even a peacenik like Shimon Peres – the brains behind Oslo – says that the PA has to choose between Hamas and peace, it’s clear that this isn’t the time for negotiations at all. There is no greater advocate for Israeli concessions than former U.S. ambassador Dennis Ross. Even Ross now concedes that there is no peace to be had so long as political conditions remain this way. “[T]here should also be no illusions about the prospects of a breakthrough any time soon,” he recently wrote.  “The psychological gaps between the parties make it hard to resolve their differences and have bedeviled all the work for peace talks over the past few years.” In short, the occupation isn’t the cause of a failure of peace talks. The Palestinian philosophy of Israel’s illegitimacy is. Until the latter problem is resolved, there’s no way the former can or should be.

Original post:
Is It the Time for Peace in the Middle East?


Proposed Explanation For Repeated Jewish Persecution Throughout History

Posted by on Tuesday, 7 February, 2012

Throughout my lifetime, one historical question I’ve heard raised over and over again involved the Nazi Holocaust: How was it possible that ordinary Germans participated in the genocide of millions of perfect nice, loyal German citizens, simply because they were Jewish? One might attribute the attitude of Adolf Hitler himself to some kind of psychosis, but how is it conceivable that ordinary Germans apparently had no “moral compass,” and willingly proceeded in this genocide? More broadly, why is it that Jews in particular have been persecuted in many countries throughout history? Generational Dynamics theory provides a proposed explanation for all of these questions. Auschwitz gas chamber From the point of view of generational theory, there is a catastrophe in progress in the current time that is equivalent to the Holocaust: The financial crisis, caused by “financial engineers” in banks and other institutions around the world that purposely created highly complex but fraudulent synthetic securities, and then paid off peers at ratings agencies to give them AAA ratings. How could so many ordinary professionals, including lawyers, accountants and regulators, consistently abandon their professional ethics to create such a massive fraud that’s destroyed so many lives, with the worst yet to come? The Holocaust is a uniquely violent event in human history, and no Gen-Xers have killed Boomers in the financial crisis. But the two events share the same kind of underlying generational behavior, differing only in degree. Generation-X view of Boomers Since the 1990s, many researchers have reported the hatred that Generation-Xers have for Boomers. Gen-Xer Barack Obama expressed this hatred in his book: “In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.” His Gen-X adviser, Paul Begala, was more direct: “I hate the Baby Boomers. They’re the most self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing generation in American history.” This hatred came about because of the environment in which Gen-Xers were raised. Because of feminist and government policies that paid mothers to dump fathers, most Generation-X children were raised without the essential influence and protection of their biological fathers. These children don’t read feminist press releases, so they could see for themselves that their mothers lied to courts and welfare officials to drive the fathers away. Instead, they were raised by depressed single mothers, and had no male influences except a steady stream of men in their mothers’ beds, some of whom physically or sexually abused them. These children, not surprisingly, grew up hating their parents’ generation. Racist policies created a generation of monsters Feminist policies particularly targeted black children, destroying black families so thoroughly that 72% of Gen-X black children were born out of wedlock. Young black children, looking for a role model, might have selected a black public figure born into the worst of circumstances, who worked hard in job after job, and fought his way to the top, to become a nominee as a Supreme Court Justice, only to have the same feminist groups who destroyed their families now use incredibly trivial and nonsensical charges to destroy the career of Clarence Thomas, only because he was powerful black man married to a white woman. And it was not lost on these children that far more serious charges of violent serial rape that were brought against another public figure, Bill Clinton, were ignored by feminists because he was a white man. This went well beyond politics. No Republican or Democrat has ever been subjected to vengeful feminist hate-filled racist fury like Clarence Thomas was, whose unique attribute is that he’s a well-known public figure who is black, married to a white woman. And since these black Gen-X children didn’t read the fatuous nonsense in feminist press releases, they knew very well that the hatred directed at Clarence Thomas was based entirely on racist feminist policies. And these racist, bigoted attacks by feminists and Democrats on Clarence Thomas are continuing to this day. The Gen-X hatred of Boomers ameliorated during the late 1990s, when many Gen-Xers made fortunes during the high tech boom. But it turned to a generational vengeful fury when they lost their fortunes in the Nasdaq crash that occurred in 2000. This vengeful fury is the attitude that prevailed as Gen-Xers reached middle management positions in financial institutions in the early 2000s. They had poured out of Masters programs in financial engineering in the 1990s, and they saw how they could use these new tools to get revenge on the hated Boomers — by creating these fraudulent synthetic securities and selling them to the Boomer investors. Their own Boomer bosses did not stand in the way. Boomers often make poor bosses because they grew up in the 1960s developing no management skills except to protest and complain. As a result, Boomers aren’t good managers, and they’re very gullible, so that dishonest Gen-Xers can easily take advantage of them. Financial crisis: Just blame the Boomers for everything If you have doubts that the attitudes of Gen-Xers are different from the attitudes of Boomers, there is one clear, measurable difference. This is a huge, major, enormous, gigantic, overwhelming difference between the Gen-X culture and the Boomer culture, and this is the difference that makes the Gen-X culture so toxic. When the Savings and Loan crisis occurred in the 1980s, the Boomer prosecutors investigated every detail, made thousands of criminal referrals and had numerous convictions. The 2000s financial crisis is much worse, and yet there has not been even one criminal referral or conviction. The Justice Department refuses to investigate and prosecute the crimes that were committed. This is the huge difference with the Gen-X culture: Boomers had no problem prosecuting other Boomers, but Gen-Xers adamantly refuse to investigate and blame each other, even for serious crimes. Thus, even if there are only a few dishonest Gen-Xers, they can do an enormous amount of damage because they can commit crimes at will and count on not being punished by Gen-X prosecutors. This has huge consequences, as Gen-X financial engineers could and can commit serious crimes freely. It’s even worse than that, because Gen-X regulators and prosecutors have actually encouraged continued fraud. In 2008, I wrote frequently about Gen-X New York Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo who not only did not prosecute the banksters at Citibank and others, but actually arranged for them to continue defrauding the public and investors. And a recent 60 Minutes investigation shows that the Obama Justice Department adamantly refuses to investigate and prosecute this bankster fraud, even in the face of massive evidence of fraud. The Lost Generation and the Holocaust That’s exactly the kind of culture that prevailed in 1930s Nazi Germany. It was possible to rob, defraud, assault or even kill a Jew for revenge, and these actions were not only not investigated and prosecuted by German officials, they were actually encouraged and supported by officials, all the way up to Hitler himself. This is EXACTLY the same kind of generational behavior we’ve been seeing today, differing only in degree. The relationship between Gen-Xers and Boomers is hardly unique in history. The generation that grew up after the Civil War was called the “Missionary Generation,” and you can just imagine from their name how similar they were to the Boomers that grew up after WW II. The Missionary Generation created societal chaos that the next generation, known as the “Lost Generation,” came to hate them for. It’s the Lost Generation that’s the archetypal ancestor of Generation-X. America’s Lost Generation hated the Missionary Generation even before World War I, but that hatred became palpable after the war, which they blamed entirely on the Missionaries. World War I was a political disaster for Germany. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, World War I for Germany was not at all like World War II, but was generationally equivalent to the 1960s Vietnam War for America. Germany fought the war half-heartedly. There was a vigorous anti-war movement that turned the public against the war, and finally Germany was forced to capitulate — not because they were defeated on the battlefield, but because they were defeated politically at home by their anti-war movement. The Treaty of Versailles that followed the war was highly punitive to Germany, and Germany was completely humiliated. Germany’s Lost Generation blamed the war, the subsequent hyperinflation, and even the 1929 stock market crash on the Missionary Generation, especially the Jews who were associated with that generation. Robbing, defrauding, assaulting or even killing a Jew was no problem, because it was revenge for the war and the financial collapses. To them it wasn’t genocide; it was justice. Gen-Xers also feel it’s just justice today, when they defraud Boomers. Repeated Jewish persecution throughout history This resolves the puzzle of why ordinary Germans participated in the 1930s Holocaust, but there’s a larger question as well: Why has there been repeated persecution of Jews at many times and places for many centuries. Is there something unique about Jews that attracts this kind of persecution? Generational hatred is the worst kind of hatred because it spreads rapidly with no natural barriers. It’s so powerful that it overwhelms reason and common sense. If your generation hates some group, then all your friends will feel the same way and will reinforce your hatred. Anyone who objects can be ignored as being either too young and naive or too old and senile. A generational fault line can easily morph into a political fault line, as people in all generations pick sides in the generational dispute, and then the generational hatred becomes politicized. In America, for example, the Gen-Xer culture has been aligned with the Democrats, and we’ve seen xenophobic attitudes towards the Tea Party from the Democrats, and xenophobic attitudes towards Muslims from the Republicans. The generational split between Boomers and Gen-Xers is not unique in history. We’ve described the same generational split between Germany’s Missionary Generation and the Lost Generation that led to the Holocaust. In generational theory, the Missionary and Boomer generations are in the “Prophet Archetype,” while the Lost and Gen-X generations are in the “Nomad Archetype.” These archetypes repeat in every place and time in history. All Prophet generations have the same characteristics as Boomers — highly moralistic, arrogant and narcissistic — not always right, but always certain. All Nomad generations have the same characteristics as Generation-X, disaffected and angry at society and the preceding Prophet generation. Jewish communities have characteristics that are consistent with the Prophet generations, with a culture that’s often isolated and highly moralistic, based on ancient laws. This means that when a generational fault line morphs into a political fault line, the Jewish community is almost certainly going to be aligned with the Prophet generation, and hated by the younger Nomad generation. The situation is amplified by the fact that Jewish law provides for very careful handling of money and debt, meaning that the people in the Jewish community do well during financial crisis periods, while other communities struggle. This is the generational explanation for the xenophobia towards and persecution of Jews throughout history. The same kind of analysis can provide explanations for other persecuted groups, and for other genocides in history. Europe’s disintegrating economy Right now, we see Europe’s economy disintegrating right before our eyes, with no hope in sight. How will the the generational split manifest itself when total meltdown occurs? Another Holocaust for Jews? Mass killing of Muslims and/or Roma Gypsies? Or simple ethnic violence (Greeks versus Germans), spiraling into total war? We won’t have to wait too much longer to find out. This article is excerpted from the forthcoming book by John J. Xenakis, “For Boomers: How to Survive in a Generation-X World: Making your way in the workplace, in love and in life.”

The rest is here:
Proposed Explanation For Repeated Jewish Persecution Throughout History


Proposed Explanation For Repeated Jewish Persecution Throughout History

Posted by on Tuesday, 7 February, 2012

Throughout my lifetime, one historical question I’ve heard raised over and over again involved the Nazi Holocaust: How was it possible that ordinary Germans participated in the genocide of millions of perfect nice, loyal German citizens, simply because they were Jewish? One might attribute the attitude of Adolf Hitler himself to some kind of psychosis, but how is it conceivable that ordinary Germans apparently had no “moral compass,” and willingly proceeded in this genocide? More broadly, why is it that Jews in particular have been persecuted in many countries throughout history? Generational Dynamics theory provides a proposed explanation for all of these questions. Auschwitz gas chamber From the point of view of generational theory, there is a catastrophe in progress in the current time that is equivalent to the Holocaust: The financial crisis, caused by “financial engineers” in banks and other institutions around the world that purposely created highly complex but fraudulent synthetic securities, and then paid off peers at ratings agencies to give them AAA ratings. How could so many ordinary professionals, including lawyers, accountants and regulators, consistently abandon their professional ethics to create such a massive fraud that’s destroyed so many lives, with the worst yet to come? The Holocaust is a uniquely violent event in human history, and no Gen-Xers have killed Boomers in the financial crisis. But the two events share the same kind of underlying generational behavior, differing only in degree. Generation-X view of Boomers Since the 1990s, many researchers have reported the hatred that Generation-Xers have for Boomers. Gen-Xer Barack Obama expressed this hatred in his book: “In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.” His Gen-X adviser, Paul Begala, was more direct: “I hate the Baby Boomers. They’re the most self-centered, self-seeking, self-interested, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing generation in American history.” This hatred came about because of the environment in which Gen-Xers were raised. Because of feminist and government policies that paid mothers to dump fathers, most Generation-X children were raised without the essential influence and protection of their biological fathers. These children don’t read feminist press releases, so they could see for themselves that their mothers lied to courts and welfare officials to drive the fathers away. Instead, they were raised by depressed single mothers, and had no male influences except a steady stream of men in their mothers’ beds, some of whom physically or sexually abused them. These children, not surprisingly, grew up hating their parents’ generation. Racist policies created a generation of monsters Feminist policies particularly targeted black children, destroying black families so thoroughly that 72% of Gen-X black children were born out of wedlock. Young black children, looking for a role model, might have selected a black public figure born into the worst of circumstances, who worked hard in job after job, and fought his way to the top, to become a nominee as a Supreme Court Justice, only to have the same feminist groups who destroyed their families now use incredibly trivial and nonsensical charges to destroy the career of Clarence Thomas, only because he was powerful black man married to a white woman. And it was not lost on these children that far more serious charges of violent serial rape that were brought against another public figure, Bill Clinton, were ignored by feminists because he was a white man. This went well beyond politics. No Republican or Democrat has ever been subjected to vengeful feminist hate-filled racist fury like Clarence Thomas was, whose unique attribute is that he’s a well-known public figure who is black, married to a white woman. And since these black Gen-X children didn’t read the fatuous nonsense in feminist press releases, they knew very well that the hatred directed at Clarence Thomas was based entirely on racist feminist policies. And these racist, bigoted attacks by feminists and Democrats on Clarence Thomas are continuing to this day. The Gen-X hatred of Boomers ameliorated during the late 1990s, when many Gen-Xers made fortunes during the high tech boom. But it turned to a generational vengeful fury when they lost their fortunes in the Nasdaq crash that occurred in 2000. This vengeful fury is the attitude that prevailed as Gen-Xers reached middle management positions in financial institutions in the early 2000s. They had poured out of Masters programs in financial engineering in the 1990s, and they saw how they could use these new tools to get revenge on the hated Boomers — by creating these fraudulent synthetic securities and selling them to the Boomer investors. Their own Boomer bosses did not stand in the way. Boomers often make poor bosses because they grew up in the 1960s developing no management skills except to protest and complain. As a result, Boomers aren’t good managers, and they’re very gullible, so that dishonest Gen-Xers can easily take advantage of them. Financial crisis: Just blame the Boomers for everything If you have doubts that the attitudes of Gen-Xers are different from the attitudes of Boomers, there is one clear, measurable difference. This is a huge, major, enormous, gigantic, overwhelming difference between the Gen-X culture and the Boomer culture, and this is the difference that makes the Gen-X culture so toxic. When the Savings and Loan crisis occurred in the 1980s, the Boomer prosecutors investigated every detail, made thousands of criminal referrals and had numerous convictions. The 2000s financial crisis is much worse, and yet there has not been even one criminal referral or conviction. The Justice Department refuses to investigate and prosecute the crimes that were committed. This is the huge difference with the Gen-X culture: Boomers had no problem prosecuting other Boomers, but Gen-Xers adamantly refuse to investigate and blame each other, even for serious crimes. Thus, even if there are only a few dishonest Gen-Xers, they can do an enormous amount of damage because they can commit crimes at will and count on not being punished by Gen-X prosecutors. This has huge consequences, as Gen-X financial engineers could and can commit serious crimes freely. It’s even worse than that, because Gen-X regulators and prosecutors have actually encouraged continued fraud. In 2008, I wrote frequently about Gen-X New York Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo who not only did not prosecute the banksters at Citibank and others, but actually arranged for them to continue defrauding the public and investors. And a recent 60 Minutes investigation shows that the Obama Justice Department adamantly refuses to investigate and prosecute this bankster fraud, even in the face of massive evidence of fraud. The Lost Generation and the Holocaust That’s exactly the kind of culture that prevailed in 1930s Nazi Germany. It was possible to rob, defraud, assault or even kill a Jew for revenge, and these actions were not only not investigated and prosecuted by German officials, they were actually encouraged and supported by officials, all the way up to Hitler himself. This is EXACTLY the same kind of generational behavior we’ve been seeing today, differing only in degree. The relationship between Gen-Xers and Boomers is hardly unique in history. The generation that grew up after the Civil War was called the “Missionary Generation,” and you can just imagine from their name how similar they were to the Boomers that grew up after WW II. The Missionary Generation created societal chaos that the next generation, known as the “Lost Generation,” came to hate them for. It’s the Lost Generation that’s the archetypal ancestor of Generation-X. America’s Lost Generation hated the Missionary Generation even before World War I, but that hatred became palpable after the war, which they blamed entirely on the Missionaries. World War I was a political disaster for Germany. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, World War I for Germany was not at all like World War II, but was generationally equivalent to the 1960s Vietnam War for America. Germany fought the war half-heartedly. There was a vigorous anti-war movement that turned the public against the war, and finally Germany was forced to capitulate — not because they were defeated on the battlefield, but because they were defeated politically at home by their anti-war movement. The Treaty of Versailles that followed the war was highly punitive to Germany, and Germany was completely humiliated. Germany’s Lost Generation blamed the war, the subsequent hyperinflation, and even the 1929 stock market crash on the Missionary Generation, especially the Jews who were associated with that generation. Robbing, defrauding, assaulting or even killing a Jew was no problem, because it was revenge for the war and the financial collapses. To them it wasn’t genocide; it was justice. Gen-Xers also feel it’s just justice today, when they defraud Boomers. Repeated Jewish persecution throughout history This resolves the puzzle of why ordinary Germans participated in the 1930s Holocaust, but there’s a larger question as well: Why has there been repeated persecution of Jews at many times and places for many centuries. Is there something unique about Jews that attracts this kind of persecution? Generational hatred is the worst kind of hatred because it spreads rapidly with no natural barriers. It’s so powerful that it overwhelms reason and common sense. If your generation hates some group, then all your friends will feel the same way and will reinforce your hatred. Anyone who objects can be ignored as being either too young and naive or too old and senile. A generational fault line can easily morph into a political fault line, as people in all generations pick sides in the generational dispute, and then the generational hatred becomes politicized. In America, for example, the Gen-Xer culture has been aligned with the Democrats, and we’ve seen xenophobic attitudes towards the Tea Party from the Democrats, and xenophobic attitudes towards Muslims from the Republicans. The generational split between Boomers and Gen-Xers is not unique in history. We’ve described the same generational split between Germany’s Missionary Generation and the Lost Generation that led to the Holocaust. In generational theory, the Missionary and Boomer generations are in the “Prophet Archetype,” while the Lost and Gen-X generations are in the “Nomad Archetype.” These archetypes repeat in every place and time in history. All Prophet generations have the same characteristics as Boomers — highly moralistic, arrogant and narcissistic — not always right, but always certain. All Nomad generations have the same characteristics as Generation-X, disaffected and angry at society and the preceding Prophet generation. Jewish communities have characteristics that are consistent with the Prophet generations, with a culture that’s often isolated and highly moralistic, based on ancient laws. This means that when a generational fault line morphs into a political fault line, the Jewish community is almost certainly going to be aligned with the Prophet generation, and hated by the younger Nomad generation. The situation is amplified by the fact that Jewish law provides for very careful handling of money and debt, meaning that the people in the Jewish community do well during financial crisis periods, while other communities struggle. This is the generational explanation for the xenophobia towards and persecution of Jews throughout history. The same kind of analysis can provide explanations for other persecuted groups, and for other genocides in history. Europe’s disintegrating economy Right now, we see Europe’s economy disintegrating right before our eyes, with no hope in sight. How will the the generational split manifest itself when total meltdown occurs? Another Holocaust for Jews? Mass killing of Muslims and/or Roma Gypsies? Or simple ethnic violence (Greeks versus Germans), spiraling into total war? We won’t have to wait too much longer to find out. This article is excerpted from the forthcoming book by John J. Xenakis, “For Boomers: How to Survive in a Generation-X World: Making your way in the workplace, in love and in life.”

See original here:
Proposed Explanation For Repeated Jewish Persecution Throughout History


Has Europe Become a Dirty Word in the GOP Primary?

Posted by on Monday, 30 January, 2012

Recent financial events in the Eurozone have been deeply troubling. One of the most common comparisons conservatives the United States make is that the current path will lead to the U.S. becoming like Greece or Italy–that the risk of U.S. fiscal problems puts us on a collision course with national bankruptcy. Many conservatives believe the direction the Obama Administration is charting for the United States will lead to a welfare-state style of government common to Eurozone countries. Some in Europe have decided that their continent has become a source of mockery to the GOP presidential candidates, and they are not pleased. In a piece authored by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff and published by Public Service Europe , the author opines on the anti-European sentiment in the United States in general and the disdain from the GOP presidential candidates in particular. Mitt Romney, one of the leading Republican United States presidential candidates, has informed his countrymen over the past few weeks that Barack Obama is working to turn America into Europe. Romney contends that under Obama, a “European-style welfare state” is America’s destiny. Or, in another version of this horrific vision that permeates most of the candidate’s campaign speeches, “a European-style entitlement society”. Obama, according to Romney, “takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America”. Learning from Europe seems to “poison the very spirit of America” It is true that President Obama and the left seem to favor the European welfare-state model. It is not some extraneous point cloaked in secrecy. Therefore, it is not an odd coincidence that center-right politicians and conservative Americans would be using this particular vernacular in discussions about our fiscal crisis and the direction of the nation. Greece has become a poster child for an out-of-control, welfare-state government that has proven unwilling to accept the hard austerity measures necessary to deal with their fiscal crisis. Even in the last few days, the ongoing Eurozone talks have resulted in stonewalling from the Greeks and the announcement of a second €145 billion bailout . When Republicans discuss the dangers posed to America by a European-style social democracy, Greece is the leading example. Learning from Greece’s example is poisonous to the spirit of America if the Greece model is emulated, as opposed to learning from the lessons of its failure and rejecting it. Kleine-Brockhoff spends a significant amount of time in the rest of the piece complaining about the mean Americans and their proclamation that France in particular and Europe in general are “Euroweenies.” Many informed readers will remember well the French resistance to the invasion in Iraq in 2003. Clearly, the European leftists were happy to ignore the murderous regime in Iraq, or at least surrender before the first shot was fired. In his final paragraph, Kleine-Brockhoff finally admits this is real basis for the perceived anti-European sentiment: The question is how seriously to take all of this Eurobaloney? In this Republican presidential primary campaign, Europe has been nothing but a foil. Anti-Europeanism has been a code word for anti-liberalism. He is profoundly correct that the desire of Republican candidates and the majority of Americans is to avoid the leftist ideology that is destroying Europe piecemeal. Americans are quite capable of making the connection between European leftism and its complete failure on so many levels. Europe is only a dirty word in this primary on the basis of the failed leftist policies of Europe. Americans are not inclined to be anti-European. It is a destination many Americans enjoy visiting and a place to which many of them trace their family roots. The reason Europe has received negative attention from Republicans is because of the failure of its leftist policies, which represent a record most Americans, excluding AmeriWeenies (aka leftists), want to avoid.

Read more here:
Has Europe Become a Dirty Word in the GOP Primary?


Iran’s ‘Super Bowl’ Tactics Could Lead to Victory Against the U.S.

Posted by on Saturday, 28 January, 2012

Where the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman meet rests today’s ever more famous Straits of Hormuz. The Straits have been a key talking point among media, politicians, and Pentagon staff. Only 21 miles wide at the narrowest point, Iran contends that it will close the Straits of Hormuz if international pressure against the Persian state continues. Many are questioning, “Can Iran really close the Straits of Hormuz?” Whether Iran can close the Straits of Hormuz is like asking whether the Giants defense can completely “shut down” Tom Brady and his Patriots offense or whether the Patriots defense can completely “shut down” Eli Manning and the Giants offense. No one can answer such question unless they know what “shut down” actually means. Does “shutting down” a Super Bowl offense mean the opposing defense won’t get a touchdown, a field goal, a first down; or does it mean that the opposing defense won’t allow one positive yard gained? The odds are virtually nil when it comes to shutting down either team’s offense to the point they don’t get at least one first down in their four quarters of play, let alone any positive yardage. The odds are that both teams will, at a minimum, have at least three points by the end of the game. As true as this is for next week’s Super Bowl, it is also true that if Iran decided to “close the Straits of Hormuz,” they will obtain some small scale tactical victories. Closing the Straits of Hormuz can be achieved by the Iranians—at least for a marginal period of time. The closure of the Straits would likely not last long, nor would such tactic defeat any Western state fighting the Iranians. In fact, the two lane shipping waterway was temporarily closed in 1987 during the short-lived “Tanker War.” Unfortunately, many intelligence professionals refuse to accept that the Straits can be shut down. Constant talk about Iranian military capabilities being swiftly defeated by American military supremacy is brought up. Unfortunately, the Iranians have proven not to adhere to international laws of warfare—asymmetric and unconventional tactics are their answer. During the Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise, retired Marine General Van Ripper arguably defeated the Americans through his asymmetric tactics. He was overly generous with his mild terror activities incorporating non-conventional military measures. What would happen, though, if Iran was not as generous and imposed the most unfathomable tactics like mass human shields protecting Iran’s shorelines staged with heavy artillery? Human shields have become a devastating problem for U.S. forces recently in Iraq and even at times in Afghanistan. Imagine main stream media covering a war against Iran filming U.S. naval or air power killing hundreds of “innocent” children and women. What would the international reaction be? Do we have adequate public affairs capabilities to neutralize the blowback from such an atrocity? The answer is an obvious no. The situation presents another overly disturbing scenario. What would the U.S. rules of engagement be when our troops are faced with waves of Iranian children carrying bombs and grenades? Some would believe this scenario highly unlikely, but how few know anything about Iran’s tactics incorporating its Basij Mostazafan ?  The “mobilization of the oppressed” consists of short-term volunteer militias. Most of the Basij members are children. At one point in Iranian history, they were used to clear mine fields. Would Iran activate them to serve as suicide bombers knowing how soft America has grown in protecting the presumed innocent? Are our soldiers prepared to kill children knowing how the international community, let alone many Americans, will react? Iran has an incredible track record of utilizing Shiite radicalized forces to conduct suicide missions. In fact, since 2005, Iran established an actual martyrdom training camp called Gharar-gah-e Asheghan-e Shahadat (Congregation of the Lovers of Martyrdom). Combine a mass human shield, children, and Iran’s martyrdom capabilities, and the country likely has the capabilities to temporarily close down the Straits of Hormuz. With 17 million barrels of oil moved daily through the Straits, simply closing the waterway for a few days or weeks will result in devastating economic hardships throughout the world.  Iran doesn’t need to close the Straits for any prolonged period of time to achieve a devastating blow to the international community. They can achieve an immediate tactical victory due to the economic hardships that would entail, then later achieve a strategic victory by a magnitude blowback from international observers of main stream media witnessing thousands of (innocent or not) women and children die at the hands of American and coalition forces. War is like the Super Bowl. You have two teams fighting against one another. Tactically, both teams have victories, yet strategically, only one comes out on top. At the end of the game, no matter the victor, both teams realize each player received numerous bumps and bruises. Of course, many differences between war and football exist. The main difference—in war, bumps and bruises often result in lifelong injuries or death. Kerry Patton, a combat service disabled veteran, is a senior analyst for WIKISTRAT and owner of IranWarMonitor.com .  He has worked in South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, focusing on intelligence and security and interviewing current and former terrorists, including members of the Taliban.  He is the author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children’s book American Patriotism .  You can follow him on Facebook .

View post:
Iran’s ‘Super Bowl’ Tactics Could Lead to Victory Against the U.S.


U.S. Ambassador to Russia: Obama Says We Should Support ‘Universal Values,’ Not American Values

Posted by on Wednesday, 25 January, 2012

U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul neatly summarized everything that is wrong with President Barack Obama’s foreign policy in an interview yesterday with National Public Radio (emphasis added): There is no single path to democracy. And every society and every government and every country will find their own path. And we, as President Obama has said many, many times, we’re not going to get into the business of dictating that path, we’re just going to support what we like to call universal values. Not American values, not Western values, universal values. McFaul’s primary responsibility as an ambassador is to represent the United States and its values. If he believes otherwise; he should resign. If he has been ordered otherwise by the President of the United States, he should resign in protest. McFaul is correct that democracy is not solely an American value, but it is inappropriate for him–or for the Obama administration–to appease the calculated anti-Americanism of the Russian (or any other) government by, in effect, throwing America under the bus. That appeasement has been present in President Obama’s approach to foreign affairs from the very start of his administration, when he described his job as representing the Arab world to Americans as much as Americans to the Arab world, and speaking for the world in general, not just the United States: And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy…. I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity… There can be no clearer explanation of why the United States is failing to pursue its interests with the urgency and emphasis they demand–while at the same time appeasing anti-American regimes instead of promoting the democracy he purports to champion as a “universal” value.

More:
U.S. Ambassador to Russia: Obama Says We Should Support ‘Universal Values,’ Not American Values


Looking Back on Obama’s Five Previous Addresses to Congress: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from the Podium

Posted by on Tuesday, 24 January, 2012

Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver his third State of the Union Address–and his sixth address to a joint session of Congress. That’s more than either President Bush or President Clinton had addressed in any single term. Despite his purported skill as an orator, none of Obama’s addresses to Congress has been particularly successful. They are typically remembered more for the rancor they caused than for any positive effects. Obama is expected to make his inequality the focus of his address. That’s an important campaign theme, as well as a refrain of the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama supported in the fall of 2011. Yet it is not a significant departure from the tone of previous addresses, in which Obama bullied opponents and Supreme Court justices; fabricated health insurance horror stories; and called upon “millionaires and billionaires” to pay. For reference purposes as you watch tonight’s State of the Union, here is a concise summary of Obama’s five previous speeches to Congress, and how they were received: Obama's first address: February 24, 2009 *** Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009 In his first speech as the 44th President, Obama wanted to put his stamp on the presidency and introduce his ambitious policy agenda–one “that begins with jobs,” he said. The highlight of his address was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act–i.e. the stimulus–which he promised would receive “tough, unprecedented oversight” under Vice President Joe Biden. Obama also announced a government lending program to ease credit, a new housing plan to prevent foreclosures, and assistance to struggling banks. He asked for “long-term investments” in green energy; for a commitment to health care reform; and for new funding for schools, along with education reforms. And he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, partly by letting “tax breaks” for the wealthy expire. In addition, Obama touched on national security, reiterating his promise to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, hinting that he would press for civilian trials for terrorists, and promising to “defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.” On foreign policy, Obama declared “a new era of engagement” through negotiations with hostile powers, and announced the appointment of a new envoy to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reaction to Obama’s speech was somewhat negative: he apparently intended to govern from the left, not from the center (as some had hoped). Stock prices fell sharply the next morning, recovering by the afternoon but ending firmly in the red. In retrospect, though Obama kept his promises on assisting banks and fighting al Qaeda, he broke many other pledges, and saw many of his policies–especially the stimulus–fail badly. *** Health Care Reform Address, September 9, 2009 Obama’s speech is remembered more for Republican congressman Joe Wilson’s (accurate, though rude) outburst–”You lie!”–than for anything Obama himself said. Yet the speech was the climax of a heated political battle over health care reform that lasted well into the next year, divided the nation bitterly, and eventually cost Democrats control of the House in November 2010. Obama began by taking credit for economic progress (“we have pulled this economy back from the brink”) before launching into his chosen topic. In outlining the problem, Obama told two stories about ordinary Americans who had suffered through losing their their insurance; both of these later turned out to be false . He declared that while other presidents had tried to deal with health care reform, he was “determined to be the last.” Obama presented his plan–which did not exist in legislative form–as the middle ground between Democrats’ preference for “single-payer” and Republicans’ proposal to “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” He said his plan would be deficit-neutral; provide “more security and more stability” while insuring more people; slow the growth of health costs, and allow people to keep “the coverage or the doctor you have.” Next, Obama turned to the “bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.” These included so-called “death panels,” insuring illegal immigrants, and federal funding for abortion; the latter two turned out to be true, and the first persists in rationing proposals. Obama went on to criticize insurance companies, to defend his proposed Medicare cuts, and to offer a promise to consider tort reform (still unfulfilled). *** First State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010 Obama again began with the now-familiar refrain that he had entered office in tumultuous times, but had brought America back from the brink–“one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.” Yet Obama did not look confident–shaken, perhaps, by 10% unemployment and by the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts, a striking rebuke to Obama. Citing “experts from across the political spectrum,” Obama claimed government had needed to act “immediately and aggressively” in 2009. Likewise, citing “economists on the left and right,” he claimed the stimulus had “helped save jobs and avert disaster.” He also drew attention to tax cuts that had been part of the stimulus, claiming that he had done what was politically difficult in order to achieve what was economically necessary. Obama continued by declaring that for businesses to create jobs, government first had to “create the conditions necessary.” To that end, he proposed using $30 billion of the TARP bailout money to help “community banks.” He also touted infrastructure spending and investments in clean energy. Describing the previous economic recovery as a “lost decade,” he urged Congress to reshape the new recovery by passing financial reform. After outlining several other government-driven economic proposals, Obama turned to health care, reiterating that his reforms would be deficit-neutral and allow Americans “to keep their doctor and their plan.” Striking a bipartisan tone, Obama asked for proposals for a “better approach” (though Republican plans were never, in fact, considered). He also announced his bipartisan debt commission (whose advice he ultimately rejected). In a striking breach of decorum, Obama then turned to the Supreme Court justices who were sitting impassively in the chamber and excoriated them for their ruling in Citizens United –prompting Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth the words: “Not true.” Democrats leapt to their feet. Obama then decried partisanship in Washington, singling out Senate Republicans for the filibuster power they had only recently regained. On foreign policy, Obama touted his pursuit of terrorists, and promised to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He also highlighted his work on nuclear disarmament, and highlighted the cause of human rights in Iran–a cause Obama had conspicuously failed to support when protests erupted there in 2009. In closing, he promised to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and concluded: “I never suggested that change would be easy.” *** Second State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011 This was Obama’s first address to the new, divided Congress after his party suffered an historic defeat in the November 2010 elections. Missing a few Supreme Court justices, and facing a chamber dominated by Republicans, Obama’s speech failed to demonstrate that he had received the urgent message Americans had sent his administration at the polls just a few weeks before. Obama began with the Tucson shootings–which Democrats had already mobilized for partisan purposes–as a symbol of the need for unity. Once again, he claimed credit for signs of economic progress, including rising stock prices and new private sector jobs. In order to succeed further, Obama said, the government would have to invest in “winning the future” (a slogan stolen, ironically, from his possible future opponent Newt Gingrich). The slogan–which Sarah Palin would mock with the acronym “WTF”–included plans to spend, once again, on clean energy; to increase spending on education; to solve illegal immigration “once and for all”; and to invest in high-speed rail and other infrastructure projects. Aside from vague nods on tax reform and entitlements, and a promised “review of government regulations,” the address simply reiterated Obama’s past priorities. Obama acknowledged his health care law could be “improved,” but–setting up a straw man–vowed never to “go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.” On the issue of the national debt, he proposed freezing domestic spending for five years–at the high levels he had already set. Critically, Obama failed to endorse the proposals of his debt commission. Once again, Obama spoke about his administration’s success in fighting al Qaeda, and his goal of ending the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also, however, added that he had “increased cooperation” with American allies on missile defense–a gross distortion, given that he had backed out of commitments on missile defense with Poland and the Czech Republic. Overall, the speech fell flat, setting the stage for a difficult political year. *** American Jobs Act Address, September 8, 2011 This address was President Obama’s most partisan, and most futile: the “jobs bill” it was meant to promote was delayed by the president’s own party in the Senate, and ultimately never passed. For the first time, Obama did not attempt to claim credit for economic recovery, but highlighted “economic crisis”–and attacked Congress for causing “a political crisis that’s made things worse.” The American Jobs Act was essentially a reprise of the stimulus of 2009, which Obama tacitly acknowledged had failed. Packed with proposals that the president knew would not pass the Republican-controlled House–such as more spending on profligate state governments, and new taxes on people Obama called “millionaires and billionaires”–the address set Congress as the rhetorical punching bag of Obama’s re-election campaign. As he had done two years before in pressing Congress to pass health care reform, the president described his bill as the  moderate alternative. He scolded Democrats “who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid”; he attacked Republicans “who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it.” This time, neither party appeared to be impressed by the tactic. Once again, Obama argued for the role of government in American life, asserting that its importance was based on “a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation….No single individual built America on their own.” Republican pundits were critical of the speech, but some greeted it with relief: finally, there was no more pretense. Obama had become his true, big-government self.

Original post:
Looking Back on Obama’s Five Previous Addresses to Congress: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from the Podium


Obama Begins Talks With ‘Global Terrorist’ In Afghanistan

Posted by on Monday, 23 January, 2012

ISLAMABAD — Anxious to accelerate peace moves, top-level U.S. officials have held talks with a representative of an insurgent movement led by a former Afghan prime minister who has been branded a terrorist by Washington, a relative of the rebel leader says. Dr. Ghairat Baheer, a representative and son-in-law of longtime Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, told The Associated Press this week that he had met separately with David Petraeus, former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and now CIA director, and had face-to-face discussions earlier this month with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Marine Gen. John Allen, currently the top U.S. commander in the country. In 2003 a “global terrorist”;  now a diplomatic partner? Baheer, who was released in 2008 after six years in U.S. custody at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, described his talks with U.S. officials as nascent and exploratory. Yet Baheer says the discussions show that the U.S. knows that in addition to getting the blessing of Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar — a bitter rival of Hekmatyar even though both are fighting international troops — any peace deal would have to be supported by Hekmatyar, who has thousands of fighters and followers primarily in the north and east. “Hizb-i-Islami is a reality that no one can ignore,” Baheer said during an interview last week at his spacious home in a posh suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. “For a while, the United States and the Kabul government tried not to give so much importance to Hizb-i-Islami, but now they have come to the conclusion that they cannot make it without Hizb-i-Islami.” Hizb-i-Islami, which means Islamic party, has had ties to al-Qaida but in 2010 floated a 15-point peace plan during informal meetings with the Afghan government in Kabul. At the time, however, U.S. officials refused to see the party’s delegation. In Washington, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden would not confirm that such meetings took place but said the U.S. was maintaining “a range of contacts in support of an Afghan-led reconciliation process.” On Saturday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he also had met recently with Hizb-i-Islami representatives. Baheer said he attended those meetings but added that the party considers the Afghan government corrupt and lacking legitimacy. Karzai’s announcement appeared intended to bolster his position as the key player in the search for peace. The U.S. repeatedly has said that formal negotiations must be Afghan-led, but Karzai has complained that his government has not been directly involved in recent preliminary talks with Taliban representatives and plans for setting up a Taliban political office in the Gulf state of Qatar. Baheer said his meeting with Petraeus, whom he described as a “very humble, polite person,” was marked by a few rounds of verbal sparring with each boasting a battlefield strength that the other dismissed as exaggerated. “There was a psychological war in these first meetings,” he said. Baheer said Crocker and Allen tried to persuade Hizb-i-Islami to become part of Afghanistan’s political network, accept the Afghan security forces and embrace the nation’s current constitution. He said Hizb-i-Islami was ready to accept the security forces and the constitution, but wants a multiparty commission established to review and revise the charter. “We are willing to make compromises,” said Baheer. “We already have said we will accept the Afghan army and the police.” He said Hizb-i-Islami envisioned a multiparty government in postwar Afghanistan. At the same time, the group wants all U.S. and NATO forces, including military trainers, to leave Afghanistan, he said. “The presence of any foreign forces will be not acceptable to us under any cover,” he said. “Daily, there is another American killing of civilians. The longer they stay, the more they are hated by the Afghan people.” Overtures to Hekmatyar’s group show not only the degree of U.S. interest in pursuing a settlement but also the complexity of putting together an agreement acceptable to all sides in factious Afghanistan. The U.S. formally declared Hekmatyar a “global terrorist” in 2003 because of alleged links to al-Qaida and froze all assets which he may have in the United States. Hekmatyar, who is in his mid-60s, was among the major recipients of U.S. aid during the Afghan war against the Soviets in the 1980s. He and other anti-Soviet commanders swept into Kabul in 1992 and ousted the pro-Soviet government, only to turn against one another in a bitter and bloody power struggle that destroyed vast sections of the Afghan capital and killed an estimated 50,000 civilians before the Taliban seized the city. A bitter rival of Mullah Omar, Hekmatyar fled to Iran and remained there until the Taliban were ousted in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He declared war on foreign troops in his country and rebuilt his military forces, which by 2008 had become a major threat to the U.S.-led coalition. Contacts with Hekmatyar’s group as well as parallel efforts to negotiate with the Taliban have taken on new urgency following the NATO decision to withdraw foreign combat forces, transfer security responsibility to the Afghans by the end of 2014 and bring an end to the unpopular war, which is increasingly seen as a drain on the financially strapped Western countries that provide most of the troops. On Sunday, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, completed two days of meetings about the peace process with Karzai and other Afghan officials. Grossman, who was to travel to Qatar on Monday, urged the Taliban to issue a “clear statement” against international terrorism and affirm their commitment to the peace process “to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan.” U.S. officials also have reached out to the Pakistan-based Haqqani militant network to test its interest in peace talks. Haqqani fighters, the second largest insurgent group after the Taliban, have been blamed for most of the high-profile attacks in the heart of the Afghan capital.

Original post:
Obama Begins Talks With ‘Global Terrorist’ In Afghanistan


© 2012 Political News & Info powered by WordPress. Regal Theme Designed by Gauson Design