Recently in International Affairs Category

The always-insightful Christopher Hitchens says that we shouldn't call what happened in Iran an "election" because it was a sham from the beginning.

Iran and its citizens are considered by the Shiite theocracy to be the private property of the anointed mullahs. This totalitarian idea was originally based on a piece of religious quackery promulgated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and known as velayat-e faqui. Under the terms of this edict—which originally placed the clerics in charge of the lives and property of orphans, the indigent, and the insane—the entire population is now declared to be a childlike ward of the black-robed state. Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not "run." Any newspaper referring to the subsequent proceedings as an election, sometimes complete with rallies, polls, counts, and all the rest of it is the cause of helpless laughter among the ayatollahs. ("They fell for it? But it's too easy!") Shame on all those media outlets that have been complicit in this dirty lie all last week. And shame also on our pathetic secretary of state, who said that she hoped that "the genuine will and desire" of the people of Iran would be reflected in the outcome. Surely she knows that any such contingency was deliberately forestalled to begin with.

In theory, the first choice of the ayatollahs might not actually "win," and there could even be divisions among the Islamic Guardian Council as to who constitutes the best nominee. Secondary as that is, it can still lead to rancor. After all, corrupt systems are still subject to fraud. This, like hypocrisy, is the compliment that vice pays to virtue. With near-incredible brutishness and cruelty, then, the guardians moved to cut off cell-phone and text-message networks that might give even an impression of fairness and announced though their storm-troop "revolutionary guards" that only one form of voting had divine sanction. ("The miraculous hand of God," announced Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had been present in the polling places and had announced a result before many people had even finished voting. He says that sort of thing all the time.)

I wish the Iranian people all the best. America would love to be friends with you. Please ditch the mullahs and give us a call.

Although it's easy to forget it in America, here's another stark reminder that Christians are the world's most persecuted group: Hindu extremists bomb churches in Nepal.

The extremist Hindu Nepal Defense Army (NDA), has issued a statement acknowledging responsibility for a bomb attack last week on Kathmandu Cathedral. Their statement adds: “We want all the one million Christians out of the country.

The statement was distributed during a public demonstration organized by the Church in Nepal on 31 May, to create awareness among the people on the issue of religious freedom and the rights of every citizen to profess their own faith.

A large part of Nepal's civil society, groups of every race and ethnic background, human rights activists, various religious communities, have all publicly expressed their solidarity with the Christians and disapproval of the fundamentalist groups, revealing a Nepalese society united in the values of respect, pluralism, and religious freedom.

In Nepal, Christians make up 2.4% of the population. Church leaders have voiced concern about the NDA's threat. According to analysts, the group is made up of former soldiers and members of the police force who created the paramilitary organisation after the resignation of King Gyandera, which heralded the arrival of a democratic secular system and the rise to power ex-Maoist groups after centuries of rule by a Hindu monarch.

Pray for believers in Nepal, India, China, and throughout the Middle East and South Asia.

George Friedman at Stratfor has an in-depth analysis of what Israel, America, and the Arab regimes want from the Middle East "peace process". It's a great overview of the players, what they want, and how they're constrained by reality.

In the end, this is a classic study in the limits of power. Israel can have its freedom of action anytime it is willing to pay the price for it. But Israel can’t pay the price. Netanyahu is coming to Washington to see if he can get what he wants without paying the price, and we suspect strongly he knows he won’t get it. His problem is the same as that of the Arab states. There are many in Israel, particularly among Netanyahu’s supporters, who believe Israel is a great power. It isn’t. It is a nation that is strong partly because it lives in a pretty weak neighborhood, and partly because it has very strong friends. Many Israelis don’t want to be told that, and Netanyahu came to office playing on the sense of Israeli national power.

So the peace process will continue, no one will expect anything from it, the Palestinians will remain isolated and wars regularly will break out. The only advantage of this situation from the U.S. point of view it is that it is preferable to all other available realities.

David Leonhardt has written an insightful piece about how America and China are intertwined, mostly interesting as a statement of the rather significant problem.

Over the past decade, China and the United States have developed a deeply symbiotic, and dangerous, relationship. China discovered that an economy built on cheap exports would allow it to grow faster than it ever had and to create enough jobs to mollify its impoverished population. American consumers snapped up these cheap exports — shoes, toys, electronics and the like — and China soon found itself owning a huge pile of American dollars. Governments don’t like to hold too much cash, because it pays no return, so the Chinese bought many, many Treasury bonds with their dollars. This additional demand for Treasuries was one big reason (though not the only reason) that interest rates fell so low in recent years. Thanks to those low interest rates, Americans were able to go on a shopping spree and buy some things, like houses, they couldn’t really afford. China kept lending and exporting, and we kept borrowing and consuming. It all worked very nicely, until it didn’t.

The most obviously worrisome part of the situation today is that the Chinese could decide that they no longer want to buy Treasury bonds. The U.S. government’s recent spending for bank bailouts and stimulus may be necessary to get the economy moving again, but it also raises the specter of eventual inflation, which would damage the value of Treasuries. If the Chinese are unnerved by this, they could instead use their cash to buy the bonds of other countries, which would cause interest rates here to jump, prolonging the recession. Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, seemed to raise this possibility in March, in remarks to reporters at the end of the annual session of China’s Parliament. “We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S.,” Wen said. “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” In all likelihood, this was mostly posturing. Were China to cut back sharply on its purchase of Treasury bonds, it would send the value of the bonds plummeting, hurting the Chinese, who already own hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth. Yet Wen’s comments, which made headlines around the world, did highlight an underlying truth. The relationship between the United States and China can’t continue on its current path.

That China would be hurt by American hyperinflation is one of the greatest reassurances I can think of that we'll find some way to avoid it.

Chaos has erupted in Guatemala over the YouTube video below, created by assassinated lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg Marzano in which he claims that he was murdered by the President of the country, Alvaro Colom, to cover up corruption and money laundering.

Some background:

When Rodrigo Rosenberg turned up dead on Mother's Day in an upscale neighborhood in Guatemala City, his murder was seen as little more than another execution-style shooting in one of Latin America's most dangerous countries. Now, after a video emerged in which Rosenberg accused Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom of orchestrating the murder, the killing has sparked civic unrest that threatens to topple the President of this fledgling democracy.

Thousands of protesters have demonstrated daily in front of the presidential palace, calling for Colom's resignation. And politicians have said Colom should step aside during the investigation into Rosenberg's death. "This is the most serious political crisis the country has faced since the signing of the peace accords" in 1996, said Anita Isaacs, a Haverford College political science professor who studies democratization in Guatemala. "The country is hanging on by a thread."

Naturally President Colom denies the accusations.

Alvaro Colom, the president of Guatemala, has asked US authorities to aid the investigation into the death of a prominent lawyer, saying he is "incapable" of ordering a murder.

Colom told Al Jazeera on Friday he has "nothing to hide" over the investigation into the death of Rodrigo Rosenberg, who filmed himself saying if he was killed, it was on Colom's orders.

"Those who know me they know I am incapable of ordering a murder," he said.

"I don't know the motives Rodigro Rosenberg had to film that tape but if you see those who were involved in filming the tape you understand who they are ... they are destabilisers."

(HT: RD, Slashdot.)

I knew this intuitively before Ralph Peters laid out the details: terrorists kill civilians and then blame US troops. Too bad our own government isn't savvy enough to recognize the con.

Lying about civilian casualties is the one sure way to impede or even halt US (or Israeli) operations, to force such tight restrictions on our troops that they can't win.

The casualty con's so effective as both propaganda and tactic that terrorists everywhere have adopted the technique. It's been so successful that our enemies long ago transitioned to the next phase: creating civilian casualties and blaming us.

It works. The media love the charge. Our troops and pilots are always guilty -- even if proven innocent. Because so many on the left want us to be guilty.

Few journalists bother to investigate. If the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas says it, it must be so. In Media Wonderland, terrorists never lie. Now every successful strike on a Taliban target generates the instant claim that the dead were all civilians.

And it isn't just the media who back the Taliban. The Obama administration -- a case study in instant foreign-policy ineptitude -- signs up, too.

Read the whole thing. Afghanistan can quickly turn into another Vietnam if the Democrats want it badly enough.

Another "the real story behind the rescue of Captain Philips" story. Could be!

I'm personally skeptical about the sourcing of this "real story" behind the rescue of Captain Philips from the Somali pirates. The details are too-good-to-be-true for anyone of a conservative bent, and yet not so unbelievable that you can dismiss them out of hand. I imagine the story is close to the truth, even if the writer has no real direct knowledge of the incident.

The one fact that's hard to explain if the President didn't initially insist on a peaceful resolution is that Captain Philips jumped into the water during his first escape attempt and was fired upon, and yet the nearby naval vessels did not engage the pirates remaining on the boat. Once Captain Philips was clear, why weren't the pirates who were shooting at him from the boat immediately killed?

Anyway, I've gotten this story from many different directions all purporting to be true, which means it almost certainly isn't. But it may still be truthy!

This paper in the British Medical Journal proves that abortion is used as a sex-selection tool in China thanks to the totalitarian one-child policy and general discrimination against girls and women.

Results 4 764 512 people under the age of 20 were included. Overall sex ratios were high across all age groups and residency types, but they were highest in the 1-4 years age group, peaking at 126 (95% confidence interval 125 to 126) in rural areas. Six provinces had sex ratios of over 130 in the 1-4 age group. The sex ratio at birth was close to normal for first order births but rose steeply for second order births, especially in rural areas, where it reached 146 (143 to 149). Nine provinces had ratios of over 160 for second order births. The highest sex ratios were seen in provinces that allow rural inhabitants a second child if the first is a girl. Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males. One particular variant of the one child policy, which allows a second child if the first is a girl, leads to the highest sex ratios.

Conclusions In 2005 males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million in China, and more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred. China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades. Enforcing the existing ban on sex selective abortion could lead to normalisation of the ratios.

Emphasis mine.

Shouldn't various groups concerned about "women's rights" be making a bit of noise about this ruthless gender-cide?

(HT: William Saletan.)

For decades the American carrier battle group has reigned supreme over the world's oceans, but now China may have an effective counter: the anti-surface ballistic missile (ASBM).

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The Information Dissemination link has lots more technical information. One particularly interested tidbit is:

Reconnaissance Satellites - I think you can look at the Ziyuan and Yaogan series of satellites that have EO, CCD and SAR sensors as possibilities here. They could also be talking about the FY series, which is actually expected to be a constellation of Earth Observation satellites. I think it's important that in the 18th Committee on Earth Observation Satellites plenary and workshop in 2004, they announced they would launch over 100 Earth Observation satellites. I don't know enough about this to comment on which specific satellites I think will be used for scanning ships, but the blog did mention that China has used FY-2 series of satellites to track movement of targets. Another possibility is launching many short duration, micro-Earth Observation satellites in times of conflict. It mentioned that China can launch a 100 kg satellite on 12 hours notice. In peace mission 05. They launched an experimental satellite on August 2nd for detection/science experiment work. This operated for 27 days and returned to earth on August 29th after the conclusion of the exercise.

Emphasis mine.

Looks like President Obama handled the pirate hostage situation pretty well, even if it took him a while to get down to business.

MOMBASA, Kenya (AP) - An American ship captain was freed unharmed Sunday and three of the pirates who held him for days in a lifeboat off the Somali coast were killed in a operation by U.S. Navy Seals that was approved by President Barack Obama, officials said. ...

U.S. officials said Obama ordered the Defense Department to use military resources to rescue Phillips. Obama said the captain had courage that was "a model for all Americans."

The fourth pirate should have been hanged on the spot.

Shannon Love nails the implications of the current piracy problem:

The return of international lawlessness on both land and sea arises from a paralysis brought on by the breakdown of internal trust and cooperation in the developed nations. We cannot enforce international law because half of our polity believes we have no right to. Half of our polity is more concerned with using piracy and other forms of lawlessness as sticks with which to attack their internal political enemies than they are with defending international law. The Geneva and Hague conventions have died in the last few years as it became evident that the principles of those conventions will only be applied to actions of the militaries of liberal democracies, and to no one else. Systematic violation of the Conventions has become the accepted road to political power, personal wealth and, occasionally, a Nobel Peace Prize.

Half of the polity now argues that unlawful and inhumane tactics merely represent the desperation of the justified underdog instead of the callousness of the cruel and greedy. In such a moral environment, those who must fight and apprehend pirates understand that they will face far harsher judgment, with far less presumption of innocence, than will the pirates. Why should they risk their reputations, careers, freedoms and lives just to uphold the law when they know their most likely reward will be a knife in the back?

Despite all the hand-wringing, solving the pirate problem should be pretty easy.

The rich nations are already taking steps to protect their shipping – the US 5th Fleet has five to 10 ships in the area; there is also an EU force, and a Nato fleet. A host of countries, including Britain, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Denmark and Malaysia, have either sent warships or are reportedly considering doing so.

Such ships must act promptly and ruthlessly, as piracy will spread unless it is stamped out. The Gulf of Aden is an exit from the Mediterranean, one of the world's most important seas, crossed annually by thousands of ships. So our campaign must be ruthless and pitiless: pirate ships must be sunk on sight and the crews left to swim to safety, if it can be reached.

Many would complain about such tactics but, in my opinion, pirates have no rights – indeed, it will be vital to exclude human rights lawyers from the anti-piracy campaign. To bring any captives to Europe or America for trial would probably be to grant them their dearest wish, which is to secure entry to a new life in the First World.

Hang 'em high.

Despite the video below, the White House is denying that President Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.

Just jump to 0:50 in the video and decide for yourself!

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Firearm Blog has done some extensive research and thoroughly debunked the widespread claim that American "assault rifles" are causing violence in Mexico.

For the past few months the media has been awash with articles discussing a new disease spreading across the USA-Mexican border, destroying lives and fueling the drug trade. The pathogen is the infamous “assault rifle” and the reason for the spread of arms is lax American gun laws, or so the American public is being told again and again.

Finally two reporters from Fox News, William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott, took the time to look into the figures behind recent politicians’ speeches and discovered that only 13% of firearms confiscated in Mexico were of US origin. While it was a breath of fresh air to read an honest piece of journalism, I was still not satisfied with the number. It seemed incredible that an organization that is able to smuggle up to $48.4 billion [PDF link] worth of drugs into Mexico and from there export them to the US with apparent impunity are forced to purchase 13% of their arms from US gun stores selling civilian legal semi-automatic firearms, rather than the global arms black-market where just about anything can be purchased if you have the money.

There's more going on than meets the eye.

Firstly, the Mexican police seem to have either little understanding of the firearms they are confiscating, or little command of the english language to interpret what they have captured. For example, in this press release from last year, they list this rifle “Un rifle marca Nickel Steel Barrel, matrícula 440236, calibre 30mm” (English: “A rifle brand Nickel Steel Barrel, number 440236, size 30mm”, emphasis mine). The “brand” was obviously read off the barrel. They also regularly name the same type of firearm under varying names. For example MAK-90 Norinco semi-automatic AK-47 clones are sometimes called MAK-90, Mark-90 or MK-90 or just “Norinco”. They do not appear to be able to keep consistent records. The police regularly make many other sloppy errors but I will not list them all.

Secondly, despite the significant desertion of Mexican soldiers who likely took thier M16 rifles with them (150,000 soldiers deserted in the past 6 years out of a force of 183,700 active personal) the Mexicans have kept very quite about M16 rifles being confiscated. I only managed to find evidence of three M16 rifles captured in the past 12 months. This does not make sense considering the vast quantity of these arms almost certainty exist in the hands of Mexican criminals.

(HT: RD.)

You've got to take a few minutes to read Obama's explanation of the financial crisis, with his underlying thoughts presented in brackets thanks to John Grace.

Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?"

Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ...

The wife saw this live on television yesterday and I was initially incredulous that Obama could possibly give an answer that bad. But I was wrong!

o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ o/

The Voice of the Martyrs just sent out a bulletin asking for prayer and petition signature for the release of Gao Zhisheng from Chinese torture.

Christian human rights attorney Gao Zhisheng, has now been missing 50 days, and there is increasing concern for his life. He was last seen being hauled away from his home by more than a dozen police officers on February 4. Reports from inside China indicate he is undergoing brutal torture.

The situation is critical, and with each day that passes, Gao Zhisheng's life hangs in the balance.

Because of Gao's work defending house church Christians and others persecuted in China, the Chinese government wants to silence his voice. ChinaAid president, Bob Fu calls Gao's torture "the most severe persecution in China's modern history." Gao's wife and two children, who have also been abused and tormented by the police, escaped to the U.S. less than two weeks ago. His family is afraid that authorities, furious at their escape, are taking revenge on Gao.

ChinaAid and The Voice of the Martyrs, together with Gao Zhisheng's wife and children, call on all Christians and those who value human dignity and justice to speak out on Gao Zhisheng's behalf by signing a petition to free Gao.

Sign the petition and send emails to the Chinese government. From what I've read, the Chinese government is very sensitive to its reputation among Westerners, and there's a good chance that Gao's release may be accomplished if we can draw enough attention to his situation.

Does anyone else find it hard to believe that President Obama is now complaining about the difficulty of the war in Afghanistan by asserting that "Iraq was easier"?

On Afghanistan, Obama said he is looking for a “comprehensive strategy” that stresses diplomacy that includes engagement with neighboring Pakistan. While Obama is studying requests from the military for more troops, he warned that, “there's gotta be an exit strategy. There-- there's gotta be a sense that this is not perpetual drift.”

He said Afghanistan is a more complex problem than Iraq. “Iraq was actually easier than Afghanistan. It's easier terrain,” Obama told Kroft. “You've got a-- much better educated population, infrastructure to build off of. You don't have some of the same destabilizing border-- issues that you have between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And so this is going to be a tough nut to crack. But-- it is not acceptable for us to simply sit back and let safe havens of terrorists plan and plot.”

Is this the same guy who called Iraq a "disaster" two years ago and wanted to retreat ASAP?

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end "a foreign policy disaster" but he stopped short of endorsing a cutoff in funds. ...

Obama's bill would cap troop levels in Iraq at the early January level of around 130,000, when Bush announced he would send 21,500 additional U.S. forces to Iraq. It would require that troops begin coming home on May 1 with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.

So if Afghanistan is harder than Iraq, shouldn't our President be retreating as fast as his little legs can carry him?

Or, I don't know, maybe he should have looked for an easier job.

Update: Not that Obama was paying much attention to Iraq.

More: Obama lacks "basic understanding" of the War on Terror:

The other illuminating moment in the interview came when Kroft brought up Dick Cheney’s criticism of closing Guantanamo Bay. Again, the unbearable lightness of Barack Obama came shining through like a beacon. Here is the first key quote from Obama’s response,

“After all these years, how many convictions came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer….”

If Obama believes that the purpose of Gitmo is to get “convictions” of terrorists, you have to question whether he has even the most basic understanding of the war on terror he’s currently in charge of fighting.

Gitmo is there to hold captured terrorists, to keep them from killing more Americans, and for interrogations that are designed to gain information for that same purpose.

Remember when the Prime Minister of the UK, our closest ally, gave President Obama a pen holder made from an anti-slavery ship that was the sister of the ship that the President's desk is made from? And in return President Obama gave Gordon Brown a stack of DVDs? Well it turns out that the crappy DVDs we gave to our closest ally can't even be played in Europe thanks to their copyright encryption.

Now it turns out Brown can't play the discs because of region-specific limitations, The Daily Telegraph reports.

DVD players are coded to limit themselves to material meant for specific geographic areas. The United States and Canada are Region 1. Western and Central Europe are Region 2.

Is it too much to ask that we have one humiliation-free day from our new President?

Why exactly are American taxpayers bailing out foreign banks?

I added up the various lists provided by AIG by country (see below), and the results were quite revealing. About $44 billion went to counterparties headquartered in the U.S., such as Goldman Sachs and states such as California and Virginia.

But as I expected, the majority of the funds—$58 billion—went to banks headquartered outside the U.S. The big winners were French and German banks, which pulled in $19 billion and $17 billion respectively.

To put these numbers in perspective, remember that the U.S. fiscal stimulus bill passed in February provided only $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction.

Country AIG-related payments
billions of dollars
US 43.5
France 19.1
Germany 16.7
UK 12.7
Switzerland 5.4
Netherlands 2.3
Canada 1.1
Spain 0.3
Denmark 0.2
101.3

So me, my daughter, and my grandkids will be paying extra taxes to cover the losses of these foreign banks. Uh, why?

Princess Leia: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

The flight of profitable companies from the United States to low-tax countries is accelerating thanks to President Obama's determination to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

ZUG, Switzerland, March 12 (Reuters) - The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom.

Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration. ...

Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

"Switzerland has a stable and developed tax regime and a network of tax treaties with most countries where we operate," Transocean Chief Executive Bob Long said in a statement in October, when it announced its move. "As a result, the redomestication will improve our ability to maintain a competitive worldwide effective corporate tax rate."

Guido Jud, head of Zug's tax office, said about 1,200 companies had set up shop there in 2008 -- in line with the long-term average, though it is difficult to assess how many of those are foreign companies until they file tax returns.

Swiss cantons are free to set their own tax rates. For example in Zug, corporate tax is about 16 percent but can fall as low as 9.5 percent for companies that do most of their business outside Switzerland. That compares with an average global corporate tax rate of 25.9 percent, according to consultancy KPMG.

But lucky us, we'll get to keep General Motors, Chrysler, Citigroup, AIG....

Christians are the world's most persecuted group. We American Christians need to be in prayer for our brothers around the world who are suffering to spread the gospel of Christ to unbelievers. Here's one example of Christians being persecuted in Uzbekistan.

UZBEKISTAN – Government Cracks Down on Religious Literature – Forum 18 News

The Uzbekistan government is continuing its persecution of Christians and Baptists, punishing them for distributing free literature. In one case Christians were questioned for seven hours without food or water, according to Forum 18 News. A Baptist believer was fired from his job as an electrician after the secret police confiscated his religious literature. Pray for believers living under intense pressure in Uzbekistan. Ask God to give them courage and endurance. Pray they will forgive their persecutors.

Follow the link for news from more countries.

Really? We've got $900,000,000 just sitting around?

Donors at an international summit in Egypt on Monday pledged a total 5.2 billion dollars to reconstruct Gaza, Egypt's foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit announced on Monday. The figure, promised by 70 countries, was "beyond our expectations," said Gheit.

Saudi Arabia pledged 1 billion dollars for Gaza.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington would donate 900 million dollars and vigorously seek to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Our response to today's crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace," she said.

It's worth noting that the $1,000,000,000 pledged by Saudi Arabia is also coming from America indirectly through our gasoline purchases. And hey, we're borrowing our money from the Chinese!

A month ago President Obama lifted restrictions on taxpayer money paying for abortions, and now Congressional Democrats are upping the ante: let's pay to force abortions on unwilling women!

Congressional Democrats have unveiled their new omnibus spending bill that will fund federal government programs through the Autumn months. The measure, H.R. 1105, contains language that would restore the money President Bush withheld from the UNFPA because of its abortion activities.

Sending taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, has been controversial because the group both advocates for abortion and has been involved in China's population control program.

Several investigations have shown the UNFPA to work hand-in-hand with the family planning officials in China that enforce its coercive one-child policy with forced abortions and sterilizations as well as other human rights abuses. ...

The omnibus bill adds language that makes it so the president or his administration is not required to sign off on the funding and make sure the UNFPA is not violating the Kemp-Kasten law which forbids funding groups involved in forced abortions.

The term "forced abortion" is subtly disingenuous, of course, because abortion is always a forcible act committed against the primary victim: the baby. But maybe the idea that even the mother isn't willing will propel various women's rights groups into action? (*Holds breath*)

(HT: Gateway Pundit.)

Apparently the idea I mentioned last week about a financial terrorist attack on September 11th, 2008 is not viewed very credibly, and there's finally some solid information on its pedigree. Seems like there's a variant Kanjorski meme that's also not likely to be true. Whew!

The giveaway should have been the massive conspiracy that would have been required to keep news of such attacks quiet.

Charles Krauthammer has written a brutal take-down of President Obama's apologetic stance towards Muslims.

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?

Maybe there's some "failure to communicate" that has prevented the world's Muslims from appreciating our sacrifice on their behalf, but I doubt it. I think the root of the problem is that the Muslim world is weak, and Islam hates weakness. Self-loathing drives the radical Islamofascists to bite the hand that feeds their civilization.

America has nothing to apologize for with regards to our treatment of the Muslim world. We haven't done everything perfectly, but we've done a lot better and a lot more than any other nation. Muslim dead-enders will never accept this, which is why they're fighting to the death and trying to take out as many of us as possible in the process.

Palestinians train their children to be suicide bombers and use women as human shields.

Israeli soldiers protect civilians and attempt to minimize casualties on both sides.

Iran humiliates the once-great United Kingdom yet again by invading Her Majesty's embassy in Tehran.

Hundreds of Iranian radicals stormed the British compound in Tehran last night, replacing the Union flag with a Palestinian one in protest against Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

British officials will be assessing whether the security breach, unprecedented in recent years, was an isolated incident or presages further violent demonstrations.

A hardline Iranian news agency said that protests against Britain and Egypt, whose embassy was also targeted, would continue.

Unless I'm missing something, this "protest" is an act of war against sovereign British territory. More proof that the Brits would rather surrender than fight.

British diplomats are maintaining a low-key public stance on the incident - which involved up to 300 people - in order to limit any repeat and robbing the Tehran regime of any satisfaction. But a strong behind-the-scenes protest from London is certain.

Pathetic.

If you haven't watched the actual video of President Bush dodging the shoes, you'll be as impressed as I was at his ninja reflexes.

It looks like there were only ten gunmen involved in the Indian terrorist attacks, which begs the question: could an armed citizenry have put the series of attacks to a much quicker end?

(Anyone know about the right to bear arms in India? Doesn't seem like concealed-carry is very widespread there.)

You can't always count on the police to protect you. Writes a photographer on the scene:

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." ...

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Mumbai has been hit by a coordinated set of distributed terrorist attacks involving the use of machine guns against crowds of people in at least nine locations throughout the city. Three of the city's top law enforcement officers were apparently targets and have been killed.

Gunmen have opened fire at a number of sites in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay), killing at least 78 people and injuring about 200 more.

Police said shooting was continuing and that the incidents were co-ordinated terrorist attacks. Gunmen have taken hostages at two luxury hotels. ...

On Wednesday, gunmen opened fire at about 2300 local time at sites in southern Mumbai including a train station, two five-star hotels, a hospital and a restaurant popular with tourists.

Police said the gunmen had fired indiscriminately.

"The terrorists have used automatic weapons and in some places grenades have been lobbed," said AN Roy, police commissioner of Maharashtra state.

Much easier than building a bomb, but these are the first attacks of this kind I've heard of. Pray for India and her people.

Michael B. Oren explains some of America's history with pirates.

The answers to these questions can be gleaned from America's experience with Barbary. Lacking a navy and unwilling to bear the financial burden of building one, early American leaders opted to pay tribute to the pirates. By the 1790s, the U.S. was depositing an astonishing 20% of its federal income into North African coffers -- this in addition to costly naval stores and even cannons and gunpowder. In return for this tribute, America only received more piracy. Foreign corporations refused to ship their goods in American hulls and U.S. diplomats were forced to sail overseas on European-flagged ships for fear of seizure. Dozens of American sailors languished in captivity.

Humiliated by these depredations, the American public grew critical of its feckless government and began to demand action. "Steer the hostile prow to Barb'ry's shores," wrote an anonymous poet, a veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill, "release thy sons, and humble Africa's power." In response, in 1794, Congress passed a bill authorizing $688,888.82 for the construction of six frigates "adequate for the protection of the commerce of the U.S. against Algerian corsairs." By 1801, America possessed a navy capable of striking back at the pirates and a president willing to do so. In reply to Tripoli's declaration of war against the U.S., Thomas Jefferson ordered those frigates into battle.

Learn more about the First Barbary War.

(HT: TigerHawk.)

Here's a live piracy map, courtesy JV and IO9.

Man, it's a sad age we live in. The Royal Navy has been ordered to ignore pirates.

THE Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.

Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.

The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.

1. Pirates face death or dismemberment as punishment if turned over to local authorities

2. These punishments violate the pirates' human rights

3. People whose human rights could be violated can seek asylum in the UK

4. Therefore, captured pirates can seek asylum in the UK

What a joke.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “There are issues about human rights and what might happen in these circumstances. The main thing is to ensure any incident is resolved peacefully.”

Really? The "main thing" isn't to eliminate all the pirates and protect the high seas?

Are there no men in Her Majesty's service?

The proper way to deal with pirates has been known for centuries: you hang them on the spot.

(HT: Kenneth Anderson.)

Close on the heels of his other missteps, Obama has decided not to attend the upcoming G-20 summit. His aides say his presence would be "awkward" because he isn't yet the president, but couldn't he just go and listen?

Several Obama advisers, in separate interviews, all used the word “awkward” to describe the situation. But Robert Gibbs , a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said: “While some may say it’s awkward that he’s not there, it would be far more problematic to be there. We firmly believe there is only one president at a time.” ...

The potential for even more significant misunderstanding was underscored last weekend when a quick, seemingly perfunctory telephone call by Mr. Obama returning the congratulatory call of Poland’s president led to a dispute about what was said about missile defense. If confusion over such a delicate issue could arise from a roughly five-minute phone call, Obama advisers reasoned, then the prospect of longer encounters in person with foreign leaders at this point would be fraught with peril. He has not even designated a secretary of state, Treasury secretary or national security adviser.

It's true that Obama can't set policy yet, but maybe there's something he could learn by listening to the visiting foreign leaders and watching the process.

Seeing as how, you know, he has no experience with this sort of thing.

(HT: TDS.)

It's a couple weeks late, but the NYT has just posted an an interview with some Somali pirates that's interesting both because it involves pirates, but also because it highlights the absurdity of the modern "international law" perspective on national sovereignty.

In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.” ...

He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; “we don’t use any other system than cash.” But he added that they were willing to bargain. “That’s deal-making,” he explained.

Ridiculous, as even the impotent Somali government acknowledges.

“It’s true that the pirates started to defend the fishing business,” [Mohamed Osman Aden, a Somali diplomat in Kenya] said. “And illegal fishing is a real problem for us. But this does not justify these boys to now act like guardians. They are criminals. The world must help us crack down on them.”

Countries that can't wield a monopoly on the use of force within their own borders and along their own coastlines aren't really countries at all. The lines on the map may say "here's Somalia", but if the government can't exercise sovereignty in more than name only, does the country even really exist?

In case the casual observer of the world wasn't aware, the media in China is completely owned and operated by the Chinese government. As much as we Americans complain about the bias and shortcomings of our journalists, at least their reports aren't completely fabricated like this story about a "successful" space flight that launched before the rocket did.

BEIJING - A news story describing a successful launch of China's long-awaited space mission and including detailed dialogue between astronauts launched on the Internet Thursday, hours before the rocket had even left the ground.

The country's official news agency Xinhua posted the article on its Web site Thursday, and remained there for much of the day before it was taken down.

A staffer from the Xinhuanet.com Web site who answered the phone Thursday said the posting of the article was a "technical error" by a technician. The staffer refused to give his name as is common among Chinese officials.

Although, I hear that our media also pre-writes a lot of stories, like obituaries for old and important people. I guess just reporting the news is too old-fashioned.

Are we in the middle of a "Great Crash"? Better the middle than the beginning.

It is easy to change the financial system, I argued in my May 20 essay. The central banks can assemble on any Tuesday morning and announce tougher lending standards. But it is impossible to fix the financial problems that arise from Europe's senescence. Thanks to the one-child policy, moreover, China has a relatively young population that is aging faster than any other, and China's appetite for savings vastly exceeds what its own financial market can offer.

There is nothing complicated about finance. It is based on old people lending to young people. Young people invest in homes and businesses; aging people save to acquire assets on which to retire. The new generation supports the old one, and retirement systems simply apportion rights to income between the generations. Never before in human history, though, has a new generation simply failed to appear.

The world kept shipping capital to the United States over the past 10 years, however, because no other market could absorb the savings of Europe and Asia. The financial markets, in turn, found ways to persuade Americans to borrow more and more money. If there weren't enough young Americans to borrow money on a sound basis, the banks arranged for a smaller number of Americans to borrow more money on an unsound basis. That is why subprime, interest-only, no-money-down and other mortgages waxed great in bank portfolios.

As always, proper understanding seems to hinge on demographics.

Also note that Spengler wrote this a couple of days ago, presciently predicting the collapse of AIG.

I read somewhere that at the end of World War 2 there were only around 60 countries in the world, while there are now around 200 (depending on how you count). I'd really like to see a timeline that shows the number of countries throughout history. Any pointers?

Looks like it's not all wine and roses in the Iranian economy either. Unfortunately for them, their economy isn't as broadly diversified and as free as America's.

Ahmadinejad is expected to run for a second term in Iran's next presidential election, slated to take place early in 2009. His reformist rivals are expected to attack him especially on his economic policies.

Iran suffers from a rising consumer price index, high percentage of unemployment and an inflation of 26 percent.

Ahmadinejad's radicalism is the duct tape that's holding the Iranian state together. Without the Islamic nationalism he foments Iran would collapse from within. As the situation deteriorates, demographic forces will push Iran towards regional imperialism, which will force the West to fight to stop it.

John Stossel is right about the economic idiocy of "energy independence":

Most every politician and pundit says "energy independence" is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.

To be for "energy independence" is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer's floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving "energy independence" would expose us to unnecessary risks -- such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn -- and ethanol -- shortages.

Trade also saves us money.

I think Stossel misunderstands McCain's desire for "strategic independence", however.

"I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before," John McCain said. "This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025".

Barack Obama, promising to "set America on path to energy independence," is upset that we send millions to other countries. "They get our money because we need their oil".

I don't think the idea is to use domestic oil/energy exclusively, but to break the strategic power that OPEC and our enemies derive from their oil reserves.

Sen. John McCain says he would seek to break U.S. reliance on foreign oil by 2025 by stepping up offshore drilling, nuclear power and conservation.Aides to the Republican presidential contender say his aim is strategic energy independence - a U.S. economy where oil is no longer be the primary fuel or dependent on cartels such as OPEC.

"Strategic independence" is part domestic energy policy, and part foreign policy.

Our Olympics correspondent has snapped this exclusive photo of the Chinese women's gymnastics team preparing for the 2012 games in London.

Unfortunately, not all the women make the cut.

I'd been meaning to post these for a week or so but hadn't gotten around to it.

Jonah Goldberg explains that our capitalist system itself is the most valuable national asset we've got.

Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude.

People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions. Likewise, in his civilizational infancy man was poor, in every sense. He lived in ignorance, filth, hunger, and pain, and he died very young, either by violence or disease.

The interesting question isn’t “Why is there poverty?” It’s “Why is there wealth?” Or: “Why is there prosperity here but not there?”

At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.

For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.

A recent World Bank study found that a nation’s wealth resides in its “intangible capital” — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. “Natural capital” (minerals, croplands, etc.) and “produced capital” (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet’s wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.

Which is why idiot ideas like "stimulus" tax rebates do far more harm than good: a few dollars in our pockets are worth far less than the damage such a stimulus (and the oppressive tax regime that underlies it) causes to our fundamental capitalist system. We need to aggressively protect our economic liberty if we want to protect our economic health. The latter is a result of the former.

Andrew Roth explains how globalization and economic liberty not only create wealth, but also foment political liberty. As he excerpts from The PayPal Wars:

We're definitely onto something big. The need PayPal answers is monumental. Everyone in the world needs money - to get paid, to trade, to live. Paper money is an ancient technology and an inconvenient means of payment. You can run out of it. It wears out. It can get lost or stolen. In the twenty-first century, people need a form of money that's more convenient and secure, something that can be accessed from anywhere with a PDA or an Internet connection.

Of course, what we're calling 'convenient' for American users will be revolutionary for the developing world. Many of these countries' governments play fast and loose with their currencies. They use inflation and sometimes wholesale currency devaluations, like we saw in Russia and several Southeast Asian countries last year, to take wealth away from their citizens. Most of the ordinary people there never have an opportunity to open an offshore account or to get their hands on more than a few bills of a stable currency like U.S. dollars.

Eventually PayPal will be able to change this. In the future, when we make our service available outside the U.S. and as Internet penetration continues to expand to all economic tiers of people, PayPal will give citizens worldwide more direct control over their currencies than they ever had before. It will be nearly impossible for corrupt governments to steal wealth from their people through their old means because if they try the people will switch to dollars or Pounds or Yen, in effect dumping the worthless local currency for something more secure.

Capitalism breeds liberty of all sorts, and when you squelch it (as the global left is wont to do) you can't help but engender oppression of every kind.

In case anyone is curious, I've compiled a table that shows the number of medals China has won in past Olympics, along with their ranking. It appears that China either did not compete or was not competitive before 1984.

Considering the performance of American athletes at the 1984 Olympics, China's medal count (so far) in 2008 isn't so far out of line that one must suspect them of widespread cheating. (Other than in women's gymnastics, anyway.)

China confiscated over 300 Bibles from four American Christians yesterday.

The Bibles were taken from the group's checked luggage after they landed at the airport in the city of Kunming, said Pat Klein, head of Vision Beyond Borders. The group, based in Sheridan, Wyoming, distributes Bibles and Christian teaching materials around the world to "strengthen the persecuted church," according to its Web site.

The group arrived in China on Sunday and had intended to distribute the Bibles to people in the city, Klein told the AP in a telephone interview while still at the airport.

"I heard that there's freedom of religion in China, so why is there a problem for us to bring Bibles?" Klein said. "We had over 300 copies and customs took all of them from us."

Officially, you heard right; in reality, you heard wrong. China doesn't have much freedom of anything.

(HT: JW.)

Potential Obama VP Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, credits Obama for the cease-fire between Russia and Georgia. (If there really is a cease-fire.)

It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.

Just imagine how powerful he'll be if he actually gets elected!

While it's appealing on the surface to push for an "everyone wins" solution to the Russio-Georgian war that allows the break-away provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to vote on independence, the long-term result of this approach will be a proliferation of tiny, fragile nations that are incapable of protecting and maintaining their own sovereignty. Is a nation that cannot deter its enemies from attacking and defend its borders when necessary really sovereign? Is a nation that depends on the good-will and assistance of international power-brokers to sustain its territorial integrity sovereign?

It's not that might-makes-right, but might is what transforms rights into reality. Without might, rights are an ephemeral abstraction that can evaporate in an instant.

Update:

The brilliantly cynical Spengler agrees that "loser" states shouldn't be coddled:

There is no longer any reason to put up with the tantrums of long-redundant tribes. If 3.7 million ethnic Georgians have the right to break away from the 142 million population of the Russian Federation, why shouldn't the 100,000 Ossetians living in Georgia break away and form their own state as well? Most of them have acquired Russian passports and want nothing to do with the Georgians. The Ossetians have spoken their variant of Persian for more than a millennium and had their own kingdom during the Middle Ages.

If the West is going to put itself at risk for 3.8 million ethnic Georgians, roughly the population of Los Angeles, or 5.4 million Tibetans, or 2 million Albanian Muslims in Kosovo, why shouldn't Russia take risks for the South Ossetians, not to mention the 100,000 Abkhaz speakers in Georgia's secessionist Black Sea province? Once the infinite regress of ethnic logic gets into motion, there is no good reason not to pull the world apart like taffy.

Forget the Kosovo Albanians, the South Ossetians, the Abkhazians, Saakashvili and the Dalai Lama. These are relics of an older world that might deserve their own theme park, but not their own state. Precisely what are 3.8 million freedom-loving Georgians supposed to contribute to American strategic interests with its US$2 billion a year of exports consisting (according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook) of "scrap metal, wine, mineral water, ores, vehicles, fruits and nuts"? Georgia's hope was to lever its geographical position on the Russia border by making itself useful to the American military.

I'm starting to think Spengler has been right all along and that we were foolish to take the Georgians in as allies in the first place. I'll need to do some more pondering.

Georgians are asking tough but fair questions:

As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: “Why won’t America and Nato help us? If they won’t help us now, why did we help them in Iraq?”

A similar sense of betrayal coursed through the conversations of many Georgians here yesterday as their troops retreated under shellfire and the Russian Army pressed forward to take full control of South Ossetia.

Georgia stuck out its neck to align with the West instead of its former Russian masters. If we won't stand by our friends, we won't keep them for very long.

Russia and Georgia at War gives up-to-the-minute details and first-hand accounts of the war.

Maybe it shouldn't be surprising, but Barack Obama doesn't understand how the United Nations works.

Obama called for direct talks among all sides and said the United States, the U.N. Security Council and other parties should try to help bring about a peaceful resolution. ...

"The current escalation of military conflict resulted in part from the lack of a neutral and effective peacekeeping force operating under an appropriate UN mandate," Obama said. "Russia cannot play a constructive role as peacekeeper."

Russia is the UN-authorized "peacekeeper" in the region at the moment, so set aside the underlying irony of Obama's proposed solution. His suggestion that the United Nations play a role in restraining Russia is idiotic for one simple reason: Russia is on the UN Security Council and has veto power over everything the UN does! The UNSC can't even issue a statement condemning the war without Russia's approval, much less authorize "peacekeepers".

It's scary that Obama knows less about international affairs than I do.

TigerHawk has a good round-up of posts about Russia's invasion of Georgia, a staunch American ally in the region and the nation with the third largest contingent of Coalition troops in Iraq. TigerHawk warns that his reactions to the invasion are only alcohol-fueled speculation, but I think several of his points are spot-on. (CIA factbook page on Georgia.)

# Vladimir Putin is exploiting George W. Bush's weakness, which is brought on by the fact that he is thought to be too unpopular and his administration too distracted for the United States to mount effective opposition to the Russian attack.

# The United States has invested credibility in Georgia's security (the article notes that 1000 United States Marines were in the country just last month on a training mission). If we do not respond in some fairly firm way other former Soviet states are going to wonder, with more than a little justification, whether our friendship is valuable.

# The Europeans will intensify their recent internal debate about their security against resurgent Russian expansionism. The doves will campaign for appeasement and anti-Americanism, and the realists will call for closer ties with the United States.

And of course the timing -- coinciding with the start of the Olympics -- is no coincidence.

And of course also, don't forget to thank the United Nations for its role in enabling this aggression.

The fighting in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had stopped over a decade ago, because Georgia could not muster sufficient military force to regain control of the two breakaway border areas. Then a UN brokered peace deal brought in several thousand Russian peacekeepers.

Who are now attacking Georgia.

Everyone knows that Barack Obama will be spending the next week in Hawaii on vacation... but what if he decides to keep going east west and makes an appearance at the Olympics instead! No one would see it coming (except me) and he'd yet again get loads of free press and visibility on the largest international stage of the season.

Just remember that you heard it here first!

The Voice of the Martyrs website was attacked by hackers a couple of weeks ago.

On July 24, VOM’s Web site was deliberately attacked forcing us to take the site offline temporarily. Our network engineers say the attack originated outside the United States. We have to believe the intent was to silence the online voice of the persecuted church. ...

We apologize for any inconvenience this interruption has caused, but at the same time we are thrilled our work is so effective that enemies of the Gospel took notice. Please pray for persecuted Christians around the world, especially during this Olympic season as the attention of the world turns to China.

I'd bet anything that the attack was the work of Chinese state-sponsored hackers trying to silence VoM in the run-up to the Olympics. VoM's mission is to publicize the persecution of Christians around the world, and China is one of the worst offenders.

Be in prayer for the Christians who are under constant persecution in China and other hostile lands around the world. Pray that their suffering will help bring the light of the Gospel to the other victims of these repressive regimes.

Two days ago President Bush met with Bob Fu from the China Aid Association and received an Olympic Prayer Band bracelet distributed by Voice of the Martyrs.

Today in The White House Residence, President Bush met with five Chinese freedom activists to discuss his concerns about human rights in China. The President assured them that he will carry the message of freedom as he travels to Beijing for the games, just as he has regularly made this a priority in all of his meetings with Chinese officials. He told the activists that engagement with Chinese leaders gives him an opportunity to make the United States' position clear - human rights and religious freedom should not be denied to anyone.

Sounds good, but I wish that religious freedom were as high on the bilateral agenda as economic issues.

Update:

Looks like the White House reads Master of None.

It looks to me like China is in the process of colonizing the third world.

• China supplies arms and technology to the Middle East
• China develops Sudan's oil industry
• China builds infrastructure and mines in the Congo
• China disciplines Zimbabe's tyrant Mugabe
• China's increasing control of Africa's natural resources
• China builds African infrastructure

And so on. Along with all the money, China is pouring millions of Chinese workers into the Third World. There are 50% more Chinese than there are Africans, and it looks like China has a long-term goal of moving into Africa and taking it over with a civilian army.

Unlike European colonialism in which the colonizers sent a small contingent of soldiers and businessmen to exploit the natives, the Chinese are sending millions of workers all over the world not just to exploit, but to simply move in and replace. There's no doubt that the People's Republican Army will protect the safety and security of Chinese expatriates with force when necessary.

China has plenty of people, but lacks land and natural resources. Africa has bountiful supplies of both, and dysfunctional governments that can be easily bought and controlled. China won't need to actually annex African nations if it can just install proxy governments and substantial ethnic Chinese minorities.

If someone else has already brought these points together into a cohesive report I'd like to read it.

"Mystery explosions" are rattling Iranian leadership... could Western intelligence agencies actually be doing something right?

For an organisation that prides itself on being a well-run administrative machine, the leadership of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards is having a rather testing time. It’s not just last Saturday’s mysterious explosion in a suburb of Tehran that killed 15 people that is causing the leadership sleepless nights, although the nationwide news black-out imposed immediately afterwards does suggest the Revolutionary Guards, the storm troops of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, are rattled.

Details are only now starting to reach the outside world, and it looks increasingly like sabotage was responsible for devastating a military convoy as it travelled through Khavarshahar. The company responsible for moving the equipment, LTK, is owned by the Revolutionary Guards and is suspected of being involved in shipping arms to Lebanon’s Hizbollah Shia Muslim militia, which is trained and funded by Tehran. ...

In May, officials blamed British and American agents for an explosion at a mosque in Shiraz that had just finished staging an exhibition of Iran’s latest military hardware. Last year more than a dozen Iranian engineers were killed while trying to fit a chemical warhead to a missile in Syria.

A few months earlier, a train reported to be carrying military supplies to Syria was derailed by another mysterious explosion in northern Turkey. It is highly unlikely that these incidents are unrelated, which has only served to deepen the mood of fear and suspicion gripping the Revolutionary Guards’ leadership.

Tensions have been running high in Tehran since Seymour Hersh, the respected American investigative journalist, revealed in the New Yorker magazine last month that President George W Bush had authorised up to $400 million to fund a major escalation in covert operations to destabilise the regime.

These are all valid military targets. I'd love to think that our much-maligned intelligence agencies are behind this chaos.

(HT: Instapundit.)

It's hard to find concrete information, but it appears that Barack Obama will be in Iraq for less than 24 hours. Maybe even less than 12 hours! Is that really enough time to "fact-find"?

Senator Barack Obama arrived in Baghdad on Monday, meeting with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and other senior Iraqi politicians, on the latest leg of a weeklong overseas tour, his first as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

A United States Embassy official said Mr. Obama, who was traveling as part of an American delegation, had arrived in the Iraqi capital in the early afternoon after first stopping in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. ...

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, met briefly with Mr. Obama when the senator arrived at the Baghdad airport and they flew by helicopter to the Green Zone, where the American embassy and many Iraqi government offices are located, according to an American military official.

Mr. Obama was scheduled to meet again with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker later Monday, the official said. ...

Mr. Obama is expected to spend the rest of the day in Baghdad. His movements remained shrouded in secrecy, and Americans here strictly warned Iraqi officials not to give details about Mr. Obama’s visit. But as well as his meetings with senior politicians, he was also scheduled to meet with American soldiers, according to American and Iraqi officials.

So he's probably going to fly out of Baghdad this evening to spend the rest of the week pressing flesh with Europes' socialist masters. I get the feeling he wouldn't have even made this token visit if it wasn't necessary to cover for his utter lack of experience and interest in the matter.

Does the AFP really need to shadow the ChiCom's propaganda so closely that they use the same words? Only a communist could talk of "drafting" "volunteers" with a straight face.

Foul-smelling green algae that has been plaguing China's Olympic sailing venue has been cleared, state media said Tuesday, after more than one million tonnes of the sludge was removed.

Authorities had set a Tuesday deadline to clean up the algae bloom in Qingdao, drafting 10,000 soldiers and volunteers and hundreds of fishing boats to help with the mammoth task.

I don't get the feeling that the civilian "volunteers" had any more choice in the matter than the soldiers did. Someone should investigate this slavery/serfdom and make yet another horrid connection to the travesty that is the 2008 Olympics.

Ezra Levant has written a fascinating pair (so far) of posts about his recent testimony before Congress' human rights caucus. The first contains some background and the transcript of his prepared remarks, and the second reveals Islam's plans to use the Western legal system to institute Sharia law, as related by a diplomat from Pakistan.

She wants Western countries to ban critical comments about Islam -- and she mentioned the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in particular. It was well pointed out by others on the panel that Western defamation law deals with the vindication of improperly besmirched reputations using the truth, as determined by courts of law -- but when it comes to clashing religions, the truth of any faith is in the heart of the beholder. The only legal system that would hold the Koran to be "the truth", and subordinate every other faith beneath the Koranic truth, would be a sharia legal system, such as that in Saudi Arabia. In other words, she wants to replace our secular legal systems with a Muslim legal system. I appreciated the honesty.

Western defamation law is also about vindication of an individual's reputation -- the individual must be indentified; he must have suffered measurable damage. Defamation is not about hurt feelings -- it is about the unjustified destruction of one's reputation in the eyes of another. It has nothing to do with tender feelings, though that was the grievance cited most often by Fatima. ...

But the single most revealing comment I heard all day about this matter was from a State Department lawyer on the panel (whose name I wish to confirm before publishing it.) She has done meticulous research on the Muslim campaign to ban criticism of Islam, and has helped develop the U.S. response to the idea in international legal forums.

She went deep into the issue: she looked at the Arabic word used by Muslim diplomats when describing the "defamation of Islam" that they sought to illegalize. She consulted scholars of Arabic who confirmed for her that the particular legal phrase had been coined very recently, especially for the international diplomatic campaign -- and that, when discussed domestically, Muslim countries used the real Arabic words they mean: the traditional words for blasphemy.

Muslims want to use our defamation laws to ban blasphemy against Allah, but they know that if they didn't use the codewords "defamation of Islam" they wouldn't get very far.

Sure, everyone is talking about this, but it's so hilarious I have to post the picture too, courtesy of LGF.

Iran photoshopped pictures of its recent missile launches to make it look like there were four missiles when there were actually only three. There's got to be a Viagra joke in here somewhere... can anyone find it?

Richard Fernandez explains that nuclear deterrence depends heavily on sowing uncertainty in the minds of your enemies, and that the American missile shield we're installing in Eastern Europe is a key contributor to that uncertainty.

What a working missile defense shield will do is make any Russian limited WMD attack on the West a very uncertain proposition. While Russia’s arsenal is easily big enough to overwhelm, through sheer numbers, the defensive system based in Poland and the Czech Republic any such attack would also be big enough to guarantee Russia’s destruction in the resulting retaliation. It may be an exaggeration to claim that a missile defense will have the effect of disarming the Kremlin of any viable military response between issuing a diplomatic protest and starting Armaggedon but it is quite clear it threatens to invalidate a large range of the “full spectrum” responses now available to the Russians.

He also quotes from "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" which explains that deterrence doctrines have never depended on so-called "rational" enemies.

Deterrence of the Soviets never depended on having “rational” leaders. Stalin was in charge when the Soviets first began a build-up of nuclear arms, and it is difficult to consider him as an example of a rational leader. This is perhaps the grossest error of those who make arguments that the new multilateral threats are “undeterrable” because the new regional actors are not likely to be rational. Stalin was hardly more rational than they. The very framework of a concept that depends on instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of opponents was never, nor can it be, strictly rational. Nor has it ever strictly required rational adversaries in order to function. What should be sobering to all of us in viewing deterrence as a process is that its outcome was never, nor can it ever be, strictly predictable. ...

Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially “out of control” can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary’s decision makers. ‘This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries.

An excellent and concise explanation of the psychology that helped us win the Cold War and continues to protect us today.

(HT: Instapundit.)

Next time CAIR or some other domestic Islamist group complains about religious persecution because one of us infidels looks at them sideways maybe we should take them more seriously -- after all, Muslims are the world's experts on religious persecution.

IRAN

Christian Detained on Terrorism Charges - Forum 18 News

On June 3, a newly converted Christian couple in Iran was arrested by police for holding Bible studies with Muslims in their home, and attending a house church. According to Compass Direct News, “Makan Arya and Tina Rad were seized from their home in east Tehran after one of Makan's relatives informed security police of the couple's Christian activities. Their 4-year-old daughter was left behind, ill and unattended. The couple was taken to an unknown jail where they were severely beaten and interrogated for four days.” Compass reported, “Makan was accused of ‘activities against national security’ and Tina of ‘activities against the holy religion of Islam.’ The authorities threatened to take their daughter away to a religious institution and warned they could be imprisoned on charges of apostasy or fabricated drug charges if they didn't stop their Christian work.” The report added that eventually the couple was pressured into signing a statement claiming they had not changed their religion from Islam and promising that they would stay away from their house church and other Christians. “After a court hearing, Makan was freed on bail charges of US $19,634 and Tina upon payment of US $29,451. The couple returned home to find that the window of their shop had been smashed by local Muslims. On June 23, Makan received a letter threatening him with continued attacks if he did not put up evidence of his Islamic faith on the front of his shop, to which he responded by hanging pictures of Muslim leaders on his window,” Compass added. Ask God to strengthen the hearts of these believers to proclaim His Name without hesitation or fear. Pray for healing, especially for Tina who currently cannot walk as a result of her mistreatment in detention. Luke 6:27-28

Muslims in the West should exert as much energy denouncing real persecution in their homelands as they do complaining about slights here.

In the middle of a very optimistic article about the future of Iraq is this strange characterization of how Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is balancing his relationships with America and Iran.

Maliki has also shown surprising skill on the foreign policy front. Instead of bemoaning the fate of being dependent on both Tehran and Washington, currently two of the world's bitterest enemies, he is using his trumps on both sides. In Washington, he is campaigning for moderation in the nuclear dispute with Tehran, arguing that Iran could otherwise invade southern Iraq. In Tehran, he has promised to do everything in his power to ensure that the upcoming security treaty with the United States will not infringe on Iran's sphere of influence.

So... in Washington he pushes us to moderate our stance towards Iran, and in Tehran is assures Iran that no one will threaten its power. How is that "using his trumps on both sides"? It sounds to me like he's pretty firmly on Iran's side, unless I'm missing something.

(HT: JB.)

Slowly but surely the Iraqi government is meeting the benchmarks set for it by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Even though the Democrats intended to use the benchmarks as leverage for forcing an American retreat from Iraq, what some thought was impossible is actually happening, and we're winning. Naturally the Associated Press spins this optimistic step into a negative.

No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory"—almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks—enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues—are unsatisfactory.

The White House sees, but of course we all know better. Can't they just report good news without hedging and qualification?

Paul Hsieh of GeekPress sent me a couple of links this morning about British authors Ian McEwan and Martin Amis being harassed for "despising Islamism". I'm sure both these men are extremely leftist and that we'd find little common ground, but I share their feelings on this matter.

The novelist Ian McEwan has launched an astonishingly strong attack on Islamism, saying that he "despises" it and accusing it of "wanting to create a society that I detest". His words, in an interview with an Italian newspaper, could, in today's febrile legalistic climate, lay him open to being investigated for a "hate crime".

In an interview with Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, the Booker-winning novelist said he rarely grants interviews on controversial issues "because I have to be careful to protect my privacy". But he said that he was glad to leap to the defence of his old friend Martin Amis when the latter's attacks on Muslims brought down charges of racism on his head. He made an exception of the Islamic issue out of friendship to Amis, and because he shares the latter's strong opinions.

Pervasive political correctness forces us to choose our words very carefully, but even still isn't it acceptable to despise Islamism as long as you don't despise Muslims?

Despite my defense of these two authors, I do want to object to what is becoming a common slander against Christians as being "just as bad" as Muslims.

McEwan's interviewer pointed out that there exist equally hard-line schools of thought within Christianity, for example in the United States. "I find them equally absurd," McEwan replied. "I don't like these medieval visions of the world according to which God is coming to save the faithful and to damn the others. But those American Christians don't want to kill anyone in my city, that's the difference."

Ahhh! Those dreaded American Christians! They're so fat and rich and primitive. But really, where are these "hard-line" Christians? I'm a Christian, and I'm right here in America. I even go to a Baptist church! We're just about as fundamentalist as you get. I've never once heard anyone propose suicide bombings, stoning homosexuals, putting women in burkahs, chopping off heads, etc.

Comparing Bible-believing, evangelical Christians to murderous Islamists is invidious and completely unfounded. I understand that many leftists disagree with us vehemently on political, moral, and spiritual matters, but that's no reason to slander Christianity with this sort of blood-libel.

Spengler's most recent article describes a rarely-before-seen opportunity for Christian evangelism among Muslims, largely in Europe but also via the emerging Chinese church. There's no mention of Christianity's ascension in Africa, so add that on too.

In that sense, the president's war policy and the pope's pacifism arise from a common source, the politics of faith. Despite the exigencies of state security, which make necessary the employment of deadly force as well as harm to civilians, someone must speak the voice of mercy, and pray that the stern decree will pass from the world. A religious leader must say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," while a head of state must follow the maxim, "Do unto others before they do unto you." What divides the president and the pope is not so much their conflicting positions, but rather a difference in the existential vantage point from which each must respond to the great events of the world.

Benedict XVI may preach against violence, but in his own fashion he takes a tougher stance than the American president. That surely is not the way it looks at first glance. Bush invaded an Arab country, while Benedict preaches reason to the Muslim world, receiving in the past few months Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah as well as delegations from Iran. He has agreed to a meeting with a group of 138 Muslim scholars at the Vatican in November. Why should Muslims fear Benedict?

For the first time, perhaps, since the time of Mohammed, large parts of the Islamic world are vulnerable to Christian efforts to convert them, for tens of millions of Muslims now dwell as minorities in predominantly Christian countries. The Muslim migration to Europe is a double-edged sword. Eventually this migration may lead to a Muslim Europe, but it also puts large numbers of Muslims within reach of Christian missionaries for the first time in history.

That is the hope of Magdi Allam, the highest-profile Catholic convert from Islam in living memory (see The mustard seed in global strategy Asia Times Online, March 26, 2008).

The Islamification of Europe is generally seen as a foregone conclusion, a dour and irreversible demographic trend projected by Anglophiles like Mark Steyn (who I greatly like). Spengler's reversal, granting the advantage to Christianity rather than to encroaching Islam, is a very different and intriguing perspective. I pray that he's right, as I pray nightly for missionaries to Muslims.

The Inside Zimbabwe blog has some horrific stories about the atrocities being committed in that hellish country. Despite my support for the war in Iraq, one of my regrets is that it has left our military stretched too thin to decapitate the regimes that torment places like Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Burma. Forget "nation building" for a while... we could do a lot of good just by killing the right sets of people all around the world.

Fred Hiatt's recent column about Senator Rockefeller's investigation into President Bush's alleged lies about pre-war intelligence on Iraq should be plastered around the blogosphere. Despite the Democrat senator's intentions and proclamations, his committee report appears to be a thorough and compelling defense of the President.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

And so on for quite a ways. In 2002, even the honorable senator from West Virginia believed these very same intelligence reports.

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

The real disgrace is how very wrong some of these intelligence reports turned out to be. We may never know how close the ties were between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, or whether Hussein believed his scientists were working on WMD, or even whether Iraqi WMDs were moved to Syria in the run-up to the invasion. But it's crystal clear that American intelligence agencies bungled their job horribly and were never held to account.

Given what we know now, I would still have favored the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- though with our present hindsight we could have administered it better. But even those who opposed and still oppose the war must eventually admit that it wasn't instigated as a grand hoax on the American people by an oil-crazed idiot-savant, but that the decision was in fact based on the best information available at the time.

(HT: Instapundit, of course.)

Glenn Reynolds almost certainly knows more about America's and China's space programs than I do, but I think his characterization of Chinese progress vs. American stagnation ignores at least one important consideration.

Space experts differ on whether China wants to compete directly with the U.S.—perhaps, given our slow and fumbling efforts, beating us back to the Moon—or simply displace Japan as the prime technological power in Asia. On the one hand, the U.S. retains a huge lead, while China is still building up spacecraft, like lunar probes and orbital docking equipment, that we mastered back in the 1960s. On the other hand, like America in the 60s, China is forging ahead, while the U.S. in the 21st century is, at best, standing still.

What would America be doing if we weren't standing still? Sending people to Mars? Establishing a permanent base on the moon? Lowering the cost of lifting mass into earth orbit? Those are all great ideas that I'm very much in favor of... but they're also much harder than what we did in the 1960s and what China is doing now. It seems that the cost and difficulty of progress in space isn't linear, and America has hit a steep part of the curve. China may be catching up to us, but that doesn't mean that they'll be able to bound past us... they're likely to run smack into the same mountains we have.

America's space program has stagnated, but not only because of stifling bureaucracy, lack of vision, and national distraction. The next steps, as most people envision them, are going to be harder, more expensive, and more dangerous than what we've done in the past, by more than an order of magnitude. I'm sure Reynolds knows all this, and perhaps he'd even care to elaborate on what I've said.

It's amazing that there are still uncontacted tribes anywhere in the world, and it's very sad to me that anyone hesitates to bring them into modernity.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil — One of Brazil's last uncontacted Indian tribes has been spotted in the far western Amazon jungle near the Peruvian border, the National Indian Foundation said Thursday.

The Indians were sighted in an Ethno-Environmental Protected Area along the Envira River in flights over remote Acre state, said the Brazilian government foundation, known as Funai. ...

"Four distinct isolated peoples exist in this region, whom we have accompanied for 20 years," Funai expert Jose Carlos Meirelles Junior said in a statement.

The tribe sighted recently is one of the last not to be contacted by officials. Funai does not make contact with such Indian tribes and prevents invasions of their land to ensure their autonomy, the foundation said.

I think it's morally perverse to leave these human beings living in absolute destitution -- doomed to disease, starvation, and misery -- simply because they're ignorant of modern civilization. Any one of us, in their place but knowing what we know, would instantly choose modernity over savagery; it's only due to the twisted logic of "multiculturalism" that we hesitate to rescue these people from their pointless suffering.

These Indians need to be given the same choices we have, the same respect for their human dignity, and they can't make informed decisions if we leave them in ignorance. They aren't "cute" or "quaint", they aren't pets or specimens to be studied. They're people. Just because they're ignorant doesn't mean we should abandon them to lives of barbarism.

From a Christian perspective, evangelism alone is sufficient reason to make contact. Ignorance of the Gospel is no excuse, and the eternal futures of these Indians are at risk. They need to hear about Jesus Christ, how their sins can be forgiven, and how much God loves them. Anything less is in direct violation of the Great Commission.

Matthew 28:18-20: Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Barack Obama doesn't understand what it means to be an American.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Who cares what other countries say? Obama clearly doesn't comprehend American exceptionalism. The whole point of being the wealthiest nation on the planet is so that we can live well and do what we want.

And yes, I'm mostly serious.

The Democrats' panties are in a bunch over President Bush's criticism of Barack Obama's plan to consult with our enemies, but the ladies doth protest too much, methinks.

Speaking before the Knesset, Bush said that “some people” believe the United States “should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." ...

Sen. Joe Biden, piling on to Democratic complaints about President Bush’s speech in Israel today:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement.” ...

"There is no escaping what the president is doing," said Durbin, who supports Obama. "It is an attack on Sen. Obama’s position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy."

Durbin called Bush's remarks "unfair and really unfortunate."

Well, yeah, Bush is criticizing Obama's foreign policy ideas. The President is in charge of America's foreign policy, so this is a very different situation than when leftist politicians go to foreign countries to malign America. Still, I personally would have preferred if President Bush had made these accusations from the White House or the steps of the Capitol.

You'd think that by now most people would be quick to recognize that immigrants and illegal immigrants are very different, but you'd be wrong. Writes Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

Finally, I said, there is an unfortunate double standard in how Americans feel about foreign flags and those who wave them. A couple of years ago, Jewish Americans marched on Washington to declare support for Israel. Guess what flag many of them waved? And no one said a critical word. This wasn’t a cultural event like St. Patrick’s Day. This was a political gesture, like, say, a march for immigrants’ rights. Yet, some will insist, those who marched on Washington waving the Israeli flag were probably U.S. citizens and those who marched last week on May Day were, in all likelihood, immigrants. And that makes a difference. But wait. We know from media reports that many of the pro-immigrant marchers were U.S. citizens, including the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

As Bill Quick responds at the first link:

I don’t think most Americans have any real problem with other Americans who wave the banners of their former countries in celebrations here. Yet it is certainly understandable that Americans might resent the brazen sense of unearned entitlement demonstrated by those who live here in a state of illegality and who thrust the flags of their current nation (the only one in which they hold legal residency or citizenship) while demanding “rights” that are beyond their legal status in the first place.

I agree with everything Mr. Navarrette says about those immigrants who have followed the rules, waited their turn, and live in the United States in full compliance with our laws. But when he conflates legal immigrants with illegals under the general rubric of “immigrants,” he practices a pernicious form of dishonesty that poisons all his arguments and, indeed, the discussion itself. And, strangely enough, his position even shows great respect to those who legally emigrated into the country from Mexico, often waiting for years while patiently working their way through the endless convolutions of U.S. immigration procedures. To make the claim that such folks are no different — that they are all part of some vast, amorphous group of “immigrants” that includes all those who didn’t endure the same hardships — is to render their patience, their respect for the law, and the goals they have worked so hard to reach a sad joke. More fools them, for obeying the law.

The purposeful conflation of legal immigrants with illegal immigrants is intended to confuse and prevent the important debate on immigration. Any writer who refuses to recognize the difference between the two groups has nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion.