About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Jimmy Carter: One Term Wasn't Enough?

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator One Disastrous Term Wasn't Enough For Jimmy Carter To Establish His Legacy? It was For Me And I would Venture To Say Most Everyone Else As Well.

 

 

No, this former peanut farmer from Georgia wants to make sure that his name goes down in history as a destructive career diplomat as well, both foreign and domestic. His current diatribe concerns the fact that any criticism of the new administration must have its foundation in racism. While blatantly untrue, why is this ex-President playing the race card, particularly when it is so far off base? Why is he making statements at all?

 

Knowing the record of this man, why is his voice one that is getting, or deserving of, any attention.

 

His Presidency Was Marked By Economic Woe And A Degradation Of United States Standing In The World. His Post Presidency Record, Save Participation In Habitat For Humanity, Has Not Been Much Better

 

Here are some snippets of the lowlights (the right to list highlights are reserved for the time they are discovered)

 

Presidency Lowlights
  • U.S. and Panama sign treaties to end American control of Panama Canal by year 2000 (1977).
  • Iranian militants seize more than 50 hostages at U.S. embassy in Tehran (not freed until Ronald Reagan took office) (1979).
  • Russian invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
  • U.S. military rescue of hostages in Iran aborted (1980).
  • U.S. boycotts Summer Olympics in Moscow (1980).
  • Economic malaise
  • Stagflation (inflation and recession occurring simultaneously)
Post-Presidency Lowlights
  • 1994 negotiations with Kim Jong-il, an agreement soon broken
  • Visited Cuba in 2002 and had a grand old time with Castro.
  • As an election observer, he certified the results of the questionable election in Venezuela in 2004, keeping Hugo Chavez in control of the country.
  • He ridiculed Tony Blair for his alliance with the us in the war on terror (or whatever acronym given to it now by the current administration). Incredibly, he said this about then President Bush: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” I actually usually vote for Carter when that question comes up.
  • His book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" made the Osama Bin Laden best seller list with the comment by Bin Laden “After you read the suggested books, you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you.”
So what is his agenda invoking the race card? Stupidity or wanting to deal a blow to the Obama administration? Most likely the former as his goal was in no way to hurt the President, particularly at this critical time in his healthcare bill negotiations. But as this former peanut farmer showed while in office and after, conflict resolution may not be his strong suit.
Sometimes former Presidents should be seen and not heard!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2009/04/pakistan-taliban-and-islamabad-is.html), Mike Haltman
 

Friday, April 24, 2009

Pakistan, the Taliban and Islamabad: Is Anyone Out There?

Beating a Dead Horse

If I am getting tired of talking about the same thing, then people must be getting tired about reading about the same thing. This situation was once a dangerous thought, then a dangerous development, and now it is seemingly an extremely dangerous reality.

Slowly but surely, as discussed in this blog ad infinitum, the Taliban is moving towards Islamabad and a de facto takeover of the government of Pakistan. Much like Hitler was appeased by France, the UK and the Soviet Union in the 1930's when he was allowed to take Czechoslovakia, the Taliban has been appeased but does not seem satisfied by what they were given either.

What will be the result if there is a full takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban, and more importantly the weapons that Pakistan controls. The world, as the saying goes, will be up a very brown creek without a paddle. There have been questions all along regarding the current government of Pakistan in terms of it's allegiances, and that is who we are counting on to put down this dangerous, dangerous situation.

What are the world leaders saying:

- After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told lawmakers in Washington on Wednesday that the Pakistani government was "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists," Islamabad has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity.

Huh? Any thoughts on how to diffuse the situation Madame Secretary, or do we just go with the flow on this one?

- German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Prime Minister Gillani to express her concern. And Western diplomats met with Pakistani lawmakers throughout the day to assess the government's likely response to the threat.

Really? Is that making anyone feel better?

- This is what the Taliban had to say:

"Taliban fighters from the nearby Swat Valley have infiltrated the area in recent days, emboldened by a government-sanctioned peace deal allowing them to enforce Sharia, or Islamic law, in the valley, a onetime tourist paradise.

Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani told reporters in Islamabad on Thursday that the government would see to it that the peace agreement isn't violated. "The government will not allow anyone to challenge the government," he said in a statement.

But in Buner, the Taliban remained largely in control despite the stepped-up paramilitary presence.

"We will not leave the area," a Taliban commander, Mufti Bashir, told local journalists.

Map locates the Buner region

Since entering Buner from Swat, the Taliban has reportedly set up checkpoints, begun patrolling roads and ordered barbershops to stop shaving beards, which are favored by Islamic militants. The moves have prompted some residents to flee..." (LA Times)

President Obama, I don't want to be an alarmist here, but what are the plans besides calling the Prime Minister and voicing our concern, or going to United Nations demanding this to stop.

This is the Taliban that does not answer to any international voice, and if this development that could turn disastrous for us all is not stopped and stopped now, your health care plan and the rest of your socialist agenda could be rendered moot. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What If Hawaii Was At Risk? What Would We Do?

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>. Visit and sign-up for your free email or feed delivery.

<strong>What Would The United States Do If A Missile Out Of North Korea Was Headed Towards Hawaii? Let's Ask Secretary Of Defense Gates:</strong>
<strong></strong>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting the host of the show to ask, "And there's nothing we can do about it?"</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
"No," Gates answered, according to an account of the interview on foxnews.com. "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
Last week, Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said in an interview with ABC News that the U.S. military was "fully prepared" to shoot down the missile, if ordered to do so. But Gates said Sunday such a response was unlikely.</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
<strong>"I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it," Gates said. "But I don't think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point."</strong></span> (<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/not-prepared-stop-north-korea/story.aspx?guid=%7B2F21B81C%2DF016%2D4240%2D9CC2%2DEE7833BADA71%7D">MarketWatch</a>)

<a title="Blue Hawaii by janruss, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/janinerussell/2121859675/"><img height="328" alt="Blue Hawaii" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2121859675_0213b1e9a2.jpg" width="500" /></a>

Hmmmm. Has Hawaii heard about this? I would hope if a missile was headed for New York, the Pentagon would do more than just think about shooting it down. Is Hawaii expendable, or does this exchange indicate the state of our foreign policy?

Are we operating under benign neglect? Through policy by omission as opposed to commission?

Where, I ask again, is <strong>Secretary of State Clinton</strong> through all of this. Is she waiting at the United Nations to be ready to put in our complaint to the Security Council when North Korea test fires this missile? Is she personally observing the dismantling of our missile defense in Eastern Europe so that we can then rely on the Russians to take care of the nuclear threat in Iran?

It seems as if our foreign policy is going to be to react when God forbid something happens. I personally don't think that is a foreign policy. It is the old hope and pray. <strong>The Obama administration seems to want to go to the polar opposite point of the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy.</strong> They don't even want to say anything that may appear to be combative for fear of sounding less than diplomatic.

That stance has gotten us to the point of an imminent missile test firing and the planned trial of two journalists accused violating the North Korean border. As I have said the Obama administration is being tested, and so far the grade is not an A.

Maybe we can hurry up and get a quick U.N. Resolution.


<p><strong></strong></p>
<p></p>

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jim Calhoun of UConn: Deniable Accountability?

Market Update: GM's Wagoner To Resign In the better late than never department, an executive that helped put his company in the position that it finds itself in today has to step down in order for that firm, GM, to receive more bailout money. Chief Executive Rick Wagoner is stepping down at the request of the Obama administration. President Obama, fresh from his appearance on Leno and ESPN as well as countless other face time opportunities will be back on tomorrow discussing his plans for the automobile industry. The NCAA Rulebook Is Long (between 439 and 508 pages depending on who you ask), The Rules Are Simple. Or Are They? College coaches report to many bosses including the AD, alumni, boosters as well as the NCAA. The first 3 on the list want you to win, win often and to what it takes to achieve that result (while bending the rules as far as they can go without breaking, and if they break to do so without getting caught), while the 4th wants you to try and win within a rules structure that attempts to level the playing field for all schools. The NCAA has not accomplished that yet. Some of the rules fall into a shade of grey, while others are fairly straight forward. Some can be manipulated and loopholes found, while others are just a matter of counting phone, email and text message contacts made to a potential recruit during a given time frame. Some of the ways around the limitations of the recruiting process are special camps for top recruits, or maybe an AAU coach coincidentally ending up at the same school that ends up with a coveted player. Rules were made to be broken is a saying that is at least as old as I am, but in the case of the alleged violations by UConn, it all seems fairly cut and dried. Jim Calhoun is trying to hide behind the fact the the rulebook is a long document. In the parlance of coaching, what is a more important book to know inside and out. It is a somewhat convoluted story involving a recruit (Nate Miles) coaches (Jim Calhoun) , assistant coaches (Tom Moore), agents (Josh Nochimson – Former UConn student manager turned professional sports agent), phone calls and text messages. ..."The University of Connecticut violated NCAA rules in the recruitment of former guard Nate Miles, a six-month investigation by Yahoo! Sports has found. Miles was provided with lodging, transportation, restaurant meals and representation by Josh Nochimson – a professional sports agent and former UConn student manager – between 2006 and 2008, according to multiple sources. As a representative of UConn’s athletic interests, Nochimson was prohibited by NCAA rules from having contact with Miles and from providing him with anything of value. A UConn assistant coach said he made Nochimson aware of the Huskies’ recruitment of Miles. Later, the assistant coach said he knew that Nochimson and Miles had talked. The relationship and UConn’s knowledge of the situation are potential major NCAA violations. The findings are part of Yahoo! Sports’ ongoing look into the changing role of agents and their impact on college basketball. Agents aren’t just recruiting players from college programs, they are recruiting players for them, according to an NCAA official. The UConn basketball staff was in constant contact with Nochimson during a nearly two-year period up to and after Miles’ recruitment. Five different UConn coaches traded at least 1,565 phone and text communications with Nochimson, including 16 from head coach Jim Calhoun. Yahoo! Sports obtained the records through the Freedom of Information Act. The documents were requested in October and received two weeks ago. Many of UConn’s communications with Nochimson were clustered with calls and texts to Miles or his inner circle."...(Rivals.com) One thing is certain, the head coach either knew what was going on or should have known, and standing behind the length of the rulebook is crap. This has the potential to cost UConn plenty. Many programs bend the rules and some break them, and it is usually a source other than the NCAA that figures it out, much like the way that the ratings agencies on Wall Street are usually the last to know. The bottom line is that cheating is rampant, and college sports is merely a metaphor for what goes on in the rest of society. Whether or not UConn goes on probation really does not have an impact on the world outside of the alumni and Storrs. If some semblance of morality does not find its way back into the fabric of the humanity, then the decline is destined to continue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Hypocrisy Of The Phrase: Failed Policies Of The Last 8 Years!!

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Hypocrisy Of The Phrase: Failed Policies Of The Last 8 Years!!

First, A Market Update

On December 8, 2008, I wrote the following:

"We will have the analysts and the "experts" explaining why, after this rally off of the lows set a month or so ago has already taken place, that we have seen the bottom. That we are forming a base, backing and filling, poised to now go much higher and all of the other cliches that you will hear on T.V. These are the same guys and gals who simply go with the momentum trade disguised by fancy talk. When oil was at $140 a barrel, there was no doubt that it was going to $200. Now that it is $40 a barrel, there is no doubt that the next step is $20."

In typical Wall Street analyst fashion, the "experts" were wrong and Thursday we took out those lows and now could have another leg down to who knows where. In another example of investors voting with there feet, excitement and more importantly confidence has not been created in the fiscal stimulus and mortgage plans announced by the Obama administration.

You Want It Fast Or Right?

I still know the drill all of you apologists out there. He has only been in office _____(fill in the blank) days.

The problem is that in this case there are no do overs or mulligans, and if he had not properly vetted his plan with Wall Street and others to make sure it would not only be received well but also be the plan with the highest probability of working, then he should have waited. It is arrogance of the worst kind to believe that you know better, particularly with some of the culpable players you have surrounded yourself with.

It rings like an echo in my mind, another Washington cliche that is always rolled out (except in this case where fast was the main goal): You want it fast or you want it right?

Mr. President, we want it right, because the economic stability of country's around the world depends on it. You hopefully did not over play your hand by setting the artificial drop dead deadline that you did.

A Revealing Walk Down Memory Lane

On a separate topic, you will not believe that I am having a real problem with some of the sanctimonious politicians i see on T.V. that speak of the failed policies of the last 8 years as if there was a finite break between the time that the Clinton administration ended and the Bush administration began.

Remember some of the players and situations from before Bush took office? Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Melvin Watt, the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, the political clout of Fannie Mae, the political contributions made by Fannie Mae (now President Obama was a substantial beneficiary), sweetheart mortgage deals, the attempt to reign in the problem that was blocked by the Democrats when Bush was in office and so on and so on.

I know the rules of Washington. What you say in front of the cameras today is the new reality that wipes out any of your actions that have actually occurred through the years (i.e. Chappaquiddick, sorry couldn't help myself). Even though I know these rules, you reach a point where you just can't listen to it anymore without expressing some outrage.

The clip below was made during the presidential campaign, but is an excellent depiction of when the problem that we now find ourselves in originated.

It will also give some pretty credible evidence to the fact that some of these guys that stand up and say those famous words "the failed policies of the last 8 years" should look in the mirror and understand that while the American public might buy the arguments because no one is really pointing out the reality, they are not really fooling anybody.

Watch The Clip, And After That I Promise We Will Only Look Forward, At Least Until The Next Time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Think The Economy's A Problem? How About These Guys?

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

Thursday, February 5, 2009

You Think The Economy's A Problem? How About These Guys?


Economy, Economy, Economy - But That Ain't All

Oh yeah, do we have economic problems that are consuming us all on a daily basis. But let us not forget or foreign policy problems.

We have the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which since the election we have not heard much about (could just be a coincidence or could it be that the media reporting on the negatives no longer has a reason to report).

But we also have two of the members of the Axis of Evil flexing some military muscle, perhaps as a test of the United States resolve under a new administration, and perhaps because they are an incredible danger to us all.

Iran and North Korea

Who can forget these guys? As reported by Reuters on Tuesday, North Korea is preparing to test its' longest range ballistic missile as the tensions with South Korea escalate. This development is a result of some actions by South Korea that are considered provocative by the North, prompting Kim Jong-il and the government to announce that the Korean peninsula is on the brink of war.

Meanwhile Iran and it's leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a home grown satellite into space that has technology that is very similar to that used in a ballistic missile. Iran says that the technology is for peaceful purposes, and who wouldn't believe him?

While being focused on the economy as well as on staffing his administration and the distractions that comes with it (damn taxes), our new President had best not forget that these are potentially very serious foreign policy events that have to be addressed and not back burnered because they have not bubbled over yet.

Let's be proactive instead of the typical stance of reactive.

Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Grabbing The Low Hanging Fruit

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Grabbing The Low Hanging Fruit

Newsflash: In an attempt to allow President Obama save face and to avoid ugly confirmation hearings, Tom Daschle withdrew his name from the nomination process Tuesday due to the non payment of taxes. The state of his nomination and call for his withdrawl was discussed here on Monday.




The Outrage Stays The Same

What is that they say about the definition of insanity? What is that they say about the definition of insanity? Sorry about repeating myself, but I know i have asked this question at some point in the past.


Insanity is having the same information set with all of the same players involved working on the same problem in the same way and expecting an outcome that is somehow different from the time before. On a small scale this is what happens when we tell our kids to make their beds.


On a large scale, we have Washington and the economic crisis that we now face.

On the smaller scale, which is where we live, the debate about executive pay, executive bonuses and the naming rights of a stadium seem to usurp the debate over the bigger picture items such as TARP and the solvency of a nation.

As always the politicians will key on, and focus on, those topics that they think their constituency will focus on. The reality is that at the end of the day it is the big picture items mentioned above that had better be resolved fast.

As an update, my personal senators, congressman, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have not given me any kind of response or feedback regarding my letter asking why they cannot put their own agenda behind ours for a change! Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eric Holder AG Hearings Part Deux

Monday, January 19, 2009

Eric Holder AG Hearings Part Deux


Grilled On Marc Rich and FALN Pardons

I talked on Friday about the Eric Holder confirmation hearings focusing on his spoken definition of torture. My hope is that in the back rooms of Washington, out of the cameras eye where most of the real decisions are made, when push comes to shove and innocent American lives, or innocent lives around the world may be at stake, the actual decision will be different. That actions necessary to obtain critical information will be taken.

Other Issues Faced

As the last sentence of my blog Friday morning I said that there were other issues that would be faced by Holder that could affect his ability to be confirmed. Namely these were the pardons of convicted felon, fugitive and Clinton donor Marc Rich as well as members of the terrorist group FALN in jail for murder. His testimony on Friday that mistakes were made, and that he will be a better Attorney General because of those mistakes, does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Is he political, or is he going to be the chief law enforcement official in the country?

I don't typically include long excerpts but these are very interesting. Stay tuned.

Re: Marc Rich (Source: AmericaNow.org)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Some senators, following—including commentators like Karl Rove, have spoken extensively about your role in the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich at the end of President Clinton’s second term. How do you respond to those who say the Marc Rich pardon shows you do not have the character to be an independent attorney general? What did you learn from that experience?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, as I indicated in my opening statement, I made mistakes. That was and remains the most intense, most searing experience I’ve ever had as a lawyer. There were questions raised about me that I was not used to hearing. I’ve learned from that experience. I think that, as perverse as this might sound, I will be a better attorney general, should I be confirmed, having had the Marc Rich experience.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Given the background of this man, it’s hard to brush it off, it seems to me, as a mistake. The guy had a reprehensible record. The guy was a fugitive. The indicators are—a House finding—that you were very heavily involved, and yet, you testified you were only casually involved. Question of candor on that comment. And then you had a president who obviously wanted to grant a pardon.
ERIC HOLDER: Well, I don’t mean to minimize what I did by calling it a mistake or mistakes. In fact, I take what I did seriously, and I’ve expressed regret for what I did consistently.

Re: FALN (Source: AmericaNow.org)

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: You did indicate you thought the President’s decision on the FALN was reasonable. And I was United States attorney for twelve years, assistant United States attorney for two-and-a-half, attorney general for two. In my opinion, it’s not reasonable. It is not close. I mean, that’s all I can tell you. And I don’t believe it was a close question, and it worries me that you say that was a reasonable decision.
ERIC HOLDER: I looked at the situation, took into account the fact that these people were not directly involved in incidents that led to death or injuries.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed weren’t directly involved in the murders; there were conspirators to that. And they probably and morally are more accountable, in my view, and equally accountable as those who actually carried out the attacks in the United States, wouldn’t you agree?
ERIC HOLDER: I would. But the FALN people are not in the same category as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or bin Laden, in that they were not the heads of the organization. That is not my understanding of the people who were with the—the pardons were granted. Again, I want to emphasize, these people were criminals. They were terrorists. I was not giving them a pass; they served substantial amounts of time. And I don’t want anybody—
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: You recommended against the law enforcement people that they not serve the full time they were sentenced, and they wouldn’t even file papers—I don’t think any of them actually even asked for a pardon.

Postscript: A Senate Judiciary Committee vote could come by Wednesday, and if it is to recommend his confirmation a full Senate vote could come by Friday. My guess is he will be confirmed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Usher In The Billary Era of Foreign "Affairs"

Reprinted from The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

We Usher In The Billary Era of Foreign "Affairs"


The Hilary Clinton Confirmation Hearings

In a re-injection (can I say that in a blog) of Bill Clinton into the international political scene, questions of his fundraising and more specifically the source of some funds for the Clinton Foundation came into question. It is no secret that some percentage comes from foreign sources, and that this brings the potential of a conflict of interest for his wife, the soon to be confirmed Secretary of State.

If foreign entities or foreign governments feel that they might be able to curry favor through donations to Bill, then this puts the United States in a more dangerous security position.

The quid pro quo of politics that brought her to the precipice of this job seems to put the U.S. foreign policy debate in the hands of a couple, one half of which has been more than willing to accept great sums of money from countries whose philosophy's we may not share, and who more importantly may not be "true" friends of the United States.

It would seem that there must have been another choice just as capable yet offering at least the perception of objectivity. That's politics for you.

On another note, her answers on the question of Israel and the Palestinians seemed to indicate that the Obama administration will take a tougher line on Israel and the actions that the U.S. will support.

TARP About Face

Ben Bernanke, in a speech on Tuesday, indicated that financial stimulus may not be enough, and that the original purpose of the TARP which was to take toxic assets off the books of banks may be back on the table.

Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have also come to an agreement to combine their brokerage operations. In the meantime the tone of the markets, after a strong bear market rally, has taken a solid turn for the worse.

A report by an options trader yesterday indicated similar action in HSBC bank options as before the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers implosions. Stay tuned. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »