COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Inexplicably Obama Withdraws Objection to Russian Transfer of Defense Missiles to Iran

BACKGROUND



THE MISSILE SYSTEM

The missile is designed to engage both modern and prospective air targets, including strategic, tactical and naval aircraft, strategic cruise missiles, air-launched missiles, tactical and battlefield ballistic missiles and other air attack weapons over a wide range of combat environments.

The 5V55R is a single-stage missile employing the normal aerodynamic configuration, with control surfaces unfolded after launch.

The missile is kept in a hermetically sealed launch canister and need not be tested and adjusted during its service life.

The missile is equipped with a highly efficient solid-propellant motor and comprises sections housing a radio direction finder, onboard control units (made as a monoblock), high-explosive fragmentation warhead, solid-propellant motor and control surface actuators.

The missile is launched vertically by the canister catapult without a preliminary turn of the launcher toward the target.

After ignition of the motor, the missile is tilted in the required direction depending on the target position.
The missile employs the track-via-missile guidance principle.

The high maneuverability of the missile and powerful high-explosive fragmentation warhead provide effective target destruction.


____________________________

OBAMA'S DEAL

U.S. Makes Concessions to Russia for Iran Sanctions
By PETER BAKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 21, 2010 NY Times

WASHINGTON — As it sought support for international sanctions on Iran, the Obama administration gave Moscow two concessions: lifting American sanctions against the Russian military complex and agreeing not to ban the sale of Russian anti-aircraft batteries to Tehran.

The administration dropped sanctions on Friday against the Russian state arms export agency and three other Russian entities previously found to have transferred sensitive technology or weapons to Iran. The move came just three days after the United States and Russia agreed on a package of United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Russian and American officials also said Friday that while the United Nations resolution would ban many weapons sales to Iran, it would not prohibit Moscow from completing the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, a contract that Russia has suspended but not canceled. The sophisticated defensive system could help Iran shoot down American or Israeli warplanes should either try to bomb its nuclear facilities.

Russia has invented a series of reasons to delay delivery of the systems, under strong American pressure. A senior American official said Friday that other provisions of the sanctions, urging countries to exercise caution in what they deliver to Iran, would give Washington the ability to continue to urge Russia never to deliver the systems. Iran, in frustration, announced recently that it was developing a similar system that would be domestically manufactured, but outside experts said that would take years.

The concessions are the latest moves in President Obama’s effort to establish a fresh partnership with Russia after years of mutual suspicion. Last month Mr. Obama signed a new arms control treaty with Russia, and this month he revived a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that had been shelved after Russia’s war with Georgia. Mr. Obama’s decision last year to restructure a European missile defense system was also seen by critics as a gesture to Moscow, although the president denied that.

The latest moves generated a fresh barrage of criticism from lawmakers and national security experts who said the administration was giving away too much and getting too little in return. Just this week, a bipartisan team in the House opened a legislative campaign to block the administration’s decision to bring back the civilian nuclear agreement.

Administration officials said the moves were reasonable gestures of confidence as ties improved. The decision to lift sanctions against the Russian companies was not a direct trade-off for support at the United Nations, they said, but a reflection of the increasing trust that allowed both developments. And they added that Russia had earned that trust in part by putting the S-300 sale on hold.

“What we’ve seen is a shift in Russian attitudes toward military support for Iran, and emblematic of that is the restraint with respect to delivering S-300s,” said Philip J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman. “This was not a quid pro quo, but the fact that Russia has improved its performance with respect to Iran has given us the confidence to take these steps.”

Another senior official, who is involved in the discussions but not authorized to be identified, said the administration would have liked to have banned the S-300 sale but believed it had an understanding with Russia not to proceed with it. As for the sanctions lifted on the Russian companies, he said that some of them had lapsed anyway and that they were not much to give up compared with the importance of the United Nations resolution.

“We got a major instrument to help advance what we’re trying to do vis-à-vis Iran,” the official said. “Compared to what we gave up, I think we’re in a pretty good place, and we’re certainly better off than where we were in January 2009.”

But there was bipartisan criticism of the moves. David J. Kramer, who oversaw Russia policy in President George W. Bush’s State Department, said the concessions were “premature and unwarranted” without a firm commitment not to transfer the S-300s. “A Russia transfer of those missiles would be much more significant in a negative way than a Russian vote for a watered-down resolution,” he said. “Let’s not forget that Russia supported three previous resolutions and didn’t get ‘rewarded’ for those votes.”

John R. Bolton, who was acting ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Bush, said Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, got the upper hand on the Obama team. “He sensed desperation in the Obama administration on this Iran resolution, and probably extracted all that the traffic would bear,” he said. “The only remaining question is what else he got that we don’t yet know about.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and co-chairman of the Nuclear Security Caucus, said that the overall trend in Russian-American relations was good but that he was not sure Moscow agreed to enough teeth in the United Nations resolution to justify the concessions.

“It’s clear Russia is extracting a huge price for its cooperation at the U.N. Security Council on the Iran sanctions,” he said in an interview. On the S-300s, he said, “It’s hard to understand why they would insist on that if they weren’t intending to deliver.”

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced a measure to reject the civilian nuclear cooperation deal on Thursday. “I believe Russia is continuing to assist Iran’s nuclear program,” he said, citing the civilian nuclear plant at Bushehr built by Russia and set to open this year. “Russia has sold Iran advanced conventional weapons and air defense systems.”

But administration officials said there was no evidence of current arms or technology transfers involving the companies freed of sanctions on Friday. Rosoboronexport, the state arms export corporation, was sanctioned in 2008 for arms sales to Iran, while the Dmitry Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology, the Moscow Aviation Institute and the Tula Instrument Design Bureau were all originally sanctioned in 1999.

Earlier this year the administration lifted sanctions on two other Russian entities, Glavkosmos and the Baltic State Technical University, both sanctioned in 1998 for helping Iran’s missile and weapons programs.


CONCLUSION?

Friday, May 21, 2010

How Many Americans Can be Anti-American?



If this does not make your blood boil, then we have a tribal problem.



I think the RNC should make a video identifying every Democratic congressman rising to his feet and cheering Calderon's insult to the US. It should come in handy come November. There has to be a significant American majority that has had enough of this indignity and outrage.


Thursday, May 20, 2010

Keeping Perspective - The Crash of 1901



The US 6th Worst Stock Market Crash:

Date Started: 6/17/1901
Date Ended: 11/9/1903

Total Days: 875
Starting DJIA: 57.33
Ending DJIA: 30.88
Total Loss
: -46.1%

DJIA records are not available before 1900. Take a look at the following facts to draw perspective of what things were like during this period.

  • Life expectancy in the U.S. was 47
  • Only 14% of homes had a bathtub
  • Maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph
  • Average wage was 22 cents and hour - avg salary/year was about $300
  • More than 95% of all births took place at home
  • Only 6% of the population had graduated from High School
  • The #1 cause of death was Pneumonia and Influenza
  • The American flag had 45 stars
  • Federal spending: $0.53 billion
  • Unemployment: 4.0%
  • Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.02
  • J.P. Morgan creates the United States Steel Co., which will become the first $1 billion corporation in the world.
  • Guglielmo Marconi successfully receives wireless signals transmitted from England to Newfoundland.



Arrested Development

This is a photo making the rounds via email.
I don't know what the First Couple were doing
but the email claimed they were saluting the flag.
I doubt it and I don't like lying propaganda.


Deuce wrote in the last thread: "This Obama disgusts me." Had Blogger not been screwy, I was going to post that my "disdains for Obama and Company grows by the day."

The man may be an American citizen but he is certainly not a red-blooded, red, white and blue and apple pie American. This is the guy who would not wear an American flag lapel pin in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack. This is a man of the left. And I'm not talking about the center left, this guy comes from the far left of the spectrum. His agenda is antithetical to the American ideals that most of us cherish.

He may or may not have refused to salute a flag. I can see a young Obama refusing to salute the flag or pledge allegiance and that's no big deal to me. I can excuse the zeal of youth. I realize that people change as they mature but for a large portion of what I call the dysfunctional, envious left, that maturation process seems stunted. They never mature. They forever rebel against the establishment, against "the man." They harbor and even nourish their grievances. They embrace those ideals which are in direct opposition to the melting-pot America. They reject the Judaeo-Christian traditions of our country. It's a form of rebellion exemplified in the extreme by groups such as the late 19th century anarchists, Trotskyites, the Black Panthers, the early Green Party in Europe, the communists in Italy, the environmental activists. Barack Obama is their leader but he's an embarrassment to our country.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Vete a Casa!







The last thing we need is a Mexican politician and president lecturing the United States about anything regarding civil rights and the legality and morality of our decisions on immigration.



Misspoke Again















Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Obama Administration's Michael Posner, Assistant Sec of State, Apologizes to the Chinese About Arizona



Now this is no accident that this little dweeb, this apologist, hand picked by Barack Hussein Obama has been caught up maligning The United States again. Mailigning the USA is one of the few things Obama is adept at. This is not a casual slip of the tongue. This is his MO.

Listen to him in Morocco in November 2009.




Maligning America -- again
Last Updated: 1:02 AM, May 18, 2010
NY Post: May 18, 2010


There they go again -- bashing America on the world stage.

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reports that in recent talks with China, US officials put America's human-rights record on a par with Beijing's.

"Part of a mature [US-Chinese] relationship is that you have an open discussion, where you not only raise the other guy's problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it, about your own [problems]," Posner said.

"We did plenty of that."

Moreover, he said, "experts from the US side" talked about America's "treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context."

They even ripped Arizona's new immigration law "as a troubling trend in our society." Bragged Posner: "We brought it up early and often."

No doubt they did.

It's hard to know where to begin here.

Perhaps with the way China deals with its Muslim population -- the Uighurs?
Last year, Chinese riot police killed hundreds of them.

America, by contrast, freely admitsMuslim immigrants (Pakistani-born Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad comes to mind) -- and the White House can't bring itself to use the term "Islamist terrorist" even as Islamist terrorists are doubling down on their efforts to kill Americans in the streets.

More misguided moral equivalence?

Posner notwithstanding, Arizona is merely trying to enforce a federal law meant to track lawbreakers who sneak across US borders -- by requiring immigrants to carry papers.

China, of course, ships North Korean refugees found on their side of that bleak border back to Pyongyang -- where certain, agonizing death awaits them.

There are no valid comparisons here.

China is one of the most flagrant violators of human rights on the planet, and for the Obama administration even to hint that America is on the same plane is despicable.



Monday, May 17, 2010

Eurosion Continues



Are we in the middle of a competitive devaluation?




More price erosion will hit hard at housing:

More homeowners choose to default on loans
Choosing not to pay has consequences beyond damaged credit scores


By Amy Hoak, MarketWatch
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- "Strategic defaults" are on the rise as more borrowers who are underwater on their home loans decide it's not worth it to stay current on their payments each month. That trend could have repercussions for the housing market, and for borrowers, in the future.

Strategic defaults are when borrowers who owe more on their homes than they're currently worth choose to stop paying their mortgage but continue to meet other financial obligations, according to a definition by Morgan Stanley in a research report on the topic.

In other words, these homeowners neglect their monthly principal and interest payments, but still pay other bills on time, including credit cards and auto loans.

The Morgan Stanley report estimates that 12% of mortgage defaults in February were strategic. Other reports estimate an even higher proportion of this type of loan default.

Growing social acceptance of this behavior could have ramifications not only for personal credit histories and the health of neighborhoods, but also for the future of mortgage lending, according to those studying the issue.

For one, there's a contagion effect: As more people watch their friends or neighbors choose to default, the more it becomes a viable option for homeowners who may otherwise wait years just to return to a positive equity position in their properties, said Sam Khater, senior economist for CoreLogic, a provider of consumer, financial and property information. The volume of foreclosures on the market today is also chipping away at the stigma that used to come with defaulting on a home loan.

"If you know someone who has defaulted strategically, you're more likely to declare you're willing to do it," said Luigi Zingales, professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business.

In areas where home prices are severely depressed, social acceptance of this decision could lead to pockets "where strategic default becomes the norm, versus the exception," Zingales said.

But look even farther in the future, and the repercussions of substantial strategic defaults could have a larger-scale effect.

"If it really does become a legitimate problem, the implications are pretty dramatic for anyone that wants to buy a home in the future," said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of RealtyTrac, an online marketplace of foreclosure properties. "The lenders would have to build this into their risk models with either larger down payments or higher interest rates."

Some owners 'mimic investors'

Many agree the ranks of people taking this route are growing, but putting a number on the trend isn't as easy. To measure the number of people who are strategically defaulting on their mortgage obligations, you have to assess borrower intent.

"Take all the numbers with a grain of salt, because it's one of those topics which is really difficult to get a firm grasp on," Sharga said. "The projections are based on limited sample sizes, and [people are] doing projections that have a lot of implications on societal behavior and political policy."

Researchers believe that being underwater on a loan is a prerequisite to strategic default, and the more underwater you are, the likelier you are to consider defaulting -- even if you can afford to keep making payments.

"In our data, what we've noticed is at about 25% negative equity, the behavior of owners begins to mimic that of investors -- they're more ruthless and rational, they're looking at it from a cash-flow perspective," Khater said. "The default rate rises as the negative equity gets deeper and deeper."

Here are some estimates of how big a problem strategic default is:

Morgan Stanley's recent report examined the payment habits of 6.5 million borrowers with first-lien mortgages that originated in 2004 or later, and estimated that 12% of all mortgage defaults were strategic in February -- that is, the borrower who is underwater on his or her mortgage obligations and stops paying on that home loan, yet still meets other, "meaningful" non-mortgage obligations. The authors used data from TransUnion in their analysis. The report found that the incidence of strategic default is higher among those with higher credit scores and larger loan balances.

Analysis from Experian and Oliver Wyman estimated that strategic defaulters made up about 18% of all borrowers who went 60 days past due on their mortgage in the fourth quarter of 2008; about 588,000 borrowers strategically defaulted in 2008, up 128% from 2007. Strategic default was also found to be most prevalent in areas that experienced steep price declines, including California and Florida, and among mortgages that originated in or after 2006, because those borrowers didn't experience home price appreciation before prices headed south.

Research from the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index found a rising percentage of homeowners are willing to strategically default: The percentage of foreclosures perceived to be strategic was 31% in March, compared with 22% in March 2009. The data is collected through a survey of about 1,000 people.

One possible reason the numbers are rising is some homeowners' belief that lenders aren't aggressively pursuing those who default, according to the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School report.

"With more and more homeowners believing that lenders are failing to pursue those who default on their mortgages, there is a risk that a growing number of homeowners will walk away from their homes even if they can afford monthly payments," said Paola Sapienza, professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and co-author of the report, in a news release. Zingales was a co-author.

People are also learning they often have one or two years before they get thrown out of a home after stopping payments, said Frank Pallotta of RH Reward, or Responsible Homeowner Reward, a program that works with lenders to provide financial incentives for borrowers who are at a high risk of strategically defaulting.

Getting above water

A recovery in home prices could give people hope to stick it out and stay in their homes, even if they're underwater, Zingales said. "If prices were to drop again, people might lose hope," he said.

CoreLogic estimates that the typical underwater borrower is five to seven years away from regaining their lost equity.

Eventually, those who do stick it out will see their equity increase due to simple amortization: Over time, less of your payment is going to interest and more is going to the paying down of principal, Khater said. "If they remain current on their home, simply paying their loan will help drive them back to positive equity," he said.

But for some homeowners, that won't be enough.

"Strategic default will begin to pick up in numbers as the housing market begins to stabilize," Pallotta said. "Now you can almost quantify how long it is to see the light at the end of the tunnel."

If people figure they'll wait more than a decade before regaining the equity they've lost, they're much more likely to cut bait and leave, he said.