Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Opinion: Obama’s Anti-terror Flip-Flop



OPINION

Opinion: Obama’s Anti-terror Flip-Flop


Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on how President Obama contradicted one of his inaugural anti-terror pronouncements. Photo credit: Getty Images.

6/11/2013 1:50:49 PM4:06

.Source
.

Who Really Owns Your Gold? The Shocking Truth


By WDAGarner | Posted September 22, 2011 | Siesta Key, Florida

...............


The Great American Nightmare


The American Dream is dead and America is flat broke. That’s not to say you can’t still go out for a cold one after work each night, or rent a DVD and veg for hours in your overstuffed lounger in front of that 42-inch Samsung. Or get that wonderful foot massage and pedicure on Saturday morning. Even deep in the economic blood-red of the United States of America, there’s always room for a six pack, a movie and a foot rub..

Way things are now, you can’t possibly pay down all your bills in your lifetime, even though you probably worked out a plan to do so within ten years, but that was 12 years ago when things weren’t so bad and you had a fulltime job with bennies and a small savings account, the IRA and the 401K and all that stuff you probably never thought you’d ever need.

Too high and climbing, your mortgage is overwhelming. The insurance on your home keeps creeping up year after year for no apparent reason, or at least any sane reason the bank can give you, and you can’t very well cancel it because the bank that holds your mortgage won’t let you and they keep threatening you with immediate foreclosure if you as much as think about it.

With this new so-called healthcare reform now in place, your medical bills are skyrocketing, especially since your spouse went into the hospital with intestinal problems, and neither of you can afford health insurance because that would cost you both more than $2,000 a month in premiums, and neither of you takes home more than $1,500 after taxes every 30 days.

You have enough debt to saddle a medieval horse, and that horse’s back is swaying more and more with time. Any day now, it’ll surrender to gravity like a droopy chin, and the once majestic beast will drown in a sea of debt that screams over you like a tsunami that traveled 10,000 miles from the dark, cold Antarctic, gathering more and more momentum with each passing mile.

Is there any recovery from such a force of nature?

The good news is that once you come out from under that bankruptcy, all those material things you accumulated over your lifetime—the beautiful home and the car and truck, and your worldly possessions—will be in someone else’s hands, starting with your bank, which has no use for your stuff anyway except for what it might fetch at auction.

No more dusting off the little Hummel pieces from grandma. No more cleaning the fine silver you got on your wedding day from all your friends who chipped in money they didn’t have. No more vacuuming and cleaning your lovely home you built from scratch and promised to pay down before the end of that 30-year, 6% loan.

You’ll be left with little more than a few articles of clothing, if even those. Life is no longer what you thought it would be. The American Dream has fast become The American Nightmare, brought on by an invisible force some call dark matter, the stuff of science fiction that tells us we can’t see it or smell it or touch it, but it’s effects are there and they’re real so you best believe it.

And in the wake of all this, you’re left scratching your head, wondering what the hell just happened here?

Does anyone have an accurate answer? Does anyone outside your life even care? Your friends have all but abandoned you, because they’re in the same position, facing bankruptcy or having just been spat out by the court system that took everything they once owned. Daily phone calls that once beamed happiness and baseball and Oprah now scream and cry tales of IRS liens, foreclosures and that fourth job, the one that starts at two in the morning when the baby’s crying.

Your family can’t help you, either, because they just got hit with a huge tax bill that they’ll never be able to pay, but hey, wait, there’s always that monthly payment system with the IRS, and they only charge 30% interest on top of what they say you already owe them.

So, no, even family can’t help you. Seems everyone you know is being pulled under by this rip tide of dark matter whose invisible and unyielding gravity takes no prisoners, but it’s all too happy to take you down down down into that forever abyss.

The American Nightmare used to be the stuff of Edgar Allan Poe and Stephen King. Now it’s front-page headlines even in mainstream media. No one can escape it. The United States is going down that same road of hyperinflation and depression that effectively sacked the Weimar Republic in Germany, in 1923.[6] [7] [8]


.

Islmaic Wars



ISLAMIC WARS



Adrian McQueen


Published on Apr 11, 2013


The Arab Spring was seen as an Islamic Revolution for reform in autocratic states, but as reliable intelligence sources have revealed, it was carefully manufactured by the West to destabilise the region, where one autocrat is replaced by another (e.g. Egypt) and the majority of Muslim heads of state are Western allies, who imprison, torture and murder there own people (e.g. Bahrain). The Islamic people are being used as pawns so that Western governments can pass more laws to reduce cherished freedoms.


.

New World Order, Police State, Collapse Documentary: Descent Into Tyranny





TheMoneyGPS


Published on Jun 1, 2013


The best info-weapon on the internet. This short documentary film widely exposes the New World Order's global control system.

Using their own worlds: "New World Order", "World Constitution", and "Global Governance", author David Quintieri clearly uncovers their plan. One which will change the course of history forever.

.


Will the people live as slaves in the near future? Are we doomed?

This short film also discusses the simple but highly effective methods to push back against tyranny without violence or protest.


Please share this video with everyone you can.



The Money GPS by David Quintieri.
Free version @ http://themoneygps.com/free

The Money GPS features Bob Chapman, James Turk, and David Morgan.




Free version @ http://themoneygps.com/free


.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

State Department accused of covering up sex and prostitution investigation



Published June 11, 2013

FoxNews.com


FILE: Jan. 18, 2013: Then-Secretary of State HillaryClinton talks at the State Department, in Washington, D.C. (AP)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department’s ability to investigate wrongdoing by its staff is under question after a report that the agency tried to cover up several crimes committed has surfaced.

Some of the allegations are against then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail who allegedly hired prostitutes, a U.S. ambassador accused of trolling public parks for paid sex and a security official in Beirut committing sexual assaults on foreign nationals.

An internal memo from the State Department’s inspector general listed eight examples of wrongdoing by agency staff or contractors.

The memo also seems to indicate that the government agency tried to use its authority to stop the investigation and instead, opting to have the official, whose name has not been released, meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy in Washington. The official was then allowed to return to his job overseas.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters during Monday’s daily briefing that the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security has requested a “review by outside, experienced law enforcement officers” who are working with the IG’s office to make “expert assessments about our current procedures.”

Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the allegations of misconduct appalling and said he would ask congressional staff members to start an investigation into all of the accusations.

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stonewalled reporters Tuesday when asked about the alleged misconduct and possible cover up.

"I don't know what you're talking about," the Nevada Democrat said. "What are you talking about? ... I don't know what you're talking about."

According to the memo first obtained by CBS News, four members of Clinton’s security detail received one-day suspensions.

Allegations of misconduct are not new and have plagued the Obama administration for awhile.

In April 2012, members of the president’s Secret Service detail were caught in a prostitution scandal involving 12 women they picked up during an official trip to Colombia. The Secret Service was slow to disclose any information and issued only limited public statements in the weeks following the incident in Cartagena.

In the end, a dozen agents, officers, supervisors and 12 other U.S. military personnel were implicated in a night of heavy drinking and misconduct.

The Secret Service forced eight employees from their jobs. The military canceled the security clearances of all 12 enlisted personnel.

Fox News' James Rosen contributed to this report.


Source
.

A.C.L.U. Sues Obama Administration Over Collection of Phone Logs



BREAKING NEWS Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:28 PM EDT

A.C.L.U. Sues Obama Administration Over Collection of Phone Logs


The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its “dragnet” collection of logs of domestic phone calls, contending that the once-secret program — whose existence was exposed by a former National Security Agency contractor last week — is illegal and asking a judge to both stop it and order the records purged.
The lawsuit, filed in New York, could set up an eventual Supreme Court test. It could also focus attention on this disclosure amid the larger heap of top secret surveillance matters that were disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who came forward on Sunday to say he was the source of a series of disclosures by The Guardian and The Washington Post.

READ MORE »http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?emc=edit_na_20130611


.

A Lamp In The Dark: Enter The Jesuits





Theophilus2883


Published on Jul 24, 2012


The most evil society took the name of Jesus and sought to exterminate Protestants and their Bibles.


.

The Jesuit Conspiracy



April 21, 2008

THE JESUIT CONSPIRACY

by Brian David Andersen



..........


Jesuit Extermination Targets Disguised as Wars on Communism and Terror

The Jesuit experimental targets for extermination in the 1960s were Buddhists...the real Jesuit targets for extermination during the first part of the 21st Century are Moslems sects who will refuse to convert to the Catholic faith after the New World Order has been installed. Once more, public ignorance and brainwashing and blind obedience by the military services of the United States are serving the desires and goals of the Jesuits and the Vatican. How long will this madness continue?

Pedophile Jesuit priests who were exposed and caught during the 1960s silently transferred and escaped to the state of Alaska where they continued their criminal abuses against children. Victims filed a class action lawsuit in 2000 and in 2006 the Jesuits settled for 600 million dollars. Not one-word of the record settlement was covered in the corporate or alternative media. The humongous settlement is only a tip of the criminal abuse iceberg by the Jesuits against children.

Carroll Quigley, the dear friend of Knight of Malta and pro-Nazi Jesuit priest Edmund Walsh, was mentor of Bill Clinton and numerous other elitists. Quigley, who strongly promoted the foundations for one-world government, was educated and taught at Jesuit Georgetown University. Quigley was a member of Office of Strategic Services and was a liaison between the U.S. Government and the Vatican during World War II.

What do Quigley, Clinton and countless elitists have in common with the Neo Cons in the Bush Administration, key leaders of all national and international intelligence agencies and the Knights of Malta that gave us the debacles of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran? All of the individuals were educated and/or significantly influenced by or heavily connected in some manner to Jesuit Universities. The Center for Strategic Studies at Georgetown University is hub for all Jesuit activities in the United States.

The Jesuits, Vatican and Catholic Church have direct influences in encouraging poor citizens of Mexico to illegally enter the United States.

Again and most emphatically, the mind/soul numbing and anti-constitutional and anti-freedom Patriot Act was written by a Vietnamese immigrant educated and employed by Jesuit Georgetown University. Check out the facts and evidence. -



Read more


....

Ecology and Jesuit Mission






Shibata Yukinori (Jesuit Social Center Tokyo)


Beginning this year 2010 the Social Justice Secretariat, located at the Jesuit headquarters in Rome, changed its name to "Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat," showing a new determination to take ecological issues seriously. As a first step, the Secretariat established the "Jesuit Mission and Ecology Task Force" mentioned on page 5 (Headlines) of this Bulletin, consisting of 5 Jesuits and one lay woman. The co-conveners of the Task Force were Fernando Franco SJ (Secretary for Social Justice and Ecology) and Paul Locatelli SJ (Secretary for Education).




Jesuit General Congregations and Ecology

The impetus for establishing the Task Force came from General Congregation 35 (2008). Its Decree 3, "Challenges to Our Mission Today - Sent to the Frontiers," deals with ecology as a contemporary social problem. Issues like reconciliation with creation, over-exploitation of natural resources, environmental destruction and indigenous peoples, and ecologically displaced people are thoroughly discussed there. Decree 3 is seriously concerned about the close links between poverty and the destruction of the environment and it urges Jesuits to promote studies and activities focused on the causes of poverty. In addition, Decree 3 indicates special "global preferences" like reconciliation, Africa, China, the intellectual apostolate, and migration and refugees.
One might get the impression that Jesuit involvement in ecological issues has just started but, in fact, it began about ten years ago. On the other hand, the Franciscans have had a much older ecological involvement.
General Congregation 34 (1995) took a serious look at the social issues of the time in its decrees: "Our Mission and Justice," "Our Mission and Culture," and "Our Mission and Interreligious Dialogue." Even though ecological issues were included in the decree on "Our Mission and Justice," it was considered necessary to publish another document entitled "Ecology," recommending to Fr. General that a study be made regarding issues like how our Ignatian spirituality provides us with a foundation for a universal response with regard to the contemporary debate between development and ecology (which is often posed as an opposition between First World desires and Third World needs). There was also the issue of how our apostolates can contribute in their specific ways and can also further effective collaboration. The study was also to include how ecological issues affect our lifestyle and decisions made in our institutions. The results of this study were to be communicated to the whole Society.
In 1999 the document "We live in a broken world. Reflections on Ecology" was published by the Social Apostolate Secretariat (Rome) in Promotio Iustitiae no.70. Our Tokyo center did a Japanese translation of the document that was sent to all Jesuit communities. Please refer to: http://www.sjweb.info/sjs/index.cfm



"We Live in a Broken World"

This document (A4 size, 80 pages) takes an overall view of ecology and provides the basis for Jesuit involvement in ecological issues. The following is a summary of the booklet.



.

Signs of the Times Series Part 30


May 24 2013 | Bruce Telfer |




Quotes of the Times: “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” Adolph Hitler.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.” Josef Stalin.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” James Madison, U.S. President.

“The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.” Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“Never waste a good crisis.”
Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff.

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” Plato.

The phrase ‘false flag’ has been bandied about much of late (mostly in the alternative media). So what is a false flag? It is a staged event designed to deceive – often used by aggressors to start a war. Wikipedia has as good a definition as any:

“False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them.”

The people, of most nations, are not aggressively inclined to war. In order to arouse aggressive inclinations, the people have to be propagandized, they have to be taught to fear an enemy, and then they have to be attacked by that enemy. If the enemy refuses to attack, then he has to be provoked into attack. If he still refuses to attack – then there is always the false flag option.

False flags are popular for another reason. No nation wants to be thought of as an evil, warmongering, aggressor. Even the most evil regimes want to wrap themselves in sanctimonious, ‘we occupy the high moral ground’ propaganda, whenever they go to war. Therefore, when war is intentioned, they normally try and contrive it, so that the ‘enemy’ gets the blame for starting the conflict. Even Hitler thought it necessary to cloak his naked aggression in false flag fixing and flummery.

False flag operations have been used for centuries. Some more recent examples are:

1898: The United States battleship ‘Maine’ mysteriously blows up in Havana Harbor (Cuba). The Spanish get the blame and the Spanish-American war starts. America acquires Cuba and the Philippines.

1915: President Wilson promises the American people that America will not get “entangled in European wars.” The cruise liner Lusitania is conveniently torpedoed by a German U-boat, with the loss of American lives. America enters WW I in 1917. While not technically an obvious false flag, it has always been suspected that the Lusitania was deliberately maneuvered into harm’s way by the British, who were anxious to get America into the war.

1933: Hitler burns down the German parliament building and blames it on the communists. He is then able to manipulate the resultant fear and anxiety to acquire emergency powers to deal with the ‘crises’ – the Nazi tyranny is now established on the foundation of a false flag terror attack.

1937: The Japanese blow up a section of railway in Manchuria and blame it on the Chinese (the Mukden Incident) – the Sino-Japanese War begins.

1937: The Japanese stage a ‘kidnapping’ of a Japanese soldier (the Marco Polo Bridge incident) to justify invading China proper.

1939: Would a government kill and harm its own people in order to create a false flag incident? Yes it would! The Russian Red Army shelled its own city of Mainila on the Finnish border. They blame Finland for the destruction – ‘the Winter War’ between Russia and Finland begins.

1939: Hitler and his henchmen also have no qualms about harming their own people, in order to advance their agenda. They want to invade Poland, so they dress up German convicts in Polish Army uniforms and shoot them on the Polish-German border (code named operation ‘Canned Goods’). They then invite the international media to take pictures of the ‘aggressive and belligerent Poles.’ The Second World War begins.

1941: Do only totalitarian tyrants and dictators use false flag incidents that allow harm to come to their own people? You be the judge of what happened at Pearl Harbor. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the same promise that Wilson made: “Your boy’s will not have to go to war.” However, he knew that war was inevitable. He knew that war was inevitable because he was manipulating events that made war inevitable for the United States. Therefore, he needed an ‘incident’ to get America into WW II.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was just what he needed. Although technically not a false flag, the Japanese attack on the American Military at Pearl Harbor was full of deceptive tactics on both sides. Firstly, the American oil embargo against Japan forced the Japanese into a corner, they felt they had no option other than to attack America (they only had two month’s supply of oil left). They tried to lull the Americans into a false sense of security by holding peace negotiations up to the last minute. Secondly, the peace negotiations were a charade on both sides. The Americans knew the Japanese were coming (they had broken the Japanese code) - but the government ‘failed’ to warn the military at Pearl Harbor (according to testimony given by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel the military commander at Pearl Harbor), giving them the pretext they needed for entering the war. [Roosevelt needed such an attack to ensure the American people would be suitably outraged.

Isolationism was the dominant political climate in America at that time – and the isolationist spirit needed to be overcome in order to go to war].

Watch/hear Admiral Kimmel’s damning testimony here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo00IcRj_4Y

1953: The CIA has admitted that it hired criminals and thugs to carry out terrorist attacks in Iran. These terrorist attacks were then blamed on the communists - in order to overthrow the democratically elected Iran government led by the Iranian nationalist, prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh (he nationalized the Iranian oil industry – kicking out the British and American oil companies). This information comes from declassified CIA files available here: ‘All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of the Middle East Terror’ by Stephen Kinzer, (John Wiley and Sons, 2003). Journal of the American Intelligence Professional 48: 258. Retrieved 2007-02-04.

1954: The Israelis recruit Egyptian Jews to plant bombs in Egyptian targets owned by American and British interests – with the purpose of blaming the Muslim Brotherhood (thus gaining British and American support). One bomb goes off prematurely and the Israeli agents are arrested and put on trial. This false flag attack becomes known as the Lavon Affair (because the Israeli Defense Minister, Pinhas Lavon, was forced to resign). In 2006, Israel decorated the surviving members of this terror attack.

1962: Operation Northwoods was the US Military’s plan to take Cuba back from Fidel Castro and the communists. Operation Northwood was never meant to be made public, because it reveals a ruthless propensity for false flag incidents to incite and justify war. The Wikileaks page on ‘False Flags’ is worth quoting:

“The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods by the U.S Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s. Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.”

America wanted to bomb North Vietnam (to prevent the North Vietnamese from supplying and supporting the war in the south). Two American Navy warships were sent into the North Vietnamese coastal region. The destroyer, the USS Maddox, was supposedly attacked by torpedo boats. This ‘attack’ 1964:became known as the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Incident.’ America now launches a massive air campaign against North Vietnam. Documents released in 2001 make it clear that the ‘attack’ on the Maddox never happened. The Secretary of Defense (at the time) Robert McNamara has gone on the record, to state, that the attack never happened. [Watch/hear McNamara’s confession here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k].

1967: The American spy ship, the USS Liberty, was attacked by Israeli jets and Israeli torpedo boats whilst in international waters – 34 Americans are killed and 171 are wounded. However, the Liberty refuses to sink. The Israelis were trying to sink the Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians – and thus draw America into their war with Egypt (the Six Day War). The Liberty ‘incident’ resulted in a massive cover up. Few Americans have ever heard of the Liberty and the murder of their fellow countrymen by the Israeli military.

[Watch/hear the astonishing/shocking story here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSLlIRf-aQI].

1980: The bombing of the railway station in Bologna, Italy, exposed what was long suspected: that there was a clandestine government and NATO sponsored secret army network operating in Europe. This network has subsequently been dubbed ‘Operation Gladio’ (after the name given to the Italian network). Originally, this network was set up to ‘stay behind’ in the eventuality of a Russian invasion - they were to engage the Russians in guerrilla warfare. However, as the focus changed from fear of invasion to fear of communist internal subversion, the secret army was used to commit terrorist attacks in Europe against their own citizens (the Bologna bombing killed 85 and wounded 200 people and was the worst of many such attacks). As usual these attacks were blamed on communists and leftwing organizations. These false flag terror attacks were to provide, ‘the strategy of tension.’ As one former participant, explained on a BBC documentary: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.” Watch the BBC documentary ‘Operation Gladio’ here:

http://www.youtube.com/resultssearch_query=operation+gladio&oq=operation+gla&gs

Then watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0fxLS0BSQ

Gladio is alive and well and still functioning today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AARtO88G5Ag

1992: In the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia, the country broke up into warring ethnic and religious factions. Galvanizing sympathy in the West for each faction was just as important as the actual fighting (because this was how Western support was gained). The Bosnian Muslim faction was the most successful at gaining Western sympathy and support. However they did it by often committing atrocities against their own people and then blaming it on the Serbs. Lord David Owen (who was initially anti-Serb), discovered this unpalatable fact when he visited the besieged city of Sarajevo in 1992, as the European Union peace negotiator. When Owen asked why the UN letter of complaint to the Bosnian Government outlining their culpability was not made public the UN General Morillon replied: “We have to live here.” The Serbs continued to get the blame for all atrocities in the international media. Source here:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsptimeline=western_support_for_islamic_militancy_tmln&western_

2000: ‘The Project for the New American Century’ – a neo-conservative think tank and powerful Washington lobby group (now called The American Enterprise Institute) publish a report entitled: ‘Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.’ In this document they state: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.” One year later the ‘new Pearl Harbor’ arrives.

2001: Many people are waking up to the fact that there is something wrong with the official explanation of 9/11. The greatest skeptics of all are scientists (of all disciplines) who strenuously and vociferously maintain that the official explanation contradicts the laws of physics - and science in general. In addition, the official report just ignores the fact that a third building (building 7 of the WT complex) fell down, that same day, without a plane hitting it. What is the problem here? Could it be that there is no logical explanation here? “Oh! But, there was a fire in #7 – that’s why it fell down.” Sorry, that’s not logical – there have been many fires in steel framed skyscrapers (some of them burning for many hours, engulfing the whole building) – not one of them has ever fallen down. It would appear that the strategy is simply to ignore the facts, and hopefully, they’ll just go away? [Apparently, ‘the head in the sand tactic’ actually works – according to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans, are not even aware, that WTC 7 fell down that fateful day. The owner of the WT complex, Larry Silverstein, is on record saying “we decided to ‘pull’ (demolition slang for ‘demolish’) it.” Excuse me Mr. Silverstein: “would you like to explain why building #7 was wired with explosives – and when was it, wired with explosives?”]. These are just some of the hundreds and hundreds of questions that are being asked around the world. The cover-up will probably persist until the perpetrators are dead – that’s usually how it works.

When one understands the prevalence of governments to use ‘false flags’ to stampede their reluctant citizens in a particular direction – when we understand that the official story is shot full of holes – logically, we can only conclude that 9/11 was the most spectacular false flag ever. [Osama bin Laden has never appeared on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list. When this was queried, the FBI replied: “There is not sufficient proof to put him on the list”]. [This does not necessarily mean that it was official government policy to carry out such a plot – these events are always carried out by intelligence agencies that are divided into compartmentalized factions – so that very few know what is actually going on – or what the final goal is].

When dramatic events happen (the kind of events that have the power to alter people’s perceptions and ideas), then before ‘rushing to judgment’ it is always wise to ask the question: “who profits from this event?” Another useful question is: “why has it happened now?” Yet another is: “how is this going to affect current events – how will this affect public opinion etc. etc.?”

False flags will continue to be used - they are one of the most effective mechanisms to promote secretive and subversive agendas. They are one of the Signs of the Times. Don’t be fooled. Remember the words of Jesus: “Take heed that no man deceive you” Matt: 24:4. Let us end with the words of some of the finest practitioners of the art of deception – the Nazis:

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering.

God bless, Bruce Telfer.







.

What Should Be Up for Public Debate When It Comes to Secret Surveillance?

DEBATE AIR DATE: June 10, 2013





SUMMARY

Did Edward Snowden give Americans vital information about how they're being watched or did he put national security at risk? Gwen Ifill moderates a debate on the public and political oversight of U.S. intelligence with former Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman and James Bamford, author of "The Shadow Factory."

Listen: MP3



READ: Lawmakers Debate Leaks As National Security Whistleblower Reveals His Identity


Transcript


GWEN IFILL: We return now to the story of Edward Snowden, the 29- year-old former CIA employee and intelligence contractor who's admitted leaking government secrets. Is he a criminal who put Americans at risk, or is he a hero who told Americans what they need to know about how closely their government is watching them?

We have two points of view on that from Jane Harman, a former nine-term member of Congress who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She's now president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center. And author and journalist James Bamford, who has written extensively about the NSA and other intelligence agencies.


Welcome to you both.

JAMES BAMFORD, Author, "The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America": Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: So, James Bamford, is Edward Snowden a leaker or a whistleblower?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, he's definitely a whistleblower. He's not profiting from this in any way. He's going to be harmed very severely because of this.

He's doing this because he thinks it's right, because he thinks that the public should know that the government was picking up and storing billions of their telephone records. You know, they had a debate about this in England in the last few weeks. But it was public. It was about a bill going through congress to do a similar thing.

Over here, we don't do that. We just secretly do all these things. The public has a right to know what's being done with their telephone records.

GWEN IFILL: Jane Harman?

JANE HARMAN, Former U.S. Congresswoman: He's a leaker. And what he did was inappropriate.

I do think we should have a public debate. We actually had a public debate around the 2008 amendment to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law has been on the books since 1978. It was passed in response to the abuses in the Nixon administration, and pursuant to the Church Commission, which investigated a lot of intelligence abuses in the mid-'70s. It was passed by overwhelming bipartisan margins, and it set up the Senate Intelligence and House Intelligence Committees, in addition to the FISA court, to review individual actions against U.S. persons.

And it continued that way through 2011, when it was clear the authorities were outdated. And then we amended it after a public debate in the United States Congress. And it works well.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Udall, we just heard, talked about the scale of this program. Is it possible to share this kind of information, as Edward Snowden did, and not share it at such a scale? Is that the problem, really?

JAMES BAMFORD: Have him share the information about what he picked up?

GWEN IFILL: So much of it.

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, we have yet to see what else he has out there. Right now, he released basically two big programs, the one about the telephones and the one about PRISM, which is intercepting the Internet traffic.

I don't think that was a big release. I mean, people should know this is going on with their communications. What's the big secret? The terrorists obviously assume -- they have assumed all along that we're doing this. So, why keep it a secret from the American public?

GWEN IFILL: Both The Washington Post and The Guardian have reported that he's made available to them PowerPoint slides, of which they only published four of them, because they thought there were things he was giving them that were too secret.

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, I haven't seen those. I can't make any judgment about those.

What I'm making a judgment on is what we have seen. And what we have seen is the government access without any knowledge of any public about access to billions of telephone records every day. Every day, somebody picks up the telephone, makes a phone call, a record of that phone call is being kept by NSA. People should know that, the same thing with the Internet.

GWEN IFILL: Jane Harman, let me read to you something that James Bamford has written about the NSA.

He wrote that: "There is no doubt that it has transformed itself into the largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created."

JANE HARMAN: Well, it's large. I agree with that, but the programs we're talking about were developed in Congress pursuant to debate.

They are subject to oversight by Congress. There is a federal court -- that's what the FISA court is. It's a rotating court that includes 11 federal judges, at least three of whom have to live near Washington so they can personally review any individualized requests to read content or listen to -- and, in fact, the phone records are records, but to listen to somebody, it's prospective. It's not retroactive.

No one is listening to our phone calls right now, unless there's an individualized record for an American. But, at any rate, Congress passed these laws. And they are -- and my experience, having worked there and having been involved in the 2008 amendments to FISA, having been very distressed that the early Bush administration wasn't following FISA right after 9/11 -- but, at any rate, these laws work well.

And the oversight is robust by the senators and House members who do it, mostly on the Intelligence Committee.

GWEN IFILL: There are laws. There are courts. What's wrong with that, if it's legal? Or is that what's wrong with it?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, Congress. Please.

Where were they when the Bush administration was doing their warrantless eavesdropping?

JANE HARMAN: I will answer that.

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, let me finish.

You know, the Congress Intelligence -- the Senate Intelligence Committee, when it started out under Frank Church, it started out as an organization to protect the public from the intelligence agencies. Now it's simply become a cheering gallery for the intelligence agencies. They want to give it more money. They want to give it more power. And you can see what happens during the Bush administration.

JANE HARMAN: I have -- I served there for eight years. And I don't think I was a cheering gallery for the Bush practices.

First of all, I objected, once I understood it, that the Bush Terrorist Surveillance Program, TSP, was being conducted outside of FISA. That wasn't information I had. I was in the so-called “Gang of Eight,” let into this very, very secret program. I was told every time it strictly complied with law.

What I wasn't told is these were Bush laws made in the Justice Department. And when that was clear, I and many others in Congress spent a lot of time making sure that this program, which was known to the public -- I mean, first of all, it was leaked to The New York Times -- everybody was aware about the phone records collection program and what it was for -- was strictly covered by FISA, and that was the product of a public debate.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you both a question.

There have been at least two polls out today showing most Americans think it's fine, that they don't really have a problem with this. So, let me ask you this question, James Bamford. What has the gathering of this information, this effort that the NSA has spent to gather personal information, what has that hurt?

JAMES BAMFORD: What it hurts is a democracy.

A democracy, you're not supposed to do things like that. You're supposed to have open societies, where governments, if they want to do that, do what the British did. Bring a bill through Congress, say we want to do this. We want to have all your records every single day sent to the NSA. See how much of a vote you will get on that. They tried that in Britain, and they voted it down.

GWEN IFILL: And what has it risked? What really -- what has it thwarted?

JANE HARMAN: Again, this is metadata.

It's telephone numbers, not attached to people. And the only access you can get to this metadata, if a U.S. citizen or a U.S. legal resident is involved, is on an individual basis once you go through a federal court to get an individualized warrant, which is what the Fourth Amendment requires.

GWEN IFILL: When you were in Congress -- can I ask you, how often were you briefed on programs like this, especially PRISM and programs like that?

JANE HARMAN: Well, PRISM started after I left the Intelligence Committee.

GWEN IFILL: They're not secret anymore.

JANE HARMAN: But I was briefed regularly on programs.

Sure, did I want more information? Yes, I wanted the memos that the Office of Legal Counsel, the OLC, and the Justice Department was providing. We couldn't get those. And, yes, I wanted more robust briefings, and I think Congress should always push for that. And I'm not saying this is perfect. And I think we agree that there ought to be a robust public debate.

And, oh, by the way, I think we need a comprehensive -- a new comprehensive set of legal boundaries around our post-9/11 policy. We're in the second decade.

GWEN IFILL: Well, that's the line I want to -- where I want to end this. There has got to be a line somewhere between privacy and security. You agree on that. Where is the line?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, the line -- you know, the line, I would put it, is if you're going to invade American privacy, you bring a bill through Congress and you do it publicly that way. You don't do it secretly, like they used to do in East Germany during the Cold War.

Look, we're talking about having a debate now. How would we have had this debate, how would we be sitting here talking about this if it wasn't for Edward Snowden?

GWEN IFILL: Good question.

JANE HARMAN: I -- well, I think -- I applaud what Mark Udall has done and Ron Wyden. They made clear they disagreed with some aspects of this. They pursued their disagreement inside the system.

And I think, ultimately, they would have caused the debate that we should be having.

JAMES BAMFORD: It didn't.

JANE HARMAN: Well, I'm sorry.

I think Americans want our country protected. I don't think it's a choice between security and liberty. I don't think it's a zero sum gain. It's a positive sum gain. You get more of both or less of both. We created a privacy and civil liberties commission when we reorganized the intelligence community in 2004.

You're rolling your eyes, but President Obama ...

JAMES BAMFORD: Because they just appointed the first person to it.

JANE HARMAN: Well, the Senate finally confirmed the person. But that commission can be very helpful here.

GWEN IFILL: We're not going to resolve this tonight, unfortunately.

Jane Harman, James Bamford, thank you both very much. We will talk about it some more.

JAMES BAMFORD: Thank you. My pleasure.


Source
.
.
.

No more spying on citizens who are not suspected of a crime



Obama in 2007: No more spying on citizens who are not suspected of a crime




Published on Jun 6, 2013


Excerpt from President Obama's speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in August 2007.

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.

Source clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEdpT...


.

Monday, June 10, 2013

"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society"



JFK Blows The Whistle on Secret Societies!



seandulac

Uploaded on Oct 29, 2006


-- believeyourowneyes.com -- President John F. Kennedy warned us about the danger posed by tolerating excessive secrecy, and permitting members of "secret societies" and the military-industrial(-intelligence-media) complex to slowly covertly subvert our Constitutional Republic from within, right before our eyes.


....

P.S.

"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

"The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association", given by US President John F. Kennedy at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, April 27, 1961. (For the full text, click here; for the audio file, click here).

/////

Police: Life-coach radio hosts commit suicide together



By Lorenzo Ferrigno, CNN
updated 5:38 PM EDT, Thu June 6, 2013




Police: Radio hosts killed themselves



STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Motivational speaker John Littig and psychotherapist Lynne Rosen are found dead
Apartment manager: Note said, "I can't take it anymore, my wife is in too much pain."
Their "Pursuit of Happiness" radio show spoke of personal development and growth



New York (CNN) -- Two life coaches who hosted a radio show called "The Pursuit of Happiness" apparently committed suicide together in their Brooklyn apartment, police said.

Motivational speaker John Littig, 48, and his common-law psychotherapist wife, Lynne Rosen, 46, were found with plastic bags over their heads and a tube attached to a canister of helium, according to police.

Two suicide notes were found, police said.

The manager of the building, Hasan Boztepe, 51, said he smelled a strong odor coming from the apartment and broke down the door Monday morning after no one answered his repeated knocks.

He found the bodies sitting on a couch, holding hands. The canister with an open valve was on Rosen's right, he said.

Boztepe said he also found two suicide notes, one apparently written by a man and one by a woman.

In the man's note, Boztepe remembered the words: "I can't take it anymore, my wife is in too much pain."

"I was shocked. I am still in shock. I feel so bad for these people," Boztepe said.

Screening for suicide: A psychiatrist's take

He said he knew the couple and stopped by the apartment last week to fix something for Littig. "He walked me to the door and said 'thank you very much.' He was a very nice guy -- and a couple of days later, this."

The couple's radio show, "The Pursuit of Happiness," on WBAI-99.5 FM focused on "personal development, growth and creativity" according to their website. It was an hourlong show airing every other Thursday afternoon.

"RIP Lynne Rosen + John Littig. Partners on air and in life," the station posted Thursday on Facebook and Twitter.

The couple also led a life coaching consulting company, Why Not Now, offering coaching "designed to help foster and encourage your inner strengths," and "put you confidently on the path to designing the life you've always wanted to live," according to their website.

"You should try to do something that scares you every day," Littig said on a show in February.

"People really need to try to implement that into their lives," Rosen later added. "Even if it is small things and it feels scary; but it's a small step and it moves you forward toward your real self."


mm

Bill Cosby: We Should All Be More Like Muslims






by BREITBART NEWS 10 Jun 2013, 9:41 AM PDT

Comedian Bill Cosby is no stranger to the culture wars.

The iconic stand-up and star of the beloved sitcom The Cosby Show routinely weighs in on cultural matters.

This past weekend, Cosby penned an op-ed for The New York Post in which he detailed some of the flaws in modern society. He also suggested we should take a page out of the Koran if we want to have healthier families, less crime and more productive people.

I’m a Christian. But Muslims are misunderstood. Intentionally misunderstood. We should all be more like them. They make sense, especially with their children. There is no other group like the Black Muslims, who put so much effort into teaching children the right things, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink or overindulge in alcohol, they protect their women, they command respect. And what do these other people do?

They complain about them, they criticize them. We’d be a better world if we emulated them. We don’t have to become black Muslims, but we can embrace the things that work.


.

Benedict XVI Health Declining, Visitors Say



Posted: 06/10/2013 2:27 pm EDT | Updated: 06/10/2013 3:00 pm EDT






By Eric Lyman
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Just months after becoming the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign, reports are surfacing that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is in poor health with diminished stature and energy.

After a brief hiatus at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, Benedict returned to live in a converted monastery on the edge of the Vatican gardens last month. Already, some of his visitors have commented on the former pope’s physical deterioration.

“Benedict is in a very bad way,” said Paloma Gomez Borrero, a veteran Vatican correspondent for Spain’s Telecinco television network who visited the former pope in late May. “We won’t have him with us much longer.”

Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the archbishop of Cologne, Germany, and a personal friend of Benedict’s, visited the former pope in April.

“I was shocked at how thin he had become,” Meisner said at the time. “Mentally, he is quite fit, his old self. But he had halved in size.”

Vatican officials have admitted Benedict has weakened since stepping down, but they deny his physical condition has become critical.

Though the physical deterioration of Pope John Paul II from 2003 to 2005 was well documented, the fact that no pope has resigned from office since Gregory XII in 1415 means there is no protocol for dealing with or reporting on the physical state of a former pontiff, especially one who has vowed to stay out of the public eye.

“There haven’t been many popes to resign, but in the previous instances the popes did not live long after abdicating,” said Alistair Sear, a priest and church historian. “Gregory XII didn’t even live long enough to see his successor named.”

But the lack of visibility does not mean Benedict is out of the thoughts of the faithful.

“He is in our prayers every day,” said Maria Paoloa Santo Stefano, part of a community of Sisters of Mercy nuns based in Rome. “Pope John Paul suffered in public, and Benedict chose to suffer in private. But that does not make his mission less important and less brave.”


.

Be a Strong Voice for the Common Good

FYI: I received this message in my Email inbox a few days ago.


Thu, 1:39 AM

Be a Strong Voice for the Common Good

From
Washington National Cathedral

As I shared with you recently, a recent challenge has been put forth to loyal friends like you...
Having trouble viewing the images below? Try the web version.






As I shared with you recently, a spring challenge has been put forth to loyal friends - like you - of Washington National Cathedral.

Our governing body, the Cathedral Chapter, has challenged supporters to match its gifts, dollar for dollar, up to $300,000 by June 30, 2013—to help sustain, grow, and invest in the Cathedral’s programs and ministries in the months ahead.

Please stand with the Cathedral by stepping up to this challenge—and the valuable opportunity it provides for your support to have twice the impact.

Sincerely,

The Very Rev. Gary Hall
Dean









.

Not for nothing, but, the Common Good concept is gaining plenty of supporters;  Even Episcopals  are using the cliche (Washington National Cathedral is Episcopal).
......

Ambassador Richard N. Haass

Found some info on Richard Haass' Ambassador status:


AMBASSADOR  RICHARD N. HAASS 
Ambassador Haass is Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State.  He was also confirmed by the U.S. Senate to hold the rank of ambassador.  In this latter capacity, he is the lead U.S. Government official in support of the Northern Ireland peace process.  Previously, Ambassador Haass was Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.  He was also a consultant for NBC News and a frequent contributor to foreign affairs journals and the op-ed pages of major newspapers.  His is the author or editor of nine books on American foreign policy, including The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War, Economic Sanctions and American Diplomacy, and Intervention:  The Use of American Military Force in the Post-Cold War World.  He is also the author of one book on management.  The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur:  How to Be Effective in Any Unruly Organization.  Ambassador Haass has extensive prior government experience.   From 1989 to1993, he was Special Assistant to President George Bush and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council.  Previously, he served in various posts in the Departments of State and Defense and was a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate. Ambassador Haass has also been Director of National Security Programs and a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations.  In addition, he has been the Sol M. Linowitz Visiting Professor of International Studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  A Rhodes Scholar, he holds a B.A. degree from Oberlin College and both the Master and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Oxford University





From January 2001 to June 2003, Dr. Richard Haass was director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he was a principal adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate to hold the rank of ambassador, Dr. Haass also served as U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and U.S. envoy to the Northern Ireland peace process. For his efforts, he received the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award.

Richard Haass: "Foreign Policy Begins At Home: The Case For Putting America's House In Order"



LISTEN

TRANSCRIPT     (Follows below) 


Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - 11:06 a.m.




A child uses a megaphone to lead others in chanting Free Syrian Army slogans during a demonstration in the neighborhood of Bustan Al-Qasr, Aleppo, Syria, Friday, Jan. 4, 2013.


(AP Photo/Andoni Lubaki)


The president of the Council on Foreign Relations says the biggest threat to the United States comes not from abroad but from within. He says that only by getting our own house in order -- fixing our crumbling infrastructure, second-class schools and outdated immigration system -- will we be able to lead a world that will otherwise be overwhelmed by global challenges, regional conflicts and failed states. Diane and her guest discuss why he believes foreign policy begins at home.

Guests
Amb. Richard Haass president of Council on Foreign Relations; author of "A War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars"; and former director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he was a principal adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell.


.
.


...............



Richard Haass: "Foreign Policy Begins At Home: The Case For Putting America's House In Order"

Transcript for: Richard Haass: "Foreign Policy Begins At Home: The Case For Putting America's House In Order"

MS. DIANE REHM
11:06:56
Thanks for joining us. I'm Diane Rehm. Richard Haas is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He says our global security depends not on how we handle challenges abroad, but how we address critical issues here at home. In a new book, he explains how domestic issues like debt, failing schools, and lack of a coherent immigration policy all threaten national security. His book is titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home." Ambassador Haass joins me from a studio in New York.

MS. DIANE REHM
11:07:37
You're welcome to be part of the program. Give us a call, 800-433-8850, send us your email to drshow@wamu.org, follow us on Facebook or send us a tweet. Good morning to you. It's good to have you with us.

AMB. RICHARD HAASS
11:07:58
It's good to be back, Diane.

REHM
11:07:59
Thank you. You say in this book that you never imagined writing this book. How come?

HAASS
11:08:10
Look, as you said in the introduction, here I am, I'm the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. I've now spent, what, 35, 40 years toiling in the foreign policy vineyards, and here I'm basically saying that we've got the balance wrong, and essentially we're doing a little bit too much foreign policy, particularly when it comes to remaking other countries, and we're not doing nearly enough of the right kind of domestic policy. It's simply never a place I thought I would come out.

REHM
11:08:38
But isn't the balance always a political one, and not so much in the hands of people like you or, indeed, members of Congress?

HAASS
11:08:56
On one level, sure, it's obviously political. But a lot of what we do in the world in foreign policy isn't political in the sense that the president, for example, has tremendous discretion. The previous president, George W. Bush, elected to take -- to go to war with Iraq. This president, Barack Obama, elected to triple U.S. force levels in Afghanistan. The balance, if you will, between foreign and defense policy which are two sides of the national security coin, to some extent that's in the purview of the president and the executive branch to decide where the Constitution as you know gives a lot more latitude to the president.

REHM
11:09:35
Do you think that because of our lack of emphasis on domestic issues, that this county is moving into decline?

HAASS
11:09:50
I don't think we're moving into decline, but I do think we're under performing, and I worry about the future. I worry about the train wreck that's lying out there a decade or so from now if we don't begin to address out entitlement obligations, the combination of the obligations against the backdrop of our demographics. A lot more Americans are obviously going to be above the age of 60 or 65. We simply can't meet those obligations, but I see no evidence whatsoever that we're beginning, in any meaningful way, to address those obligations.

REHM
11:10:24
What else is at the top of your list in regard to paying attention to our own needs?

HAASS
11:10:33
Domestically I'd mention a few things. You cited a few. One is immigration. I not only want to see comprehensive immigration reform, but I'd actually like to see strategic immigration reform, where we thought not simply about questions of family unification, but we thought really hard about the skill sets and education of the people who might be allowed to come and stay in this country. I'd like to see the creation of a national infrastructure rank to fund a modern American infrastructure, and the good news about a bank is it would take very little public money.

HAASS
11:11:03
Ninety percent of the money would come from the private sector. I would like to see an improvement in our K-12 schools. Kids all around the world and their parents line up outside American consulates so they can go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. I don't think there's all that many kids lining up around the world to go to P.S. this or that in New York or Washington D.C. So those are just some of the things. More broadly, we've got to get an American growth much higher.

HAASS
11:11:27
As you know, we're growing, what, half or two-thirds the historic rate, the post-WW II rate. So there are many things we can do to get economic growth back where it could and should be.

REHM
11:11:37
But didn't 9/11 change everything? Didn't it change our focus on who we are, where we stand in the world and how we react to it?

HAASS
11:11:54
That's interesting. It obviously changed things. It put counter-terrorism at the center of the agenda. Before 9/11, people in my businesses tended to see terrorism, if you will, as a nuisance, not as a real strategic threat. So 9/11 changed that, but also, I think that it didn't change the world in a sense. There's many other things we need to worry about, but it may have changed American foreign policy too much. And again, that's where the remaking of places like Iraq and Afghanistan seems to me strategically really uncalled for.

REHM
11:12:26
Do you see the American interest in what's happening in the rest of world waning?

HAASS
11:12:35
Absolutely. And that's dangerous. In no way am I calling for that. Globalizations are fact, and Americans may choose not to concern themselves with the world, but that doesn't mean the world doesn't concern themselves with what happens with the United States. We can't become a giant gated community. So I worry about the fact that we're not teaching about the world in our schools. With the exception of shows like this on radio and television we don't really talk about it in any sustained way. So to me we need to be involved in the world heavily.

HAASS
11:13:06
The real question is how, and there I think we need to be somewhat more discriminating and selective in where we're involved and how we're involved.

REHM
11:13:12
Now, for example, the president is meeting today with the leader of China, so the question becomes how do you engage China in both foreign policy interest and interest in domestic policy for the U.S.?

HAASS
11:13:35
And I welcome the fact that the president is having these two days of relatively unscripted conversation with his Chinese counterpart. Think about it. The U.S.-Chinese relationship was forged in a fundamentally differently era in two ways. One, it was during the Cold War, and the only thing the United States and China had in common was a shared antipathy towards the Soviet Union. Well, the Berlin Wall came down 24 years ago, so we need a new basis if you will when it comes to how to deal with all sorts of regional and global challenges, because the world has changed so much over the last 24 years.

HAASS
11:14:08
Secondly, look how much China has changed because of the three decades of economic growth. Look how the U.S.-Chinese economic relationship has fundamentally changed. This relationship needs to be modernized, so I welcome the fact that we're have these talks, because it's -- I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the character of the 21st century will in no small part be determined by the character of the U.S.-Chinese relationship.

REHM
11:14:32
But now, take another area, the world Syria. Isn't the U.S. under pressure to focus on Syria to indeed some members of Congress want to create a no-fly zone, some may even want to furnish hard, destructive weapons. Doesn't that us involved in yet one more way abroad and not focusing here at home?

HAASS
11:15:06
Potentially very much so, which is one of the reasons that I think there ought to be some limits on what the United States does in Syria. We've always got ask ourselves a couple of questions, and Syria's a perfect example, Diane. You've got to ask yourself, what are the interests, and yes, there are humanitarian and strategic interests...

REHM
11:15:19
Definitely.

HAASS
11:15:20
...but I wouldn't say they're vital. But then you've got to ask yourself two other questions. What can we really do, and at what costs to promote those interests, and I think it would be at great cost, but I'm not sure we could actually accomplish a whole lot if we were to get heavily involved in Syria. And then you've got to ask yourself at what indirect cost. If we were to get heavily involved there, what would that mean for our desire to get more involved in Asia where we do have vital national interests, or what would that mean for the argument I've made to do more at home?

HAASS
11:15:46
So I think the administration in right in showing considerable discipline in the degree of American involvement in Syria, though I would favor, since we're not getting involved directly, I would favor greater indirect support for the rebels, and I would, for example, favor giving them certain types of advanced anti-aircraft capabilities to those rebels, to those opposition forces we thought, you know, whose agendas we could essentially live with.

REHM
11:16:13
Are you in favor of seeing President Bashar al-Assad removed from office in one way or another?

HAASS
11:16:26
Yes. But that is not -- that should not be equated with success in Syria. That simply paves the way to a transition to a new phase which could -- which will be prolonged, and it will be potentially as violent, if not more violent and destructive than this phase. What we've seen in history goes back to -- I don't know if you remember reading Crane Brinton and "The Anatomy of Revolutions." As soon as the opposition succeeds in getting rid of the king, or the old regime, or in this case, Bashar al-Assad, again, the one they agreed on then dissipates.

HAASS
11:16:55
And suddenly then they start turning on each other because now they're fighting for the future direction of their country and their own role, and we would have to expect in Syria. There would also be tremendous vengeance.

REHM
11:17:05
Do you see that already beginning to happen in Iraq?

HAASS
11:17:11
Absolutely. It was one of the reasons that people like me were skeptical of what I described at the time as a war of choice in Iraq, that given the nature of that society, I thought that the sectarian pressures would be immense and potentially impossible to be contained.

REHM
11:17:26
When you think about the monies spent on these various foreign interventions, what do you think could have been accomplished if number one, we had not gone into Iraq?

HAASS
11:17:48
We probably would have saved on the order of a trillion dollars. Lots depends upon how long of a time horizon, because one of the things we haven't added into the costs are the long-term costs of the lost livelihoods of those Americans who were killed and injured, the 30,000 or so Americans who were injured in Iraq. So it's at least a trillion, it could be a trillion and a half dollars. Obviously that money could have been spent foolishly or wisely here at home. But it is resources.

HAASS
11:18:16
I would say though the other resource, Diane, that was really lost in Iraq was time. Presidents only have so much bandwidth. They only have so much political capital. There's only so many hours in the day and so many meetings to be held. So all the energy that went into Iraq, I think actually was expensive to the United States in many ways.

REHM
11:18:34
Richard Haass, he's president at the Council on Foreign Relations. His new book titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America's House in Order."

REHM
11:20:05
And welcome back. I know many of our listeners have questions. The lines are filled. We'll talk a bit more before we open the phones with Richard Haass. He's president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His new book is titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case For Putting America's House in Order." Ambassador Haass, you talked earlier about the growth in spending on things like Social Security, on Medicare, on Medicaid.

REHM
11:20:48
Here's an email saying, "I wonder if your guest could address defense spending in relation to the budgetary woes the federal government faces. Does the Council on Foreign Relations believe the government should cut defense spending in order to invest more funds in education and infrastructure? And how would that affect American foreign policy?"

HAASS
11:21:20
Well, let me just make clear, Diane, I'm speaking for myself, not for my organization which doesn't...

REHM
11:21:23
I understand.

HAASS
11:21:25
Just wanted to make that clear so I can keep my job. Look, the core defense spending is roughly on the order of 500 billion, with a B, dollars per year. On top of that we're now spending about 100 billion, plus or minus, in Afghanistan. That's down. If you added also Iraq, was probably at the peak, maybe $700 billion a year for all things defense. So we've come down a bit. We're going to come down more as we wind down in Afghanistan.

HAASS
11:21:53
And so if we have a defense budget of roughly 500 billion or a little bit less, it's already come down again because of the sequester. It's quite modest by historic standards in terms of percentage of the budget or percentage of GDP. And so I think cutting defense has contributed, if you will, to the slight shrinking of the scale of the deficit that's welcome. I don't think we can balance the budget or get close to it on the back of defense.

HAASS
11:22:19
And I even make a larger point, whether you're talking about defense or health care. In most issues, more important than how much you spend is how you spend it. On health, for example, we spend what, twice the average of the other developed countries in the world and we don't get medical outcomes that are any better for it. On defense we are spending a lot but I do think we're also getting a lot. And even if we were to spend a little bit less, the contributions that would make to the economy would be modest. It'd also be mixed. As you know in the Washington area it also means people would lose their jobs.

HAASS
11:22:50
But the -- I think the loss to potential stability in the world could be great. So I don't think we can go much farther than we've already gone in cutting defense. And I don't think we pay an economic price for not going farther.

REHM
11:23:02
Is it your belief that the president's Affordable Care Act will help to cut some health care costs?

HAASS
11:23:15
Well, at first blush it's a little bit hard to see how you can extend health care to another 25 or 30 million Americans and not have health care costs go up. It also is going to depend in part by how many Americans decide to opt out of the system pay penalties and so forth. There's a lot of uncertainties. I would simply say the cost thing to mention of the Affordable Care Act at the moment is the most uncertain. We've seen a slight slowing in growth in health care costs in the last few months. There's a lot of debate among the experts, and I don't claim to be one on health care, of exactly what that is.

HAASS
11:23:44
I don't think yet we've gotten to the point of fixing the drivers of American health care costs, which again, it's nearly a fifth of our economy.

REHM
11:23:54
What steps do you take to begin to uninvolved the United States from the current involvement in foreign policy to refocus on the United States and things like education, infrastructure, etcetera? How do you begin to do that?

HAASS
11:24:20
Well, again, just to be clear, I'm not so much interested in uninvolving the United States as I am to selectively involve us. I think the biggest question is the topic you and I already began discussing, which is Syria, which is what is the United States going to do in ways of intervening or not intervening in these internal crises in the Middle East because Syria's not going to be the last one.

HAASS
11:24:38
And I think they were right to put a ceiling on what it is we do. I think that could be the most significant decision we make, which is not to repeat elsewhere what we essentially did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, which is massively ambitious foreign policy undertakings in these countries who, I think in many ways, we tended to overlook local realities.

HAASS
11:24:59
So the single most important thing we could do -- I'm not -- is to avoid these in the future. It's not an argument for withdrawal from the Middle East. It is an argument though for a very disciplined approach there.

REHM
11:25:09
Interesting that you say the U.S. is no longer the dominant force we once were, but rather a first among unequals. What does that mean?

HAASS
11:25:24
It's exactly that, that the United States now is responsible for just over one-fifth of world economic output. We're still the most powerful country in the world. I think others still look to us. But our share, if you will, of world power is less than it was. And our ability to have our way is less than it was. It's not simply other countries, which in many cases now have leverage over us because they provide resources. We--they're sources of funding our debt.

HAASS
11:25:51
But it's simply that there's so many other forces in the world that matter, whether they're corporations, whether its nasty groups like terrorist groups or whether it's benign groups, different foundations. But the chessboard, if you will now, is filled with hundreds of pieces, mot all of whom are nation states. Coming back to the Middle East you've got the Hezbollahs, the Hamases, these thousands of individuals in groups in a place like Syria.

HAASS
11:26:16
The United States has power that second to none but power doesn't always translate into influence. And that seems to me one of the realities of living in a 21st century world.

REHM
11:26:27
You called earlier for perhaps the transfer of antiaircraft missiles to the rebels. You've got Senator John McCain calling for a no-fly zone. Isn't that precisely how we began to be involved in Vietnam?

HAASS
11:26:51
I think there's a difference between direct military intervention here and indirect military support. I don't support a no-fly zone. I worry about that, where that would drag us into potentially becoming a protagonist in the Syrian civil conflict. I don't want to go down that path again. I think it would be extraordinarily costly. And I'm not at all confident of the returns at the end of the day, given all the fissures within Syrian society, even if we were to be so fortunate as to see Mr. Assad removed from power.

HAASS
11:27:16
I do think though that if you're not prepared to go down the path of direct military involvement, there is then a certain pressure on your or even a moral consideration to think about indirect support, to give those who all things being equal you support, the capacity to fight more themselves. I'm not saying there's not risk in that. I'm not so much worried about the risk of escalation as that question suggested as I am about the risk that some of those weapons will get into the wrong hands. I think that's a risk we have to be prepared to run.

HAASS
11:27:46
We've now got unattractive choices in Syria. And I think the one I've suggested is perhaps the least unattractive at this point.

REHM
11:27:53
But don't we already have advisors on the ground there? And wouldn't arming the rebels involve us in ways that could indeed at some point escalate?

HAASS
11:28:11
That would involve us more but the decision to escalate is just that. It's a decision that's out there. I don't see it as pressuring or biasing or prejudging such a decision. Indeed, I would actually think it makes it easier not to go beyond that, that we would say, look this is their civil conflict. We're going to give them the means to fight it. But people should understand that we ourselves are not prepared to go beyond a certain point.

REHM
11:28:34
Have we gained anything from our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya?

HAASS
11:28:45
I would say we've gained things. In Iraq, for example, oil production is much higher. This is good for the world economy. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. I think that unbalance is good for the people of Iraq. In the case of Afghanistan, it's good that al-Qaida was really hammered there. But I think the larger question is, did we gain things in any way commensurate with what it is we invested? And we lost 6500 lives in these wars, 40,000 injured, somewhere between 1 and $2 trillion already of spending.

HAASS
11:29:15
And I would simply say, I don't think in any way the gains justify those kinds of costs. I'm also not confident that this gains are going to endure. You mentioned before that Iraq looks to be getting worse. I'm afraid that's right. I worry about the future of Afghanistan. So the gains we have had in some cases I think could be quite fleeting.

REHM
11:29:34
All right. We're going to open the phones, take calls from around the country. First to St. Louis, Mo. Good morning, Steven, you're on the air. Steven, are you there? Oh dear. Let's go to Dallas, Texas. Good morning, John.

JOHN
11:29:56
Good morning, Diane. Thank you so much for having me -- Mr. Haass, thank you so much for taking my call, both of you. My question is this. Is not a no-fly zone tantamount to a declaration of war? And do we not need the people to tell our representatives to go ahead and declare war, which is the constitution, which is the law of the land? There's a lot of concern out there about think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relation making the laws whereby we feel that we need to declare war before we go in there.

REHM
11:30:35
All right.

HAASS
11:30:36
Well, places like, you know, the Council on Foreign Relations and other think tanks in Washington and other places -- we're in New York -- don't have power. We're simply involved in the marketplace of ideas. And we're trying to, in that case, contribute to the debate such as programs like this. This is to me -- shows like this are part of the oasis, if you will, of American serious debate about public policy. This question of the declaration of war is -- it's a long serious constitutional debate. It's increasingly the practice, is the word I guess I'd use, of presidents not to ask for formal declarations of war.

HAASS
11:31:15
So we did many -- whether it was Vietnam or many of the Iraq efforts have not had formal constitutional declarations of war. Often there's various expressions of direct and indirect congressional support. On the case of some of the things we've done around the world, we said they were pursuant to some of the authorities that were put into place after 9/11.

HAASS
11:31:34
I would say more important than whether there's a formal declaration of war or anything like that in the case of Syria, is that we are just mindful, before we take steps, about the potential costs. What are the likely results, what kind of pressures we may then be putting ourselves under down the road? We've got to play chess here. We've got to think several moves ahead about what we might be getting into.

REHM
11:31:54
All right. Thanks for your call. To Sesani (sp?) in Chelan, Wash. You're on the air. Oh dear. Sesan (sic) , are you there? Not there. Let's go to Jesus in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Good morning.

JESUS
11:32:16
Hi, Diane. I'm just saying I'm a fan of the show. I wanted to ask the question towards the man you're interviewing.

REHM
11:32:23
Sure, go right ahead.

HAASS
11:32:24
Sure.

JESUS
11:32:25
I'm 19 years old and I've been hearing this a lot lately that my generation is first generation America to not experiencing peace time and that we're going to inherit all the problems that we had around the world from all the wars and stuff like that. I wanted to ask your opinion on that.

REHM
11:32:44
All right. And you're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." Go ahead, Ambassador Haass.

HAASS
11:32:52
Look, history is always a mix of the good and the bad. And your generation, like all others, is going to inherit -- to use a trite phrase -- a mixed bag in the world. The good news is there's nothing out there, anything like say Nazi Germany in the middle of the 20th century or like the Soviet Union in the late 20th century. Actually I think that's one of the most positive things about the world. And there need not be any country like that out there in the 21st century. It doesn't mean there's going to be peace and harmony in the world, but the threats that emerge ought to be manageable.

HAASS
11:33:23
Particularly -- and that gets me to the other side of the coin -- if we can do things to make sure our economy is sufficiently strong to provide the resources we need so the United States can act and lead in the world. And if I were your generation what I would focus on a lot is particularly this question of obligations we've built up, the entitlement programs. Because at the moment we're robbing the future in order to pay the present.

REHM
11:33:46
I must tell you, Ambassador Haas, many of our listeners take great issue with the word entitlement. They feel as though, most especially with Social Security, even though experts may say people get back more than they put in, it is still a matter of individuals paying in for their entire working lives.

REHM
11:34:18
Absolutely, but as you say, individuals do get back a lot more than they pay in. Also the age has not been adjusted nearly enough for the fact that thank god we all tend to live a lot longer. We also don't means test Social Security. A lot of people are dependent on it, but there's a lot of people, quite honestly, this is in no way going to affect their living standards. So I just think we need a Social Security system that is modernized to take into fact the changing dynamics and demographics of American society.

REHM
11:34:49
More realistic to suit what has happened with, for example, that upper 2 percent of our economy, those who are earning so much more than those at the low end.

HAASS
11:35:07
Absolutely. I just want to make sure that Social Security is around 25, 50, 100 years from now for those Americans who will depend on it. But the only way it will be around is if we do introduce some changes again like means testing, like a higher retirement age, like changing the index by what Social Security is linked to inflation. Unless we adjust it, I'm worried that it won't be there and people in this country deserve it.

REHM
11:35:30
To Boca Raton, Fla. Good morning, Jeremy.

JEREMY
11:35:35
Hey, how you doing today?

REHM
11:35:36
Good thanks.

JEREMY
11:35:38
First of all, thanks for taking my call. I have a question. Is there not some kind of moral precedent or moral responsibility set by the U.S.'s actions in the '90s when we went to Kosovo? Does that not carry over into the Syrian conflict today? Don't we have -- didn't we already set the precedent that we would get involved from a moral standpoint, regardless of the military outcomes?

REHM
11:36:04
A great many people have raised Kosovo.

HAASS
11:36:08
Look, it's a big and important question and it's one of, I think, the toughest issues in the field right now. In 2005 the word came together and it endorsed this concept known as a responsibility to protect. And the idea, to put it bluntly, is that situations like Syria, like Rwanda, massive genocides or social unrest should not be allowed to take place, that the world has an obligation to do something about it.

HAASS
11:36:33
The problem is that now there's -- that idea is not universally accepted. And even to the extent it is accepted, implementing it could be extraordinarily difficult and expensive. That's not an argument for not doing it but it is an argument to say that if you want to get involved to try to do something in Syria, you have to understand the scale of the undertaking. What it will cost, what is it you won't be able to do.

HAASS
11:36:56
And I'm simply suggesting, given the full range of interests around the world, given the full set of concerns here at home, given the difficult realities of Syrian society, we ought to think twice or three times before we begin to go down that path.

REHM
11:37:11
Richard Haass. He's president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His new book is titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case For Putting America's House in Order." We'll take a short break here. When we come back there'll be more emails, more calls. I look forward to speaking with you.

REHM
11:40:04
And welcome back. Richard Haass who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations is joining me from a studio in New York. We have him on Skype so I can see him and you can hear him. His new book is titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home." He's arguing in favor of concentrating more on the needs of this country in the way of education infrastructure, rebuilding what has been lost in this country over the past certainly 12 years of foreign involvement. And here's an email on that very point from Darrel. He says, "Your guest talked about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My question is how much of that cost have we actually paid? And how much was borrowed to be paid back by future generations?"

HAASS
11:41:20
Well, it's a good question, but it's also one that's tough to add because we pay, but we also accumulate debt as we go along. The U.S. government is not in balance, so we have paid for these, but at the same time our debt, the cumulative debt of the United States has increased as a result of these. So I would say that most of the debt increase has not come from our foreign involvement. Most of the debt increase has come from what we've spent at home, from the slowing of the economy, all the things we had to do after 2008 and from various tax reductions.

REHM
11:41:52
All right. To Pittsburgh, Penn. Good morning, John.

JOHN
11:41:56
Good morning. Hey, we have lost the entire Arab world because of a war in Iraq. I have been in the oil industry all my life. When we built (unintelligible) and (unintelligible) in Saudi Arabia in the '70s, we were welcome. The American were welcome. We walked around anywhere in America. And, you know, in those days, you know, we were young. We would have the loud Hawaiian shirts then. We just relax. Everyone welcomed us.

JOHN
11:42:43
I'm retired now and a few months ago I talked to some of the younger guys. When they go to the Middle East, it's very low key. And they say when they were Kuwait, which is the friendliest towards America, we even have some -- I understand we even have some base or something like that. I don't know. But they told me that they are very low key, very careful. And when people ask them where they are from, they never say they're American.

REHM
11:43:20
What do you think of that, Ambassador Haass? Is that all because of Iraq? Have we, in fact, lost our place in the Middle East?

HAASS
11:43:35
I don't think it's mostly because of Iraq. It's true that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is quite high, any number of reasons. One is that the United States is closely associated with the authoritarian regimes that dominated the region. Those regimes were in many cases unpopular, so the United States is guilt by association. We're obviously unpopular because of our support for Israel. In some cases we're unpopular because of drone strikes or because of -- so I guess it could be because of Iraq. There's any number of reasons. That said, the United States still has a role to play in that part of the world. And there's no other outside force that I see coming in.

HAASS
11:44:18
I actually think the point I'd make is if the caller's right and I think he's on to something, it's also quite possible what this reflects is the era of history the Middle East is in. And it's quite possible we're seeing the early stages, not so much of an Arab Spring, but a period of Arab politics dominated by political Islam, in which the United States and Western forces in general will not be welcome by wide swaths of the local population.

REHM
11:44:47
Really? Considering the fact that you've got Hezbollah now active in Syria, you've got that taking a greater and greater role in that country, how is that going to affect the outcome of what happens in Syria? What would you do at this point to affect what Hezbollah is up to?

HAASS
11:45:20
Very hard for the United States to affect what Hezbollah's up to, and it will make a difference given their military capabilities, the fact that they're receiving arms from Iran. It's a totally legitimate point. Again, it's what leads me to the direction that we need to balance it. And in this case we need to balance it through giving support to those who are fighting Hezbollah.

REHM
11:45:38
All right. And to Stamford, Conn. Good morning, Frances.

FRANCES
11:45:43
Hi. How are you?

REHM
11:45:43
Hi. Good, thanks.

FRANCES
11:45:45
First time caller, love your show.

REHM
11:45:48
Thank you.

FRANCES
11:45:49
Question to the ambassador. It seems like that we get into this dichotomy framing of it's either or. It's young against the old or it's the rich against the poor. We need to have a fuller discussion adding in the American corporations that aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Because I know we can't just do -- just cut the fence. But it needs to be everything. We need to have that full discussion. I'd like more comments from the ambassador on that.

REHM
11:46:17
All right. Thanks for your call. Corporations posting money out of the country, avoiding big tax hikes.

HAASS
11:46:30
Corporations are doing that and the estimates are as high as one and a half or $2 trillion that are sitting on corporate balance sheets because they don’t want to bring them back where they're subject to a nominal taxation rate of 35 percent, which is the highest in the world. So what we need to do is make it possible or, what's the word, incentivize corporations to bring their profits back here and to build factories here, which among other things add to American economic growth and reduce unemployment. So we do need a large conversation. And this needs to be one piece of it.

REHM
11:47:01
Are you suggesting that corporate taxes are too high?

HAASS
11:47:06
Absolutely. They're too high. And their behavior reflects it where it reduces our competitive -- look, I don't blame Tim Cook or Apple for avoiding taxes. We all avoid taxes. Tax avoidance is why people hire accountants. Tax evasion is illegal. So corporations are carrying out tax avoidance. What I want to do is make it in their business interest to bring those profits back home and invest them. And one of the ways we'll do that is by through the tax code which will incentivize them to bring that money back and perhaps we can give, you know, through the tax code various types of financial incentives then for them to then invest it in plants that hire people.

REHM
11:47:43
All right.

HAASS
11:47:44
Why not think about that?

REHM
11:47:45
So you're focusing for the money you're talking about to focus on putting America's house in order, you're focusing primarily on reforming Social Security and reforming the tax code.

HAASS
11:48:08
Much more actually...

REHM
11:48:09
Is that fair to say?

HAASS
11:48:12
That's part of it, but also -- Social Security is actually a small piece of the problem...

REHM
11:48:15
Okay.

HAASS
11:48:15
...when you look at -- much more the Medicare and Medicaid are, you know, probably eight or nine times larger as a challenge. I'm also looking at infrastructure. I'm looking at immigration. The previous caller talked about a comprehensive conversation. I don't think, Diane, there's any single or silver bullet here. What we need to have is a much more bigger conversation about how we invest in physical infrastructure, how we invest in our people better and then how we -- how we decide levels of taxing and spending. I've got my own views, for what it's worth, about what tax levels should be, how it ought to be -- how to be reformed. But this has got to be part of a conversation.

HAASS
11:48:51
And I think the real question, you cover this a lot on your show, is whether our politics now allow that conversation, whether we can have the kind of conversation we now need in this country where we put questions of spending, investment, taxation and so forth for individuals and corporations, what have you. The future versus the present when we look at entitlements, whether we can have a serious conversation about these issues or whether our politics have reached a point that almost precludes such a conversation.

REHM
11:49:17
How do you answer that question?

HAASS
11:49:21
I wish I could be glib here and say not to worry, but I am worried, which is in part why I wrote this book. I think that special interests have become so powerful that it makes it very hard for the general interest. The AARP on the entitlement debate has disproportionate clout. It represents 35, 40 million Americans. Or take the gun control vote on background checks. You had 90 percent of Americans having a general preference for background checks, yet the 10 percent of Americans who opposed it carried the day. And what that shows you is what matters most in American politics is the intensity which people take, if you will, or bring into the political marketplace.

HAASS
11:49:59
So this to me suggests we need now rival organizations. Whether it's on gun control or on entitlement reform, we need more of a political marketplace, so to speak, in which these -- today's special interests are counterbalanced. And it also makes a case, I believe, for stronger presidential leadership, both to frame the debate and then to try to influence political outcomes.

REHM
11:50:19
But what about money as the governing influence in that debate?

HAASS
11:50:25
Money is pervasive and it is powerful, and that's why, again, you need to balance it out. So right now there's a lot of money on one side of this or that debate. There's nothing that prevents people who feel that the policies need to be changed for putting resources on the other side of the debate.

REHM
11:50:41
Let's go to Jacksonville, Fla. Good morning, Parker.

PARKER
11:50:46
Good morning, Diane. Thanks for taking my call.

REHM
11:50:48
Sure.

PARKER
11:50:49
And before I get to my question, I just wanted to correct your guest that everyone except for basically him and few others pay all their taxes and can't avoid them. And that the reason corporate tax rates are so high and they don't come down is because when you get in a factored tax rate of zero as a multi-national because of profit shifting, like Exxon and GE and Apple do, that if you can't really compete with the tax rate of zero, so that's why they don't come back here with their profits.

PARKER
11:51:18
And my actual question was, with the Bush administration and the Obama administration, investing billions of dollars in ballistic and anti-ballistic military technology, do you see a future or a use for any of that such technology in an area where the last ballistic missile fired -- or the last nuclear weapon fired in anger was in 1945?

HAASS
11:51:41
Unfortunately, yes. I'm afraid the proliferation of certain technologies is part and parcel of the modern world. We already have the North Koreas, the Irans and others who have ballistic missile technology in various stages of development. The North Koreans have a handful of nuclear weapons. The Iranians may or may not be developing one, although they're clearly getting an awful lot closer. Drones are proliferating around the world. So I think we've got to accept the fact that the 21st century is going to be a world of what you might call distributed technology, where a lot of capabilities are going to be in a lot of hands. And the United States is going to have to think systematically about how we make ourselves less vulnerable to that.

REHM
11:52:21
And doesn't that require more monies going into precisely that national security in defense terms rather than the kind of national security you're focusing on building roads, building bridges, focusing on education?

HAASS
11:52:44
Well, someone else said, it's not a case of either or. We've obviously got to do both. And where political debates get real is when you get down into the details. But some of the things I would do also have a national security component. One, for example, is infrastructure. If American infrastructure is more robust, it's more resilient, we'll be in a much better place to contend with whether it's natural disaster or terrorism. This is, again, it's something we've got to build in our society so we can better withstand or bounce back from destructive developments.

REHM
11:53:13
All right. To Cape Neddick, Maine. And you're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." Eric, you're on the air.

ERIC
11:53:23
Good morning, Diane. It's a pleasure speaking with you.

REHM
11:53:24
Good morning, sir. Thank you.

ERIC
11:53:26
I've got to tell you if I wasn't a happily married father of five, you'd be in trouble, so anyway, and I'm only 47, so...

REHM
11:53:36
I accept that as a compliment, thank you.

ERIC
11:53:39
I hope so. If I may ask you a quick question, you can answer it yes or no. And then I have a comment about Mr. -- a comment Mr. Haass made.

REHM
11:53:46
All right.

ERIC
11:53:48
In the past, I've heard you make a comment on certain shows where your family leases land for companies that do fracking. Is that still the case?

REHM
11:53:57
No, I have never leased any part of the land we own, 150 acres north of Scranton, south of Binghamton in the Endless Mountains. Ours was the only property that was not leased.

ERIC
11:54:16
Very good. Very good. Okay. Thank you. And, Mr. Haass, you made a comment earlier about the benefits of these wars, if you want to call them wars, as one benefit being more oil on the open market. And I'm driving Prius and I'm still paying 3.50 gallon. Where's the benefit?

HAASS
11:54:37
Well, that's a lot less than it is in many other countries around the world. And I would think that with some of the changes we're making to American technology and engines that that demand will hopefully come down in this country. But oil's a global market. And the differentials in price are mainly showing up in natural gas, where natural gas in this country as you know is what, roughly a fifth of what it is in cost in much of the world. Oil tends to be a global price. And even though demand is coming down here, it's rising in places like China and India. So the fact that Iraq has put more oil on the market is one of the forces that keeps prices lower than they would otherwise be.

REHM
11:55:14
So, Ambassador Haass, in the couple of minutes we have left, considering all the obligations that the U.S. is currently faced with, plus the political difficulty and discourse at this moment, how would you as president of the Council on Foreign Relations hope to get the congress to focus on what needs to be done here at home? How much are you going to members of congress to say what you have said in this book?

HAASS
11:56:00
I speak to them all the time and it's the reason I wrote this book, Diane, is hopefully it'll have some traction. And on the foreign policy side of the national security coin, I'm arguing for limits on what we do in the Middle East. I am arguing for doing more in the Asian Pacific where the great powers are colliding and where I think American foreign policy, where our tools lend themselves to actually accomplishing a lot of good. And here at home I personally am making the argument for things like a more strategic immigration system. I am making the case for a national infrastructure bank. I think it's very good that we've started these two new trade negotiations.

HAASS
11:56:33
I think we've got the wind at our backs from the transformation of the American energy picture with natural gas and oil. I would like to see tax reform which I've talked about in great detail. I do think we need entitlement reform, but we need to do entitlement reform now. Not that it kicks in immediately, but it's like a supertanker. We've got to make the changes now so they kick in 10 or 15 years from now. It's not fair to people to make these changes when they're suddenly on the verge of retirement. But we've got to get these -- this debate has got to get to the point now where we're willing to make some tough decisions about our future.

REHM
11:57:06
Richard Haass, he's President of the Council on Foreign Relations. His new book is titled "Foreign Policy Begins at Home." Thank you for being with us.

HAASS
11:57:22
Thanks so much for having me.

REHM
11:57:23
My pleasure. And thanks for listening all. I'm Diane Rehm.



Transcripts of WAMU programs are available for personal use. Transcripts are provided "As Is" without warranties of any kind, either express or implied. WAMU does not warrant that the transcript is error-free. For all WAMU programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative version. Transcripts are owned by WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio and are protected by laws in both the United States and international law. You may not sell or modify transcripts or reproduce, display, distribute, or otherwise use the transcript, in whole or in part, in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the express written permission of WAMU. All requests for uses beyond personal and noncommercial use should be referred to (202) 885-1200.


.
P.
P.S.

@11:33:46 Diane Rehm calls Richard Haass, AMBASSADOR.  


I sought out this podcast and its transcript because I listened to this interview when it aired on the broadcast date Wednesday, June 5, 2013, and I was startled to hear Richard Haass referred to by Diane Rehm as Mr. Ambassador;  But, as I read the transcript and listened to the podcast all of the references of Mr. Ambassador have been edited to President of the Council on Foreign Relations, except for this instance at 11:33 of the interview.
mmmmm
mmmmm