Thursday, June 05, 2014

When a president goes rogue


George F. Will Opinion Writer



By George F. Will, Published: June 4 E-mail the writer


What Winston Churchill said of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — that he was a bull who carried his own china shop around with him — is true of Susan Rice, who is, to be polite, accident-prone . When in September 2012 she was deputed to sell to the public the fable that the Benghazi attack was just an unfortunately vigorous movie review — a response to an Internet video — it could have been that she, rather than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was given this degrading duty because Rice was merely U.N. ambassador, an ornamental position at an inconsequential institution. Today, however, Rice is Barack Obama’s national security adviser, so two conclusions must be drawn.

Perhaps she did not know, in advance of the swap of five terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the, shall we say, ambiguities about Bergdahl’s departure from his platoon in Afghanistan and the reportedly deadly consequences of his behavior. If so, then she has pioneered a degree of incompetence exotic even for this 10-thumbed administration. If, however, she did know and still allowed Obama to present this as a mellow moment of national satisfaction, she is condign punishment for his choice of such hirelings.


Gallery



Tom Toles draws Obama: A collection of cartoons of the president.


Video


At a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama said he made "absolutely no apologies" for the way Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was returned from Afghanistan. The Taliban released Bergdahl in exchange for five of their commanders.

Perhaps this exchange really is, as Obama said in defending it, an excellent thing “regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be.” His confidence in its excellence is striking, considering that he acknowledges that we do not know the facts about what would seem to be important “circumstances.”

Such as the note Bergdahl reportedly left before disappearing, in which he supposedly said he did not approve of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. And the notably strong and numerous expressions of anger by members of Bergdahl’s battalion concerning his comportment and its costs.

Obama did not comply with the law requiring presidents to notify Congress 30 days before such exchanges of prisoners at Guantanamo. Politico can be cited about this not because among the media it is exceptionally, well, understanding of Obama’s exuberant notion of executive latitude but because it is not. Politico headlined a story on his noncompliance with the law “Obama May Finally Be Going Rogue on Gitmo.” It said Obama’s “assertive” act “defied Congress” — Congress, not the rule of law — in order “to get that process [of closing the prison at Guantanamo] moving.” It sent “a clear message” that “Obama is now willing to wield his executive powers to get the job done.” Or, as used to be said in extenuation of strong leaders, “to make the trains run on time.”

The 44th president, channeling — not for the first time — the 37th (in his post-impeachment conversation with David Frost), may say: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Already the administration says events dictated a speed that precluded complying with the law.

This explanation should be accorded open-minded, but not empty-minded, consideration. It should be considered in light of the fact that as the Veterans Affairs debacle continued, Obama went to Afghanistan to hug some troops, then completed the terrorists-for-Bergdahl transaction. And in light of the fact that Obama waged a seven-month military intervention in Libya’s civil war without complying with the law (the War Powers Resolution) that requires presidents to terminate within 60 to 90 days a military action not authorized or subsequently approved by Congress.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), vice chairman of the intelligence committee, says the administration told him he would be notified about negotiations for the release of terrorists. He now says he cannot “believe a thing this president says.”

Obama says his agents “consulted with Congress for quite some time” about prisoner exchanges with the Taliban. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, says there have been no consultations since 2011. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) says “I don’t like it when the White House says the intelligence committees were briefed. Because we weren’t.” He says Obama is “referring to . . . 2011-2012, when I was still in grade school.”

Now, now. “Assertive” presidents can’t be expected to “go rogue” without ruffling feathers. And omelets cannot be made without breaking eggs. Etc.

This episode will be examined by congressional committees, if they can pierce the administration’s coming cover-up, which has been foreshadowed by the response to congressional attempts to scrutinize the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service. If the military stalls on turning over files to Congress pertaining to the five years of Bergdahl’s absence, we will at least know that there is no national institution remaining to be corrupted.


Source
.

Miklaszewski: Someone at the W.H. should have Googled Bergdahl






Washington Free Beacon

Published on Jun 4, 2014

If anyone at the White House had simply Google searched Bowe Bergdahl, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski said, the red flags about his suspected desertion would have leapt off the page.
.
.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

VIDEO: Jerry Brown at ease for now, cautious about November


June 3, 2014





OAKLAND - Gov. Jerry Brown strolled from his home in the Oakland hills on Tuesday to the fire station where he regularly votes, the heavy favorite not only to finish first in the primary election, but also to win a historic fourth term in November.

This is despite running no visible campaign, an effort so nonchalant that one of Brown's advisers, unable to find a microphone stand, fashioned one from a chest of drawers taken from a "free" pile by a dumpster near the polling place.

Taking his place behind the piece of furniture, Brown said projected low turnout in the primary election may indicate "people are relatively confident and are not troubled by any great challenge or issue." He said it makes no difference which Republican,Tim Donnelly or Neel Kashkari, advances to face him in the runoff election, and he declined to say if he would debate either one of them.

He may not have to. Forty years after he first won election to the governor's office, in 1974, Brown enjoys high public approval ratings and has amassed about $21 million for the general election campaign. He is far ahead in public opinion polls.

Asked about his prospects in November, Brown was circumspect.

"Confidence is a tricky business in politics, because if we've learned anything it's that the future is uncertain, that fortune is fickle, and one kind of goes forward with a certain amount of trepidation. And, yes, everything looks good, but no one knows what tomorrow will bring. There's always issues, there's catastrophes, there's scandals, there's mistakes. So, I'm a bit wary as I do this for the fourth time."

But the general election is five months away. As for the primary, Brown was planning to go hiking on family land outside of Williams, as he has on previous election days, before watching returns in Sacramento.

Brown told reporters, "The fact that you have so few questions, I think indicates the impending result."



PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown and his wife, Anne Gust Brown, arrive at the fire station in Oakland where Brown votes on June 3, 2014. The Sacramento Bee/David Siders


Source
.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/video-jerry-brown-at-ease-for-now-cautious-about-november.html#storylink=cpy

G7 Summit in Brussels, 4 – 5 June 2014: Background note and facts about the EU's role and actions







European Commission

MEMO

Brussels, 3 June 2014



The Brussels G7 Summit will take place on 4-5 June. At their meeting in The Hague on 24 March, the G7 at leaders' level (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission decided not to participate in the planned G8 Summit in Sochi (Russia) as a reaction to the Russian Federation's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Instead, they decided to meet in Brussels in the G7 format on the same days.

The Brussels G7 Summit will be hosted by the European Union. The European Union is represented by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

At the Brussels Summit, Leaders will discuss the situation in Ukraine and the relations with Russia as well as other foreign policy issues, the global economy, energy, climate change and development.

1. Foreign policy

As the first topic, the G7 leaders are expected to discuss foreign policy challenges at their working dinner on the evening of 4 June. The leaders will focus their discussions on Ukraine and Russia but they may also address the latest developments on other foreign policy issues.

In the last months and following the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, the G7 leaders have issued several declarations condemning the Russian Federation's clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine (see statement of 3 March), condemning the illegal referendum and the illegal attempt by Russia to annex Crimea in contravention of international law and specific international obligations (see The Hague Declaration following the G7 meeting on 24 March) and expressing their deep concern at the continued efforts by separatists backed by Russia to destabilise eastern Ukraine (see statement of 26 April).

At the Brussels G7 Summit leaders are expected to discuss the latest developments following the presidential elections held in Ukraine on 25 May. They will discuss the continued work to support Ukraine's economic and political reforms as well as their continued readiness to intensify targeted sanctions and to impose further costs on Russia should events so require.

Role of the EU: In response to Russian actions so far, the EU has cancelled the next EU-Russia summit and member states' regular bilateral summits with Russia have also been annulled. Negotiations on visa matters and a new agreement with Russia have been suspended. The EU has also targeted 61 persons responsible for actions that threaten or undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine with asset freezes and bans from entering the EU. Two confiscated entities in Crimea and Sevastopol are also subject to an asset freeze.

At the same time the EU continues to roll out a €11 billion support package to Ukraine including a €1.6 billion of Macro-financial assistance to contribute to covering Ukraine's urgent balance-of-payments needs (of which the first €100 million were paid out on 20 May) and a €365m state-building contract to help the country's transition and boost the role of civil society, promoting democratic reforms and inclusive socio-economic development.

On 21 March the political chapters of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement were signed. The EU remains committed to signing the full agreement including the deep and comprehensive free trade area. Even ahead of the signature of the provisions on free trade, temporary EU trade preferences for Ukraine apply since 23 April. More information on the EU support for Ukraine:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-279_en.htm

2. Global economy

The first working session of the second day, Thursday 5 June, is on the global economic outlook. The discussions are expected to focus on the improved prospect of global growth and how to tackle the remaining serious challenges such as high unemployment. Leaders will also address trade issues including the active and ambitious trade agenda of the G7 members with a number of bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations ongoing.

Supporting growth and jobs remains the key priority for the G7 members and the recovery is strengthening/continuing. Leaders are expected to call for continued and sustained growth in order to bring down unemployment, particularly among young people and the long term unemployed. Structural reforms, as well as completing key aspects of core financial reforms, such as building resilient financial institutions and ending too-big-to-fail, remain important in order to achieve this common objective.

Role of the EU: The economic and financial situation in the euro area has stabilised since last summer thanks to the determined and comprehensive crisis response by the EU. There are genuine signs that a more lasting recovery is now taking place in the EU and the euro area. GDP is expected to grow by 1.6% in the EU this year, before speeding up to 2% in 2015. Unemployment rates have stopped increasing since mid-2013 in most of the EU while remaining, however, at unacceptably high levels.

Leaders are expected to also address and reaffirm their commitment to tackling tax avoidance, including through the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan, and tax evasion, where the aim is to focus on the rapid implementation of the new single global standard for automatic exchange of tax information.

Role of the EU: thanks to its experience and pioneering role on tax transparency and tax good governance the EU and its member states play a central role in fora like the G7/G8, the G20 and the OECD to ensure fairness and transparency in taxation at global level. More on the EU's policy to fight tax fraud and tax avoidance: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/tax_fraud_evasion/index_en.htm

Under the trade and investment umbrella, leaders are expected to reconfirm their commitment to fight protectionism. The leaders will also take stock of the WTO negotiations and prioritise the swift implementation of the Bali package and continue the current Aid for Trade commitments.

Role of the EU: Together, the European Union's 28 members account for 19% of world imports and exports. Trade remains an important driver for growth and jobs. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to open up more market opportunities for European business by negotiating new Free Trade Agreements with key partners, in particular the G7 members Canada, Japan and the United States). If the EU was to complete all its current free trade talks tomorrow, it could add 2.2% to the EU's GDP or €275 billion. In terms of employment, these agreements could generate 2.2 million new jobs or additional 1% of the EU total workforce.

EU trade policy aims to working to:


create a global system for fair and open trade, through active support to the agreements and obligations overseen by the WTO; the focus is on implementing the Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement and on developing a future WTO work programme.


further open up markets with key partner countries – cf. the ongoing trade negotiations with the USA (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), , Canada (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement), Japan (Free Trade Agreement) and China (EU-China Investment Agreement). Free Trade Agreements were recently concluded with Singapore and are under negotiation with Malaysia and Vietnam. Various Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements are concluded or are under negotiation with several countries in the EU's Southern and Eastern Neighbourhood, including Ukraine;


lift barriers, open markets and ensure that trade is fair;


ensure that trade is a force for sustainable development, opening EU markets to all imports from the world's poorest countries and supporting developing countries to build the capacity to take advantage of trade.

More info and key figures on EU trade policy on http://ec.europa.eu/trade/

3. Energy and climate change

The discussions on energy and climate change at the second working session on Thursday 5 June will be two-fold.

First, leaders will discuss energy security in light of the Ukraine crisis and building on the Rome G7 energy initiative for energy security agreed by the G7 energy ministers on 6 May (see statement of 6 May). Leaders will be looking at identifying and implementing concrete domestic policies separately and together to build a more competitive, diversified, resilient and low-carbon energy system. Focus will be put on diversification of routes and sources, upgrading of energy infrastructure, development of indigenous resources and energy efficiency, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Clean technology is another important element to this.

Role of the EU: The EU has continuously sought to improve the energy security of its Member States through a variety of policies and actions. Most recently, in response to the crisis in Ukraine and the request by the European Council, the European Commission has tabled a European Energy Security Strategy (see the press release and the MEMO) as a basis for further discussion with Heads of States and Governments at the June European Council. The G7 Energy summit (Rome 5-6 May 2014) has built upon the Commission’s efforts to develop energy emergency plans for winter 2014-2015 at regional level, to exchange best practices for assessing energy security vulnerabilities, for IEA to prepare options for individual and collective actions of G7 in the field of gas security, and to supply technical assistance and facilitate exchanges with Ukraine and other European countries seeking to develop indigenous hydrocarbons, renewables and improve energy efficiency.

On climate change, leaders are expected to reaffirm their commitment to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and express their strong determination to adopt in 2015 a global agreement, ahead of the Climate Summit of the United Nations General Assembly in September and the upcoming COP2015 in Paris.

Role of the EU: the EU continues to pioneer global climate action thanks to its ambitious and legally binding framework. It remains fully committed to a multilateral legally binding approach to tackling climate change and to reshape the global climate agenda, working towards the UN climate conferences in Lima in 2014 and in Paris in 2015. The EU is on track with its domestic preparations on an ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework. The European Heads of State and Government agreed to take final decision on this as quickly as possible, and no later than October 2014, which means that the EU would be ready for the first quarter of 2015 at the latest.

Significant financial resources are mobilised to help developing countries deal adequately with climate change, with substantial co-benefits in terms of energy security. For example, the EU has allocated 400 million EUR to promote access to sustainable energy for all (SE4ALL) in Africa, building on the ACP-EU Energy Facility and the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund.

The European Union is the largest contributor of climate finance to developing countries and the world's biggest aid donor, collectively providing more than half of global official development assistance (ODA). The EU and its Member States pledged €7.2 billion in "fast start" climate finance over 2010-2012, almost one-third of the total pledged by developed countries. Despite difficult economic circumstances, the EU met and even surpassed its commitment by providing €7.34 bn in fast start finance. This money is being spent on concrete climate actions in developing countries.

Climate change is being increasingly integrated into the EU's broader development strategy. 20% of the resources dedicated to international development aid from the new multiannual financial framework of the EU as well as 20% of the 11th European Development Fund for the period 2014-2020 are to be allocated to climate-relevant actions.

More info on 2030 climate and energy goals for a competitive, secure and low-carbon EU economy.

4. Development

Finally, the Thursday 5 June working lunch will be devoted to development issues with a view to taking stock of progress and reconfirming previous G7 commitments, such as the Muskoka initiative on maternal, new-born and child health, the GAVI alliance (global alliance for vaccines and immunization), the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, the Deauville Partnership, tax evasion and illicit flows of finance.

Role of the EU: Despite the economic and financial context in Europe, the EU remains the biggest donor in the world – more than half of global development aid is provided by Europeans: Over the last ten years, the EU and its Member States have committed around 45 billion euro per year to development aid. This support has paid off: since 2004, the EU has contributed to the enrolment of more than 13 million boys and girls at school, to the vaccination of around 18 million children and to providing more than 70 million people with access to water around the world.

Food security remains in the centre of the EU's development policy. Since 2013, the EU has stepped up its efforts to fight against world hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, with a new policy framework that delivers on the EU's commitment to help partner countries reduce stunting amongst children under five years of age by at least 10% (7 million) by 2025. Under-nutrition will also be contained through investment in rural development, sustainable agriculture, public health, water and sanitation, social protection and education.

On 20 May, the EU announced that it will provide €25 million per year in the period 2014-2020 to fund vaccines and immunisation programmes worldwide through the GAVI alliance – more than double than previously committed. Since 2003, the European Commission has committed over €83 million to the GAVI Alliance, coming in part from the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) and in part from the European Development Fund (EDF). Thanks to donors like the EU, close to half a billion children have been immunised since 2000, resulting in 6 million lives saved.

The leaders will also discuss the post-2015 agenda aiming at completing unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals. This would include a focus on eradications of extreme poverty, promoting development and on balancing environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, including climate change.

Role of the EU: the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) remain at the core of EU development policy and actions. The EU has implemented the 1 billion euro MDG initiative, launched at the 2010 MDG summit, targeting the most off-track MDGs: hunger, maternal health, child mortality and access to water and sanitation. The EU supports nearly 70 actions in 46 countries, with a focus on Least Developed Countries.

On 2 June 2014, the European Commission adopted a Communication to contribute to the EU position in international negotiations on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as the follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The proposal calls for tackling issues of global concern such as poverty, inequality, health, food security, education, gender equality, water and sanitation, sustainable energy, decent work, inclusive and sustainable growth, sustainable consumption and production, biodiversity, land degradation and sea and oceans. It will now be discussed by Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and the outcome will guide the EU's position in the negotiations at UN level.

5. The EU as G7/G8 member

The European Union is a full member in G7/G8 Summits and is represented by the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

In 1977, representatives of the then European Community began participating in the London Summit. The first G7 summit was held two years earlier, in 1975 in Rambouillet (France). Originally, the EU had a limited role to those areas in which it had exclusive competences, but the EU’s role has grown with time. The European Commission was gradually included in all political discussions on the summit agenda and took part in all summit working sessions, as of the Ottawa Summit (1981). Commission President Barroso, who attended the G8 for the first time in Gleneagles in 2005, is participating for the 10th time, while Council President Van Rompuy has been attending the G8/G7 since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (2009).

The Commission and the European Council have all the responsibilities of membership. The Summit Communiqué is politically binding for all G7 members.

The Presidency will continue in its rotation to Germany in 2015 (Summit 4-5 May 2015), Japan in 2016, Italy in 2017, Canada in 2018, France in 2019, and the USA in 2020.

Useful links

G7 2014 section on President Van Rompuy's website:

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/g7brussels

G7/G8/G20 section on President Barroso's website:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/g20/index_en.htm

President Van Rompuy on Twitter and on Facebook

President Barroso on Twitter

Full video coverage of the G7 will be available for download in broadcast quality from the Council TV newsroom www.eucouncil.tv, and live events will be broadcast on Europe by Satellite (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm ) Photos covering the event will be available for download in high resolution from the Council Photo Library http://www.consilium.europa.eu/photo and the European Commission's audiovisual services (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/index.cfm

Source
.

Moment freak sandstorm hit Iranian capital Tehran - BBC News






 BBC News


Published on Jun 3, 2014


A powerful sandstorm has hit Iran's capital, Tehran, killing at least 4 people and injuring about 30. At its peak, the storm brought winds of up to 110km/h (70mph), knocking over trees, damaging windows and knocking out power supplies to tens of thousands of homes.

Subscribe http://www.youtube.com/bbcnews
Check out our website: http://www.bbc.com/news
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bbcworldnews
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bbcworld
Instagram: http://instagram.com/bbcnews
.
.

Africa: IMF Promotes Policies to Make Growth Sustainable and Inclusive - Lagarde


 2 June 2014





Photo: IMF Photograph/Stephen Jaffe
IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde greeted by Mozambique's Finance Minister Manuel Chang at the Maputo International Airport in Maputo.



Interview

The International Monetary Fund and the Mozambican government last week hosted the "Africa Rising" conference, attended by policymakers and private sector and civil society representatives to discuss how to manage and promote the economic gains Africa has been making since the 2008 global economic downturn. In an interview with AllAfrica's Melissa Britz, the fund's Managing Director, Christine Lagarde outlined the key reasons for convening the conference, then discussed the opportunities and risks facing governments and people across sub-Saharan Africa:

We wanted to take stock of the developments of sub-Saharan African countries since we last all congregated in Tanzania five years ago. We are five years into and hopefully past the crisis, and the point was: number one to take stock of what had happened and, number two to lay out together and discuss with our African colleagues and partners what the opportunities were, what the challenges were.

What kind of fiscal policies, legal framework, fiscal and tax frameworks should be considered in order to benefit from the growth that we have seen in Africa? That's really the whole point and I've heard from various participants that they really appreciated and found it interesting in terms of exchange of best practices, recommendations from various experts. So voila.

This is the third economic-focused conference on Africa in almost a month, counting the World Economic Forum on Africa in Abuja and the African Development Bank meeting in Kigali. So there's been a lot of "Africa Rising" discussion. Do you feel that policy makers in Africa and internationally have become too intoxicated with the good news story and have perhaps forgotten what needs to be done to make that good news happen?

I won't comment on the other two conferences because I wasn't there.

I'll focus on what we are trying to do. I think we have a very balanced message which is around the theme of Africa Rising, Africa Watching, because there has clearly been a solid trend of growth over the last few years and, obviously surprisingly, also during the financial crisis when everybody [else] went down.

So Africa like other developing countries emerged as the bit of good news on the horizon. There are also big issues to be addressed and potential risks on the horizon. So our message is mixed and suits the economists because it's on the one hand, on the other hand. It's good news and worries.

We tried to address the issues: How do you manage your natural resources? How do you make sure that the population of the country reaps the benefits of natural resources? And we tried to go a little bit deeper in terms of how do you structure your legal framework, how do you organize the tax landscape in which the investors are going to be prepared to invest, leaving enough on the African table and taking away what any investor wants to have as a return.

When we focus on the creation of jobs, we are also trying to address one of the big issues on the horizon. So I think it's a mixed message. What we take away is good news. It's positive but we see risks on the horizon.

South Africa is on the verge of recession. The bottom is falling out of the Zambian currency, the bottom is falling out of the Ghanaian currency, and Nigeria's got a massive internal security problem. The list is long. Where do you see the good news?

I think you're looking at four countries.

Four quite important countries.

Absolutely. But you have to flash back as well - what was it like 10 years ago? You also had major risks, and very difficult situations.

Probably much more complicated, not much more because there is one that is not only affecting Nigeria but the whole issue of the Sahel region.

But you also had big conflicts, some of which have been resolved in the meantime. So our job as macro-economists is to look at the key numbers, and when you look at the key numbers you see growth, you see inflation, you see current account, and you see deficits. On all those accounts the situation is a lot healthier than it was 10 years ago.

Sorry I forget to mention debt which is a subset of the other numbers.

Debt has been significantly reduced. The average debt in Sub-Saharan Africa is 35 percent. But if you take one or two countries - and that's where we're saying watch out, because there are some countries that have gotten a bit ahead of themselves, that are increasing the level of indebtedness to a level which could be a concern.

Former South African President Thabo Mbeki who heads up the High-Level Panel on Illicit Capital Flows says that Africa wouldn't need development aid if illegal outflows were stemmed. What needs to be done to address this from the side of wealthy countries where the money goes but also by African governments?

Transparency here, transparency there. It's not enough but given the availability of information, to which you contribute by the way, and the facilitated access to information I think that transparency is a very strong weapon to fight against those illicit flows.

I was struck [when] I went to the university [in Maputo] and asked how many in the room do not have internet access. Do not use internet. Zero.

Not all of them had iPhone or iPad or tablets, but all students in the room said "yes, internet access" and use it on a very frequent basis. I would say that transparency is key because it's the tribunal of public opinion that is then available.

The way the IMF communicates these days is vastly different to how it communicated 10 years ago. Are you still finding your way in Africa, finding the tone in which you speak to governments, or is it clear what the parameters of the interactions are?

It is a partnership, whether we are doing bilateral work with the Article Four's [see IMF Surveillance of member countries], whether we are providing technical assistance or training. We have five regional training centres now in Africa and sub-Saharan African countries consume 40 percent of our technical assistance on a global basis.

Whether it's through surveillance, technical assistance or through the programmes, I think it really works as a partnership. There have been instances where we were lacking the appropriate information, where the level of disclosure was not satisfactory. When we find out, we go back to the authorities and we have a dialogue. We don't patronize. We want to partner and partnership again is based on transparency. Where there are obscure contracts we don't get a copy of or there are side letters that we are not aware of, we say "sorry we want the information".

The European Central Bank is considering measures to stimulate the economy, and we have seen what stimulating the economy has done positively and negatively to countries in Africa over the last few years. Is there not a risk that if the ECB does put some stimulus into the economy, it can exacerbate the debt situation for some African countries?

If that was to happen - and we haven't seen that yet, we have heard statements to that effect - but if that was to happen, the intention behind it is not to destabilize or unsettle other economies but to stir the European economy which is clearly a key partner for some of the African countries, and a partner altogether for sub-Saharan African countries.

So that's the positive side of it - if Europe does better, clearly the relationship [with Africa] based on either trade or investment or remittances can be improved. The other side of the coin is that if not well communicated, if not well anticipated, it would bring about a level of volatility which could be detrimental. And my hunch is that given what happened a year ago, in May 2013, the authorities anticipate and have begun to take measures to anticipate that. It is a potential risk but one that I hope can be mitigated by those measures.

A large number of African countries has raised Eurobonds in the last couple of years. Do you think this is a good idea?

What we see as a key priority is energy, I think that's my answer to your point. When you look at the per-capita input of energy, it's amazing to see that it has hardly moved since the 80s. The output of electricity in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa is equal to that of Spain. So there's a crying need for investment in energy and infrastructure projects such as transportation. I would say that improving the productivity of agriculture in a smart and green way would also be a good way forward and I know that some of the panelists[at Africa Rising] did not agree with that.

The Chinese premier recently has promised technology transfers and more investment to Africa. Do you have any comment on his promises and what are the potential areas that China can best assist?

In terms of the sectoral approach, our take is that the energy sector is absolutely key. Then you can roll out the rest of the infrastructure projects that would be needed - transportation channels, whether it's railway, roads, airports or ports. So energy and transportation - this is what I would call the hard infrastructure projects. But you also have soft infrastructure projects that touch on people - training, vocational training and education. If the Chinese authorities at the highest level support the transfer of technology to the effect that it would help in those directions that I have identified, I think it's good. I think it's a sign of more mature investment than just financing and construction.

If that is what is intended - I haven't seen his quotes, I haven't read his speech - but if it's the intention, it's a mature approach to investment.

What do sub-Saharan African countries need to achieve development apart from investment?

Yesterday I tried to be as crystal clear as possible. It was picked up by a Chinese colleague who was on a panel afterwards. It's infrastructure, institutions, people. But at the rock bottom of all these projects you need money. Investment is not in and of itself sufficient but a pre-requisite to build infrastructure projects, and to develop institutions.

I'm not sure if money is necessary for transparency and good governance.

But clearly the lack of growth, and misallocation of the benefits are not conducive to good governance and institutions. And when you talk education, when you talk health, talk investment. Now how you balance the public and the private and how you mix them together - the concessional arrangements - that's really where the technical work has to be done with a view to reaching the right balance. The royalties rates, the length of contracts, those are the technical things that actually matter.

You recently spoke about the three L's of women's empowerment - learning, labour and leadership - and said that women are more inclined to share knowledge and share consensus building. How do you see women contributing to Africa's growth?

Significantly, if I look at the numbers. I mentioned in my speech that if you were to close the gap between men and women in the labour market in Africa, we're talking about U.S. $90 billion on an annual basis - tantamount to the U.S. $93 billion needed on an annual basis to finance projects. So that's a bit from the textbook because clearly then you get into all the technical issues: inheritance, ownership of land, availability of collaterals, access to credit - all the cultural bag of issues that often get in the way of women having access to finance, job market and education.

I'm not sure that it is so much the case in Mozambique because I think that Mozambique has done quite a lot to improve the situation for women but there are other sub-Saharan African countries that have a long way to go. They can benefit enormously from the real emancipation of women and better and equal access to job and finance markets.

Melissa Britz's attendance at Africa Rising was sponsored by the IMF.


Source
.

The great backlash by Nouriel Roubini*



June 02, 2014, Monday/ 15:40:30 / NEW YORK


A In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, policymakers' success in preventing the Great Recession from turning into Great Depression II held in check demands for protectionist and inward-looking measures.

But now the backlash against globalization -- and the freer movement of goods, services, capital, labor, and technology that came with it -- has arrived.

This new nationalism takes different economic forms: trade barriers, asset protection, reaction against foreign direct investment, policies favoring domestic workers and firms, anti-immigration measures, state capitalism, and resource nationalism. In the political realm, populist, anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and in some cases outright racist and anti-Semitic parties are on the rise. These forces loath the alphabet soup of supra-national governance institutions -- the EU, the UN, the WTO, and the IMF, among others -- that globalization requires. Even the Internet, the epitome of globalization for the past two decades, is at risk of being balkanized as more authoritarian countries -- including China, Iran, Turkey, and Russia -- seek to restrict access to social media and crack down on free expression.

The main causes of these trends are clear. Anemic economic recovery has provided an opening for populist parties, promoting protectionist policies, to blame foreign trade and foreign workers for the prolonged malaise. Add to this the rise in income and wealth inequality in most countries, and it is no wonder that the perception of a winner-take-all economy that benefits only elites and distorts the political system has become widespread. Nowadays, both advanced economies (like the United States, where unlimited financing of elected officials by financially powerful business interests is simply legalized corruption) and emerging markets (where oligarchs often dominate the economy and the political system) seem to be run for the few. For the many, by contrast, there has been only secular stagnation, with depressed employment and stagnating wages. The resulting economic insecurity for the working and middle classes is most acute in Europe and the eurozone, where in many countries populist parties -- mainly on the far right -- outperformed mainstream forces in last weekend's European Parliament election. As in the 1930's, when the Great Depression gave rise to authoritarian governments in Italy, Germany, and Spain, a similar trend now may be underway.

If income and job growth do not pick up soon, populist parties may come closer to power at the national level in Europe, with anti-EU sentiments stalling the process of European economic and political integration. Worse, the eurozone may again be at risk: some countries (the United Kingdom) may exit the EU; others (the UK, Spain, and Belgium) eventually may break up. Even in the US, the economic insecurity of a vast white underclass that feels threatened by immigration and global trade can be seen in the rising influence of the extreme right and Tea Party factions of the Republican Party. These groups are characterized by economic nativism, anti-immigration and protectionist leanings, religious fanaticism, and geopolitical isolationism.

A variant of this dynamic can be seen in Russia and many parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the fall of the Berlin Wall did not usher in democracy, economic liberalization, and rapid output growth. Instead, nationalist and authoritarian regimes have been in power for most of the past quarter-century, pursuing state-capitalist growth models that ensure only mediocre economic performance. In this context, Russian President Vladimir Putin's destabilization of Ukraine cannot be separated from his dream of leading a “Eurasian Union” -- a thinly disguised effort to recreate the former Soviet Union. In Asia, too, nationalism is resurgent. New leaders in China, Japan, South Korea, and now India are political nationalists in regions where territorial disputes remain serious and long-held historical grievances fester. These leaders -- as well as those in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, who are moving in a similar nationalist direction -- must address major structural-reform challenges if they are to revive falling economic growth and, in the case of emerging markets, avoid a middle-income trap. Economic failure could fuel further nationalist, xenophobic tendencies -- and even trigger military conflict.

Meanwhile, the Middle East remains a region mired in backwardness. The Arab Spring -- triggered by slow growth, high youth unemployment, and widespread economic desperation -- has given way to a long winter in Egypt and Libya, where the alternatives are a return to authoritarian strongmen and political chaos. In Syria and Yemen, there is civil war; Lebanon and Iraq could face a similar fate; Iran is both unstable and dangerous to others; and Afghanistan and Pakistan look increasingly like failed states. In all of these cases, economic failure and a lack of opportunities and hope for the poor and young are fueling political and religious extremism, resentment of the West and, in some cases, outright terrorism.

In the 1930's, the failure to prevent the Great Depression empowered authoritarian regimes in Europe and Asia, eventually leading to World War II. This time, the damage caused by the Great Recession is subjecting most advanced economies to secular stagnation and creating major structural growth challenges for emerging markets. This is ideal terrain for economic and political nationalism to take root and flourish. Today's backlash against trade and globalization should be viewed in the context of what, as we know from experience, could come next.

*Nouriel Roubini is chairman of Roubini Global Economics and Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University.


Source
.

Sabbath Questions




 

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: . . . If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:" Isaiah 1:18,19


Lesson #17
SABBATH QUESTIONS


In the prophecies of Isaiah, we see the prophet answering questions for those who are puzzled. "Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?" is the anxious inquiry. To this Isaiah replies, "The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will inquire, inquire ye: return, come" (Isaiah 21: 12).

Isaiah did not discourage honest questions. "If ye will inquire, inquire ye," he said. Any "watchman" who has been set to guard the spiritual interests of the people should welcome sincere questions.

(When the rich young ruler came to Jesus asking about the way of life, Christ answered him without hesitation. But insincere quibblers Jesus silenced with His penetrating questions and answers (Matthew 22:23-33, 41-46).

In this lesson, we want to answer questions that are often raised about the Sabbath-Sunday issue. These matters are of great importance to us; for the midnight of sin is coming upon the world, and the law here is our first question, a very important one:



1: HAS THE SABBATH BEEN LOST DOWN THROUGH THE AGES?

Some have asked, "Has time been lost?" "Has the Sabbath been lost?" We reply No. The Sabbath has never been lost, If the Sabbath had been lost between creation (that is, Adam's time) and Moses' day when God gave the written law with the Sabbath as the fourth commandment, this loss of time would have been rectified. Note the following:

(Forty years, or 2,080 weeks. God worked a number of miracles every week, thereby pointing out the identical seventh day 2,080 times (Exodus 16). In the wilderness before the children of Israel reached Mount Sinai, the manna (food from heaven) fell on each of the first five days of the week. That was one miracle. Any portion kept over one day would spoil. Then on the sixth day a double portion fell. This was another miracle. The unused portion kept over to the seventh day did not spoil. This was a third miracle. To this we might add the fact that on the seventh, or Sabbath, day no manna fell. And this could be called a fourth miracle. God thus emphasized the sacredness of the Sabbath and clearly marked the seventh day.

If the Sabbath had been lost between Moses' time and Jesus' day, the Saviour would not have made it His custom to observe the Sabbath (Luke 4: 16). But we have the example of the Saviour, which is indeed sufficient. "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked" (1 John 2:6).

Has the Sabbath been lost since Jesus' day? And what about the calendar? The calendar has been changed, but there has been no loss of time or change in the rotation of the days of the week.

The Julian calendar was in use when Jesus was on the earth. Its originator, Julius Caesar, died about 40 years before Christ was born. The week in use in the East at that time was precisely the same as the week of our calendar today, which is the Gregorian. The days of the month are different, but the days of the week were never changed.

The change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar occurred in this way: The Julian calendar used for sixteen centuries was not accurate in the length of its year, being about eleven minutes too long. By A.D. 1582, the vernal equinox of March 21 had receded to March 11 and was ten days off schedule.



Scientists in the time of Gregory XIII led out in the change, and the Gregorian calendar began to function at Rome on Friday, the 5th of ( October, 1582. Friday the 5th was changed to Friday the 15th. The week remained untouched, and the days of the week were undisturbed.

Some nations began the use of the new calendar at once. Others began later. England waited 170 years, until 1752. Yet-all that time-these different states and nations with different calendars had the same week!

Just remember that the seventh day of the week today is the same as when Christ was here, and the calendar changes have not affected it. The Jews, scattered over the earth, have kept strict account of time; and wherever you find the orthodox Jew you find the seventh-day Sabbath. God has protected the Jewish people over the centuries, so they could testify as to which day of our week is the true Sabbath-the Bible Sabbath, the only Sabbath ever given to mankind by the God of heaven. So it is clear that the Sabbath has not been lost in our calendar.



2: DID THE RESURRECTED CHRIST ALWAYS APPEAR ON THE FIRST DAY?

The answer is No. The record of Scripture does not support such a view. As a matter of fact, there are only three such meetings where the time is indicated.

1. The resurrection day (which was, of course, Sunday, in John 20: 19), when Jesus met with His disciples who were "assembling for fear of the Jews."

2. A meeting "after eight days," when the doubting Thomas met Christ (John 20:26).

3. The day of the ascension, which occurred "forty days" after the resurrection (Acts 1:3, 9). A glance at the calendar will quickly reveal to you that if the resurrection was on Sunday, the ascension, which was forty days later, could not possibly have occurred on Sunday.

It is interesting to note that those who claim that, after the resurrection, Christ always met with His disciples on Sunday do not cite John 21: 16 as an example. If this meeting was on a Sunday, then evidently the disciples considered fishing a proper occupation for that day. Nor did Jesus reprove them. Instead, He instructed them how to catch fish, and He cooked fish for them.

Christ appeared to His disciples at other times, but we are not told the day of the week. The time of Christ's appearance to His disciples has no bearing on the question of a weekly day of worship. The identity of God's holy day does not rest on such irregularities as meetings. A specific command points it out (Exodus 20:8-11). How much we need to study our Bibles in order to know what God would have us do!

3: IS NOT ONE DAY JUST AS HOLY AS ANOTHER?

Christ Himself made the Sabbath at creation and repeated the Sabbath command from Sinai. And He never made any other day holy (John 1:1-3, 14; Mark 2:27-28).

We should remember that no one man or even all men together can make a single day holy. Only God can make a day holy. Only God can make men holy. It is God's special presence that makes any place or day or thing holy (Exodus 3:1-5).

The following Bible text is often quoted to support the claim that each man may choose his own day of worship:

Romans 14:5-6 "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."

Paul had no authority to create new holy days. In the text quoted, Paul was speaking of yearly ceremonial days. He was seeking to divorce the Jewish Christian from continuing to regard with holiness the feast days of the ceremonial system (Leviticus 23:1-2, 4-37, 39-44). Note that verse 3 and verse 38 indicate that the weekly Sabbath is distinct from the ceremonial, or yearly, sabbaths.) He also sought to lead them not to judge one another on the matter of observing these ceremonial laws.

The "every day" of Romans 14:5-6 sometimes means the "six working days" (Exodus 16:4). Let us remember also that Christ is the one who esteems the seventh day above the other weekly days. He places His special blessing on it. If you invite me to a dinner at your home on Saturday and I come on Sunday, I simply miss the occasion. If a man has seven sons, he cannot make the firstborn the lastborn-and no one else can. Neither can any mere human transfer the sacredness that God placed on the seventh day to the first day.

Let us keep in mind five facts: (1) On the seventh day God rested. (2) The seventh day is the only weekly day to which God gave a sacred name. (3) It is the only one He blessed. (4) It is the only one He hallowed. (5) It is the only one He has commanded us to keep (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11).

You need not fear that you will sin by not keeping Sunday for there is no Biblical law demanding Sunday observance. There is no instruction whatever about keeping it. According to Exodus 20:9, the first day is just another working day.



4:WAS THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH NAILED TO THE CROSS??

The apostle Paul would answer, "God forbid!" But Paul does make it clear that the Jewish ceremonialThe apostle Paul would answer, "God forbid!" But Paul does make it clear that the Jewish ceremonial sabbaths were nailed to the cross. Here are his words:

Colossians 2:14-17 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ:'

It is plain that these sabbaths are "shadow" sabbaths. A reading of Leviticus 23 will show that they came only once a year, and on different days of the week. They belonged to the system of "ordinances" given to the Jews. Read Ephesians 2: 15.

Dr. Adam Clarke says:

"The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks. . and the necessity of observing certain holydays or festivals, such as new moons and particular sabbaths. There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away with or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity."



On Colossians 2: 16, Dr. Albert Barnes writes:

"But the use of the term in the plural number [sabbaths], and the connection, show that he [Paul] had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not on the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law-no one of the Ten Commandments--could be spoken of as a shadow of good things to come."

All informed students agree with these correct statements. The yearly, shadow, or ceremonial sabbaths were nailed to the cross.

5: ARE NOT CHRISTIANS TOLD TO ASSEMBLE ON THE FIRST DAY?
No. But here is the text quoted to support this idea:

Hebrews 10:25 "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

Many honest persons have thought that Hebrews 10:25 speaks of the first day of the week, but a reading of the passage will settle the question conclusively (2 Peter 3:10 on "the day approaching").


6: IS NOT SUNDAY THE LORD'S DAY?

No. John does not say that Sunday is the Lord's day when he says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (Revelation 1: 10). Sunday is just not in Revelation 1:10!

You may read the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere is it remotely intimated that the first day of the week is the Lord's day. The Sabbath is the Lord's day, Christ said, "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). God Himself, speaking from Sinai, said, 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Here the Lord claims the Sabbath as His day: therefore it is the Lord's day. And speaking through the prophet Isaiah, He calls the Sabbath "My holy day" (1saiah 58:13). Words cannot be plainer. The Lord's day is the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.



7: WHAT EXCUSES ARE SOMETIMES OFFERED FOR NOT OBSERVING THE SABBATH?

1. "I don't believe in that old Jewish Sabbath."

The Bible never calls the Sabbath Jewish. It is the "Sabbath of the Lord thy God" (Exodus 20: 1 0). It was "made for man," not for any special race (Mark 2:27-28). When you stop to think of it, it is actually blasphemous to say that the seventh-day Sabbath-the memorial of the Creation of our world (Genesis 2:1-3)-is "just for the Jews,"

And here is a word for those who don't believe in "those old laws."

Jeremiah 6:16 "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Isaiah 58;12-14),

2. "I am afraid of new doctrines."

The Sabbath dates from creation. Read again Genesis 2: 1-3.

3. "My mother and father kept Sunday."

God will hold them accountable only for the light they had. "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" (John 9:41). Obedience is of more importance than earthly relatives. Read Matthew 12:47-50.




We are to walk in the light while we have the light.

John 12:35 "Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth."

4. "Many scholarly men keep Sunday."

Listen to these words of Hosea:

Hosea 10:13 "Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men."

1 Corinthians 1:26 "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called" (Proverbs 19:27).

5. "Almost everyone keeps Sunday."

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

6. "The Sabbath can't be kept on a round world."

The God of heaven, who made the world round, commanded us to keep the Bible Sabbath. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:8-11).

7. "It is inconvenient to keep the Sabbath."

Matthew 16:24 "Then said Jesus unto His disciples, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

The privileges and blessings of following Jesus outweigh all trials and inconveniences.

8. "Sabbathkeeping interferes with my business and family support."

Matthew 6:33 "Seek ye first the kingdom of God. and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Mark 8:36 "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"



9. "The Sabbath brings trouble and division."

A man's foes, said Jesus, may be those of his own household. Read Matthew 10:34-38. It may also bring persecution, but the Saviour said:

Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely. for My sake" (John 12:42-43).

Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather than men," said Peter (Acts 4:18-20; 5:28).

Thank God, all do not make excuses. They have learned that the Sabbath is a "delight," and that it brings great blessings! Yes, there is some scorn, but they are happy to bear reproach in order to follow in the footsteps of the Man of Calvary and be part of the great movement that belts the globe in these closing hours of the judgment. May God be very near to you, dear friend, as you search to know His way for you. The Sabbath truth is being proclaimed in more than 800 language and dialect areas. Hundreds of thousands are keeping the Sabbath the world over, and thousands more are taking their stand as the days go by.


Source
.

The repairer of the breach


And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
  Isaiah 58:11,12.

Monday, June 02, 2014

Obama administration targets coal with controversial emissions regulation





White House


Published June 02, 2014
FoxNews.com



The Obama administration took aim at the coal industry on Monday by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030 -- despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.

The controversial regulation, which some lawmakers already are trying to block, is one of the most sweeping efforts to tackle global warming by this or any other administration.

The 645-page plan, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of President Obama's climate change agenda, and a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

"We have a moral obligation to act," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said, in announcing the plan Monday morning.

While the proposed regulation drew praise from environmental groups, the coal industry and coal-state lawmakers were immediately wary. Democratic West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall announced he would introduce legislation, along with Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., to stop the EPA plan.

"We will introduce bipartisan legislation that will prevent these disastrous new rules from wreaking havoc on our economy in West Virginia," Rahall said in a statement.

Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said he's "certain that it will be very bad news for states like Kentucky who mine and use coal to create electricity."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who represents Kentucky, called it a "dagger in the heart of the American middle class" -- and predicted higher power costs and less reliable energy as a result. McConnell's general election opponent, Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, also spoke out against the plan.

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama's Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called "cap-and-trade" plan to limit such emissions.

Under the plan, carbon emissions would be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the EPA.

States could have until 2017 to submit a plan to cut power plant pollution, and 2018 if they join with other states to tackle the problem, according to the EPA's proposal.

EPA data shows that the nation's power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 13 percent since 2005. But with coal-fired power plants already beleaguered by cheap natural gas prices and other environmental regulations, experts said reaching the targets won't be easy. The EPA is expected to offer a range of options to states to meet targets that will be based on where they get their electricity and how much carbon dioxide they emit in the process.

While some states will be allowed to emit more and others less, overall the reduction will be 30 percent nationwide.

The options include making power plants more efficient, reducing the frequency at which coal-fired power plants supply power to the grid, and investing in more renewable, low-carbon sources of energy. They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.

The Obama administration claimed the changes would produce jobs, cut electricity bills and save thousands of lives thanks to cleaner air.

But critics disputed the estimates.

"Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has adopted a 'my way or the highway' approach, and that explains why he's shoving these EPA regulations down our throat," Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found that each year this regulation will kill 224,000 jobs and force energy rates to skyrocket, so it's no wonder President Obama is circumventing Congress to implement his latest job-killing regulation."

Hundreds of coal-burning plants will have to comply, which has resulted in strong opposition from the energy industry, big business and coal-state Democrats and Republicans, who argue Obama’s green-energy agenda is tantamount to a “war on coal.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that the rule will kill jobs and close power plants across the country.

The group released a study that finds the rule will result in the loss of 224,000 jobs every year through 2030 and impose $50 billion in annual costs.

Without waiting to see what Obama proposes, governors in Kansas, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia have already signed laws directing their environmental agencies to develop their own carbon-emission plans. Similar measures recently passed in Missouri and are pending in the Louisiana and Ohio legislatures.

On Saturday, Obama tried to bolster public support for the new rule by arguing that carbon-dioxide emissions are a national health crisis -- beyond hurting the economy and causing global warming.

“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” Obama said in his weekly address. “As president and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

Many anticipate the rule change will increase electricity prices, considering the United States relies on coal for 40 percent of its electricity. However, the plants also are the country’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Many of the Democrats who are raising concerns represent coal-producing states and face tough 2014 reelection bids.

Among them is West Virginia Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall, whose state gets 96 percent of its power from coal. Rahall said Thursday that he didn't have specific details about the rule, but "from everything we know we can be sure of this: It will be bad for jobs."

Obama is being forced to use the 1970s-era old Clean Air Act, after failing during his first term to get Congress to pass a law. The law has long been used to regulate pollutants like soot, mercury and lead, but has only recently been applied to greenhouse gases.

"There are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. None," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. "We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants put in our air and water. But they can dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. It's not smart, it's not safe, and it doesn't make sense."

The rule also will prescribe technological fixes or equipment to be placed on existing plants and require new ones to capture some of their carbon dioxide and bury it underground.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.
.
.

Dutch politician Diederik Samsom Bilderberg 2014 talks to protesters.






Höskuldur Eyjólfsson

Published on Jun 1, 2014

The Dutch politician Diederik Samsom Bilderberger came out for the 2nd day in a row while the Bilderberg 2014 meeting in Copenhagen was ongoing to talk to the protesters outside. Diederik Samsom came out exactly at the time as Dr Niels Harrit's speech was about to start and drew most journalists away from Dr Niels Harrit. Dr. Niels Harrit is a Danish scientist who found unexploded nano-thermite high explosive in all samples of the World Trade Center (WTC) dust of 9/11. Is it a coincidence that Diederik Samsom came out exactly at the same time Dr. Niels Harrit was supposed to speak? The timing of his speech was known weeks before the Bilderberg 2014 protests. Hmmmm......
.
.
.

Bilderberg 2014: George Osborne and the man at the centre of everything



After terrifying John Major, Sir John Kerr has moved on to well-connected boardrooms and the heart of Bilderberg


Charlie Skelton, with photographs by Hannah Borno

theguardian.com, Monday 2 June 2014 00.27 EDT




George Osborne and Sir John Kerr. Photograph: Hannah Borno


On the sun-drenched patio of the Marriott Hotel in Copenhagen sat the chancellor of the exchequer. He sat quietly and listened carefully as a distinguished older gentleman gave him what appeared to be an intense and barely-interrupted 25 minute briefing. George Osborne sat and listened, while we stood and watched.

The body language was fascinating. George was tense, leaning in, petitioning. The man opposite was physically relaxed but full of gestures and explanations. George was there to listen hard and get up to speed. Apart from a two-minute speech at the end, he opened his lips barely a dozen times, and half of those were simply to have a sip of his fruit punch.



The gentleman with his back to us, slouching comfortably in his chair, is an important, extremely well connected, but not very well known individual: Sir John Kerr. Otherwise known as Baron Kerr of Kinlochard. The current vice-chairman of Scottish Power.

At Bilderberg, Sir John always seems to be at the centre of things: when Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands emerges onto the patio, it’s Sir John who leads her out. When no one else will have a drink with Richard Perle, Sir John steps up:



Patting shoulders, pressing the flesh, ushering people together: Bilderberg is his domain. Sir John is a member of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle – the steering committee – and probably its heaviest smoker. The only thing with more tar in it than Sir John’s lungs is Peter Thiel’s hair.

Here’s a lovely portrait of Sir John, enjoying a pre-dinner cigarette on the riverfront terrace. I think it shows showing how delighted he is to see the photographers camped outside the conference.



Sir John used to be one of the UK’s top civil servants: he was head of the diplomatic service, and served as ambassador to the US and the EU.


One of the architects of European integration, he was in charge of the secretariat that drew up the first draft of the European constitution, and famously hid under the table during the Maastricht negotiations, passing up handwritten notes to John Major. Out of sight, but right in the centre of power.

Major likened Sir John to Machiavelli in his memoirs, and was clearly terrified of the man. He memorably said: “When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?”

After wrapping up his career in public service, Kerr hopped gracefully into the City, and was until recently deputy chairman of the most Bilderbergian company of all, Shell Oil. As well as his role at Scottish Power he is a board member of Rio Tinto, the multinational mining company.

Half diplomat, half corporate creature, Sir John is the ultimate behind-the-scenes powerbroker – a barely visible fixer, in whom the public and private spheres are perfectly melded. He’s Bilderberg incarnate.

And in the power dynamic between Sir John and the chancellor, Sir John is quite clearly the boss. It’s impossible to know exactly what he was saying during their confab, but I think the gist of it was how high George has to get off the ground when Sir John says “jump”.



Anything higher than that’s fine. Anything less, and he’ll take George’s feet off at the ankles.

After a time, a couple of conference organisers came over to the pair and gave them a heads-up about the cameras. Sir John ushered George inside to continue their meeting, while out on the patio other Bilderberg briefings carried on apace.

Over at one end of the terrace, the Swedish foreign affairs minister, Carl Bildt (left), was being given some international advice by a member of the international advisory board of Goldman Sachs, Professor Victor Halberstadt.

 

While at another table, the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, was discussing fiscal policy with the economist Kevin Warsh, who’s on the board of logistics giant UPS.



The man in the middle of the shot, hidden by Warsh’s helpful hand, is Paul Achleitner, the chairman of Deutsche Bank and board member of Bayer pharmaceuticals. He’s at Bilderberg to make sure that whatever Lagarde does at the IMF, it’s for the best. The best for Deutsche Bank and Bayer pharmaceuticals.

That’s what’s so great about Bilderberg: besides the larger briefings, there are all these quiet opportunities for politicians and policymakers to be set on the straight and narrow by international bankers and corporate leaders.

About 10 minutes after guiding Osborne into the blessed privacy of the hotel, Sir John re-emerged and had a few terse words about the press cameras with one of the conference organisers.



That look he’s giving us – you can see why it gave Major the jitters. It could cut tin. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he doesn’t like us. Which is a shame, because he’d be a useful friend to have. He can get you free tickets to the Rio Tinto Christmas party, or an invitation to Bilderberg – but you’d have to behave.

It only remains to be seen if Osborne declares his half-hour one-to-one with Sir John in his quarterly ministerial declaration of meetings with external organisations. He definitely had the meeting. That much we could see. And Sir John is entered on the official conference participant list as “Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power” – which definitely counts as an external organisation.

What we witnessed wasn’t the pair of them bumping into each other in a corridor, it was a serious chat. And it happened to be at least partially transparent to us: so will it make it into George’s transparency data? We’ll know in about four months. And if it does, then what about all the other meetings he’s had during his stay in Copenhagen? And what about the ones at last year’s meeting in Watford?

He can’t just say "Chatham House rules" and expect a free pass. That’s like making up a rule in a playground game that suddenly makes you invisible. “If I say ‘Chatham House rules’ you can’t see me!” Sorry, George, we can see you perfectly well. You should have had your meeting with Sir John in the hotel sauna. Or did Princess Beatrix have it block-booked?

Oh, and if you’re reading this on your way back to Westminster, Justine Greening, the same applies to you. Let’s find out if the ministerial transparency declarations mean anything at all.

In his declaration for the period covering last year’s Bilderberg conference, Osborne covered the three-day meeting with heads of banks and giant corporations with the words: "June 2013, Bilderberg Conference, General discussion." Ever so slightly better than nothing, but not by much. A vague, unattributed “general discussion” utterly fails to describe what goes on at Bilderberg.

What happens at Bilderberg is official government business, and the meetings that take place here shouldn’t be treated any differently from any other ministerial meetings.

And if it’s not official business, why have so many of the ministers brought ministerial aides? Why did Bildt bring along the deputy director-general at the Swedish foreign affairs ministry, Jessica
Olausson?




And if Sweden’s deputy director-general at the ministry for foreign affairs is attending the conference, how come her name is not on the participant list? Is she just in Copenhagen to carry Carl’s newspapers? Is that her, striding across the Marriot patio, or have I imagined the whole thing? It’s not impossible I’ve gone bananas, I haven’t slept much the last three nights: too busy staring at photos of Sir John Kerr and his acolytes. It’s enough to turn the mind.

Not to mention the stomach. Although that could be the jar of marinated herring fillets I’ve just eaten. I wouldn’t rule them out – that’s all I’m saying.

Source
.

Bergdahl's Platoon Mates: Six Died Looking for 'Deserter'







Monday, 02 Jun 2014 12:24 PM

By Greg Richter and Melanie Batley


What began as a debate over negotiating with terrorists escalated Monday into anger among many armed services members at the attention being given to Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a man who reportedly fled his post five years ago only to be captured by Afghan insurgents.

Bergdahl was freed Saturday in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees. His release was celebrated at first by Washington politicians, including Republicans, though many felt the United States had broken its longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

By Monday, that had all changed. Soldiers who served with Bergdahl said they were outraged at the possibility he would be accorded a hero's welcome. He is anything but, they said.

CNN, Rolling Stone, and other media reminded Americans that at least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl in rugged Paktika Province in the ensuing days and weeks after he deserted.

The six men reportedly killed while searching for Bergdahl were identified by CNN as Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker on Aug. 18, 2009; Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss on Aug. 26; 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek on Sept. 4; and Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey on Sept. 5.

"He walked off," said former Pfc. Jose Baggett, a former comrade. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected, or he’s a traitor, or he was kidnapped. What I do know is he was there to protect us, and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don’t know why he decided to do that, but we spent so much of our resources, and some of those resources were soldiers’ lives."

Bergdahl walked away from his base, reportedly without a weapon, in June 2009 and was captured by the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Moreover, CNN reported that soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.

Richard Grenell, a former U.S. spokesman to the United Nations and partner with Capitol Media Partners, told Newsmax that numerous soldiers who served with Bowe reached out to him to express their anger with the decision.

"I have spoken with several of Bowe Bergdahl's platoon mates, and they are united in their view that Bowe walked away from them, and that many lives were risked and some lost in looking for a guy who willingly left the team," Grenell said.

The outrage quickly made its way into social media. A Facebook page, "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero," went up on Monday, the New York Post reported. It linked to an online petition demanding Bergdahl’s prosecution.

"Punish Bowe Bergdahl for walking off base with intent to not support the war on terror. Bowe Bergdahl broke several Articles under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and needs to be punished not rewarded," the petition read.

"Bowe Bergdahl directly disobeyed the following articles Article 86 AWOL and Article 85 Desertion. Both articles call for trial by court martial. He is not a hero and is directly responsible for several military members' death. Bring punishment to Bowe Bergdahl and let the public know that the military holds all members to the same standard," the petition states.

Former combat medic Javier Ortiz told The Washington Post, "Regardless of what you learned while being there, we still have a responsibility to the men to our left and right. It's terrible, what he did.

"There were military assets required ... but the problem came of his own accord."

Another unidentified soldier said, "The unit completely changed its operational posture because of something that was selfish, not because a soldier was captured in combat."

CNN's Jake Tapper, who embedded with and wrote a book about soldiers in Afghanistan, also found much anger.

"I was pissed off then, and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."

Bergdahl's former squad leader, Greg Leatherman, told CNN: "I'm pleased to see him returned safely. From experience, I hope that he receives adequate reintegration counseling. I believe that an investigation should take place as soon as healthcare professionals deem him fit to endure one."

According to a 2012 report in Rolling Stone, Bergdahl, now 28, had become disillusioned with his role in America's longest war, sending emails to his parents prior to his disappearance.

"The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong," Bergdahl reportedly wrote his father. "I have seen their ideas, and I am ashamed to even be american (sic). The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

He also attacked the Army, saying it cut down people "for being honest," and rewarded sycophants. "The title of US soldier is just the lie of fools," he wrote. "I am sorry for everything here.

"These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.

"We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks," he continued. "We make fun of them in front of their faces and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them."

His father, Bob, told him in an email, "In matters of life and death, and especially at war, it is never safe to ignore ones' conscience. Ethics demands obedience to our conscience. It is best to also have a systematic oral defense of what our conscience demands. Stand with like-minded men when possible."

Rolling Stone reported that Bergdahl even approached a superior, "If I were to leave the base, would it cause problems if I took my sensitive equipment?" He was told it would, so he left his gun and took just water, a knife, a camera, and his diary, and "slipped off the outpost."

Specialist Jason Fry told Rolling Stone that even before leaving for Afghanistan Bergdahl told him, "If this deployment is lame, I'm just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan."

Bergdahl left his camp close to the Pakistani border, on June 30, 2009.

Bergdahl — who was promoted from private first class to sergeant during his time in captivity — is said to have become increasingly disillusioned with the war after a close friend was killed in Afghanistan.

Though the Obama administration has publicly embraced Bergdahl, one former comrade called on Facebook for him to be executed as a deserter, according to the New York Post.

Bergdahl spent his first night of freedom at the military hospital at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan before being flown to Germany.

He will return to the United States to the Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, reported the Christian Science Monitor.

The five Taliban prisoners released by the United States into the custody of Qatar were described by Sen. John McCain on Sunday as the "hardest of the hardcore." Human Rights Watch has pressed for one of them, Mohammed Fazl, to be prosecuted for war crimes for allegedly presiding over a mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.

"It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to re-enter the fight, and they are big, high-level people, possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands," McCain said on "Face the Nation."

The government of Qatar negotiated the deal for the prisoner exchange and is supposed to keep the five Taliban members from leaving the country for at least a year.

"I think the big issue here is what's going to happen to these five individuals," McCain said. "If they re-enter the fight, then it is going to put American lives at risk, and none of us want that to happen."



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bowe-Bergdahl-platoon-petition-Taliban/2014/06/02/id/574506#ixzz33VFyy8af


Source
.