Well, the first thing I want to say is that I am glad my wife-to-be and I are not going to Bermuda.

The second thing I want to say is, this is just another example of incompetence from the Obama administration, as their desire to give Gitmo prisoners freedom and luxurious vacation blinded them tno some standard diplomatic protocol.

Senior aides to President Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the UK being informed, it was revealed yesterday.

In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a “special relationship”, with barely disguised contempt.

One senior official said: “The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally.”

Perhaps one of Obama’s defenders here can explain how this improves our image in the world?

Jennifer Rubin answers:

…let’s be clear: ranting about Jewish control of the U.S. has been largely the role of the Left as of late. It doesn’t make good New York Times copy to point out that the carping about the Jewish Lobby comes from Harvard professors and Leftwing bloggers. It wasn’t Rush Limbaugh or Fox commentators who said during the campaign that John McCain “surrounded himself with, and [was] funded by Jewish neoconservatives”; such rhetoric came from “respectable” Left and Center-Left publications. Do I think those people are responsible for the Holocaust Museum shooting? No. But the heart of this issue is whether there are those who slowly, bit by bit, make anti-Semitism more acceptable and, therefore, more popular. On that score, the answer is sadly yes.

You liberals out there are in grave error about a lot of things, but one of the main things you get wrong is just where anti-Semitism comes from. I know, you’ve been taught that Christianity was inherently anti-Semitic and that conservatism is anti-Semitic and that Hitler was merely an outgrowth of conservative, Christian views…but the basic race theories of Adolf Hitler were generated by Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a renegade Englishman, decades before anyone ever heard of Hitler. And one may call Chamberlain what one will, but “Christian” and “conservative” don’t apply. This is not to say that Christians and conservatives cannot be infected with such a disease as anti-Semitism – it is to say that anyone can fall for such things because human beings, as has been seen since the Beginning, are susceptible to lies.

The problem, for the left as a whole, is that lies tend to build on lies – its one thing to say “well, those Zionists were wrong”, quite another to say “Zionism is racism”…there are a whole bunch of lies which have to be piled on top of each other to get from the former to the latter. Starting from the lie that the problem of the Middle East was Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, the left has had one lie after another regarding Israel and the Moslems piled up until, now, the left is functionally anti-Semitic and is rapidly degenerating towards the most virulent, pogrom-inspiring form of anti-Semitism. Liberals are still congratulating themselves for being so tolerant of different people but, meanwhile, they are only a step away from excusing Holocaust II.

The saddest part about this is the continuing failure of the majority of Jews to see their peril. Not the first time this has happened, of course – most Jews in Germany failed to understand where anti-Semitism was leading even when Hitler was just a small-time fanatic disturbing the peace in Munich, let alone when he actually came to power. But human things don’t just happen. Earthquakes happen. Hurricanes happen. People develop. The key for anyone who wishes to prevent evil is to recognize where on the path we are and what we should do to get off it, if disaster is on the horizon. The majority of Jews – and especially American Jews – seem more interested in nursing grudges from a century or more ago rather than realizing that they’ve made a wrong turning. Just because someone says he’s tolerant doesn’t mean he is.

Freedom is a duty:

When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society. – John Paul II

Michael Totten keeps up the excellent run down on the Iranian situation – including the encouraging report that the regular Army is staying out of it…but the Mullahs have forces (Revolutionary Guards, foreign thugs, etc) to keep the people down. Bottom line, unless at least some of the Army goes over to the people, the Iranian regime will gain control of the situation. Here is a heart-rending quote:

One comment from a reader claiming to be in Tehran struck us all today. A translation follows:

“I am in Tehran. Its 3:40 in the morning. I’ve connected with you [by hacking past the government filter]. It’s a big mess here. People are yelling from their houses – ‘death to the dictator.’ They are setting up a military government. No one dares to go out. No one has seen Mousavi today. Rumor has it that they have arrested him. I don’t have an email but I will contact you again.

Help us.”

The comment begs a critical question: How do we help the Iranian people during this tumultuous time?

How, indeed? By promising the Army that we’ll provide whatever is needed if they’ll overthrow the current Iranian regime and allow a genuine poll of the Iranian people to select a new government. Will Obama do it? I doubt it – he’ll still be wondering just when he should start “engaging” again…and a supreme opportunity in the War on Terror will pass us by.

This will certainly spark a great deal of debate:

Vatican City, Jun 14, 2009 / 07:28 am (CNA).- On Saturday Pope Benedict XVI explained that his upcoming encyclical will not be a massive criticism deeming the market economy to be responsible for the current global financial crisis. Rather, it will be a presentation of the values that have to be “promoted and defended tirelessly” to achieve “human coexistence in freedom and solidarity.”

Pope Benedict made his comments while receiving participants in the international congress “Values and news for a new model of development,” organized by the Vatican Foundation “Centesimus Annus.”

The foundation was named after the last social encyclical of Pope John Paul II.

In his brief message, Pope Benedict revealed that his upcoming encyclical “Veritas in Caritate,” expected for June 29, will be dedicated to “the extensive issue of the economy and labor.”

“The financial crisis that has hit the most developed countries and the emerging economies as well as the underdeveloped countries shows in a very evident manner how much it is needed to rethink some of the economic-financial paradigms that have been predominant in the last years,” the Pope said.

Attentive readers will realize that capitalism, as a thing, has been on the skids with me of late – actually, for about four or five years. Its not that there’s anything better than the free market but that there is something wrong with people making billions of dollars without producing any goods for the free market. If what we’re doing is just moving money around in a game of economic roulette, then I want no part of it. Always keep in mind, however, that given a choice between Big Government and Big Corporation, I’ll side with Big Corporation…better a dozen idiotically run corporate behemoths than one hideously bad government run behemoth. Freedom is the key for me – if it allows for freedom in the market, it is good; if it doesn’t, it is bad. A “general store” is a good thing; a “general motors”, is a bad thing.

Our liberal friends get it wrong because, of course, they are using 19th century solutions (warmed-over Marxism, that is) designed to fix 18th century problems (most notably the transition from a feudal to a free market) – coupled with this is an insensate desire to have everything come out just-so and, viola!, we’ve got people thinking that a few bureaucrats in DC should manage our health care. What is needed is not the substitution of dimwitted empire-building bureaucrats for venal corporate apparatchiks – what is needed is for people to be allowed to make their own living as far as possible without let or hindrance from any one else, or at least from any large institution. To nutshell it – as Chesterton said, the problem with Capitalism isn’t isn’t too many Capitalists, but too few. We need to have economic power descend down to the lowest level possible. I work for a corporation ultimately headquartered 6,000 miles away from my office…how in heck is that person 6,000 miles away to have even the faintest notion what I’m doing, or what is best for me to do? I’d do better – and the world would do better – if the decisions effecting me were made by me, or at most by a person one or two steps above me. So, too, with all else in the world.

I think what got me working towards this view was the social security debate – the realization came that the government was taking from me the wherewithal I needed in order to be, at least at some point, financially independent of both corporate and government America. I didn’t like working for a corporation (still don’t) and I sure as heck don’t want to wait until I’m 67 for permission from the government to retire. Suppose I were to work hard, save my money, invest it wisely and build up a sufficient nest egg by 55 that I could tell both corporation and government to go jump in a lake? I’ll do what I wish at that point, thanks very much – heck, I might even decide to work until I’m 90…but it will be because I want to, not because I need to…and I won’t quick working because its time for me to get a monthly check from my government masters.

The true test of an economic activity is if it increases the wealth of society – if it doesn’t increase the amount of wealth, then it should be discouraged; if it does, then even if you have to subsidize it out of the public coffers, that is better than leaving it left undone. Quick examples: suing people over car accidents doesn’t increase societal wealth; starting up a landscaping service does – more important, then, to society, is landscapers while less important, lawyers. We should be encouraging people to get into landscaping, discouraging people from getting into law. Plumber, good. CPA, bad. Steel manufacturer, good. Community organizer, bad. Farmer, good. DMV employee, bad (yeah, I know that, as individuals, they are fine people – but, come on, do we really need that many people to register cars even when the ownership doesn’t change in a particular year?).

The reason that increasing wealth is good, and should be encouraged, is because it means there will be, year by year, fewer people in poverty and for those who remain in poverty, more resources to assist them. In point of fact, anything which tends to be a dead weight on wealth creation tends towards the immoral because it keeps more people in poverty and lessens the resources available to help them. Every time someone gets in to a car accident and believes he’s won the lottery and deserves a large insurance settlement, that person (and his lawyer) are stealing food out of the mouths of the poor, in a sense.

I don’t know what the Pope’s encyclical will exactly say, but I’ll bet it will be along the lines of the necessity of economic activity having a positive moral benefit to society. It should provide wealth, health, contentment – if it doesn’t, then not only should it not be done, but it should be positively discouraged. In light of such a desired outcome, I can’t think of any argument against devolution of power down to the lowest level possible – political power and economic power. If we allow people to do, they will do – hem them in with a thousand restrictions and they’ll do that much less, and demand that much more, because they can’t get it on their own. Down with Big Government, down with Big Corporation – up with people, the dignity of work, the honor of independence, the responsibility of liberty.

With the grim backdrop of the events in Iran, Netanyahu lays out his position:

…he came to the headline-making crux of his speech, his statement of what he, as prime minister and longtime right-wing leader, would be willing to accept if the Palestinians were to live up to his demands on them.

“In our vision,” he said, tensely and grimly, “we see two states side by side, each with its own flag and anthem. … We must make sure that the Palestinians cannot create an army. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without receiving guarantees that it will be demilitarized. We ask the international community for an express commitment that the Palestinian state’s area will be demilitarized with effective measures — not like the ones in Gaza.”

Having then made that historic concession — first and foremost, to Obama — Netanyahu turned to the other bone of contention with the U.S. administration: the settlements.

Here — apart from the considerable ground Israel has already given in recent years — he gave no further ground, stating: “We do not intend to build new communities or expropriate land. But fathers and mothers in Judea and Samaria must have the possibility to let their children live beside them. The settlers are not enemies of the people; they are a pioneering, Zionist, values-oriented public. They are our brothers and sisters.” A direct rebuff, then, to the U.S. administration’s repeated calls for an end to “natural growth,” its implicit characterization of Jewish life — and procreation — in Judea and Samaria as near-criminal.

And that is a large concession, the allowance for a Palestinian State; as the linked article goes on to note, the mere utterance of those words is causing Netanyahu trouble in his political coalition. I think he’ll be able to ride the storm because any alternate government in Israel would be less firm than Netanyahu, but the fact remains that Netanyahu went a long way towards Obama’s position. And now it is the Palestinian’s turn.

The key to peace in Israel is for the Palestinians to have leaders who do not make their living by fanning hatred of Israel as a cover for their brutal and corrupt rule. This is the bare bones truth – its not about religion or 1947 or incursions in to Gaza or Israeli communities outside Israel’s 1967 borders…it is about the determination of a small clique in the Palestinian community to rule the roost unchallenged. The sooner we stop thinking that the goons in charge of Gaza are other than a heavily armed mafia, the quicker we’ll arrive at a solution. They must stop – there must be a cessation of any attempts to use hatred of Israel and/or Jews as a means of cementing the control of a few thugs.

To me, it comes down to the Palestinians turning out their leadership or us carving out a new territory for them in parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel deserves peace. Israel has gone far to secure peace. There’s not much more Israel can do outside of the fact that Netanyahu has agreed, in principle, that one part of his nation will be only 9 miles wide with sworn enemies on the other side of the border. Imagine us being willing to make peace by having Washington, DC three quarters surrounded by enemies and those enemies only 9 miles away from the most vital part of the United States – that is the sort of concession Israel has given. Now its time for the Palestinians to do their part.

The liberal fascists are at it, again:

In an echo of tactics employed against true marriage supporters in California and elsewhere, a Washington state homosexualist website is threatening to publish the names and addresses of individuals signing a referendum to overturn a new homosexual civil unions law.

The tactic centers around efforts by Protect Marriage Washington to gather signatures for Referendum 71, which would bring into voter’s hands a newly-passed law that grants all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, minus the name. The group has until July 25 to collect 120,000 signatures supporting the ballot initiative.

WhoSigned.org, which has teamed with KnowThyNeighbor.org, vows to create a searchable database of the names of all Referendum 71 signers, along with the amount they gave and their place of employment. It is unclear whether their home addresses will also be published. The latter website has supported similar projects in Oregon, Florida and Arkansas.

Murphy says the purpose of exposing the names is to foster “conversation” between the opposing groups.

“We believe the process for initiative and referendum petitions that maintain discrimination by opposing equal rights and protections for Washington State residents must meet a high standard of transparency to ensure a fair and open discussion in the public forum,” wrote Brian Murphy, the creator of WhoSigned.org.

Murphy explained to the Seattle Post Intelligencer: “We hope when they find names of people who are familiar to them, that when at the grocery store or the soccer field or just mowing their lawn, that’s a chance to have a conversation.

“If you want to sign (Referendum 71), you have the right to sign that, but be aware there are probably people who live near you, people you know, who would want to come and talk to you about what that means to them.”

Which is, of course, a lie – what Murphy wants is to intimidate people into not signing, so that there won’t be a democratic vote on the issue, because Murphy knows his side will probably lose. Who would go to such a website to see if their neighbors signed? Only fanatics who want to do something nasty – and as everyone can easily see that is who would avail themselves of the website, the easy way out is just to not sign…especially if you’ve got kids you don’t want exposed to hatred, or property you don’t want exposed to vandalism.

This is a very insidious act and it will be very difficult to combat – the people who do this sort of disgusting deed need not expose themselves. Murphy can be sued if anything bad happens, but he’d be the last person to suffer such a fate…all other future attempts will be done anonymously, if any action is taken against the people who set this up. We can, perhaps, change laws to forbid the release of signature names for a number of year after being gathered – but activists within government would probably leak them, anyway.

It is in our anonymity that our democratic system works – we don’t have secret ballots just for the heck of it, ya know? They’re secret precisely to prevent such intimidation. We need to work out a way to make signing a petition as secret as voting – perhaps we can have petitions placed in voting booths and registered voters can sign or not sign anonymously? It needs thought, because we can’t allow liberal fascists to get away with this sort of thing.

Its hard to do, but it must be done:

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”

He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” – Matthew 22:36-40

In the olden days, it was good to be the king – you could pretty much do what you liked. In today’s world, we’ve done away with that sort of thing but there are still ways mini-kings in the United States Senate can have some fun:

As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The Illinois senator’s 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway’s Class B stock, the disclosure shows…

Naturally, Durbin’s spokesman says it was all just a coincidence – it just so happened that Durbin decided to sell out right after receiving a briefing, but its not like what he learned at the briefing helped Durbin make the decision. I mean, that would be absurd – that would be an example of a liberal Democrat being a crook, and we know – ’cause our liberal Democrats say so – that saintly liberals who fight for the little guy never do things like that. We must remain vigilant in these matters to ensure that no one takes a liberal Democrat the wrong way – of course, if anyone out there has heard of a Republican doing this, please inform the FBI as we’ll have to criminally prosecute him, and anyone he’s ever been connected with.

With the increasing temperature in what is, so far, a war of words, the point has now been reached for a vigorous, US-led diplomatic effort to defuse this crisis before it gets out of hand. The trouble is, in the Obama Administration there isn’t the foggiest notion of what constitutes diplomacy.

To Obama and his Democrats, “diplomacy” means “talk, sign agreement, obtain Nobel Peace Prize” – the trouble is that regimes like that of North Korea will talk for ever and sign whatever agreement you like…but diplomacy is not about talking and coming to an agreement, but in obtaining the desired international result without resort to war. Our desire – our only true policy vis a vis North Korea – is to de-fang the regime and terminate its nuclear program. The art of diplomacy is figuring out what means will be necessary to achieve our desire.

There are various means possible for us to obtain our desire short of war:

1. Economic sanctions.

2. Blockade.

3. Special Forces decapitation of the North Korean regime.

4. Bribery.

5. Determine who can force change within North Korea, convince them we are serious.

Economic sanctions – the route the UN is going – is the least effective means as North Korea doesn’t have an economy in a lot of respects. Additionally, the NK regime is entirely uninterested in how much the people of NK suffer. As long as there is sufficient food to supply the security forces, the NK regime is ok with whatever else happens.

Blockade would be ineffective for the same reason economic sanctions – there’s not much to blockade, other than the export of nuclear weapons materials.

Decapitating the NK regime would be an effective means of ending the crisis – it would either cause the implosion of the NK regime or, at the least, force the successors to understand that their lives are at stake if they go too far in offending the United States. Trouble is, the NK regime appears very well protected against direct attack. There might not be an effective means of using our special forces.

Bribery is a worthwhile thing to think about – and it works in conjunction with all other possibilities. As in all tyrannical ruling classes, the upper echelon is addicted to luxury and special privileges. For a couple billion dollars, we might very well be able to buy our way out of the trouble, at least in part.

In my view, the best thing to do is to find out who can effect change within NK – it appears to me that China has a great deal of pull in NK and appears to like having a NK regime around to scare up trouble for the United States and Japan at a moment’s notice. I also get the distinct impression that China would not want to have a unified, democratic Korea on its border – just too much danger of people on the Chinese side of the border wondering why they can’t be free, too. If we can convince the Chinese to pressure the NK regime we might accomplish our goal without war.

The key to this is to state our demands, insist they are unalterable, and then set up a conference of all concerned parties in order thrash the matter out. As China and North Korea don’t want war, they will give in if we convince them we are serious – end the NK nuclear program, or we fight. If it turns out that China doesn’t have sufficient influence in NK, then we’ll find that out – and that would be worthwhile in and of itself because then, if China can’t convince and the NK regime refuses to yield then the way would be open at least for US air strikes in NK’s known nuclear sites, if it comes to that.

Will we get anything like a clear and courageous policy from Obama? I doubt it – he lacks the understanding of history, the world and the reality of the situation to even understand what he’s dealing with, let alone develope a cogent policy. More than likely, we’ll drift along and eventually have some sort of worthless deal, much ballyhooed in the MSM, that will temporarily put the issue on the back burner…until NK decides to roll the nuclear dice, again.