The Gitmo for Bergdahl Swap: A Question of Why Now?

According to the President, securing the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been an ongoing process for five years.  That may well be the case.  But, it wasn't until about a year ago that the Taliban floated the idea of swapping five of the most highly valued and dangerous former Taliban leaders -- currently serving time at Gitmo -- in exchange for Bergdahl.  Apparently, the U.S. had resisted the swap until now.

Think about it.  A trade of one U.S. soldier -- one who might have actually been away-without-leave (AWOL) when taken -- in exchange for five of the highest valued Taliban prisoners we had under lock and key.  It doesn't make sense.  There are so many other higher valued "deals" we could have made in exchange for these particular prisoners.  Such as, perhaps helping to kick-start or solidify the peace process in Afghanistan. There has got to be a question as to why such a lopsided deal would have been made; and made at this particular time.

Call me a cynic when it comes to anything that the President does but, I really think the Gitmo5 deal was purely political.  In the past few weeks, Obama has been taking heat over the Veteran's treatment at the VA hospitals and his slowness to act in responding to that situation.  Then, there was the criticism--  by some in his own party and the usually liberal media -- over the tepidness of his speech at the West Point commencement ceremony where, even the cadets gave their Commander-In-Chief very lukewarm applause.  What better way to reverse an apparent "veteran" problem than to suddenly secure the release of one of their own?  This also helps to explain why Congress didn't get their lawfully-binding 30-day notice that prisoners were being transferred out of Gitmo.  That's because Obama needed the release now while the heat was still on over the VA scandal.  And, let's not forget that the President made sure that he could have speech time and a photo-op with Bergdahl's parents, as props, standing at his side.  See how caring he looks!

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part but, I think the timing of this deal stinks like a dead fish in the hot sun.

References:

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_print.html

Five of the Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/five-most-dangerous-taliban-commanders-us-custody-released-pow-exchange_794017.html

the Taliban floated the idea of exchanging U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-five-guantanamo_736892.html

U.S. Pays High Price To Free POW Bowe Bergdahl: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/31/us-pays-high-price-for-last-pow-in-afghanistan.html

Ominous Consumer Spending Problems In the First Quarter GDP Numbers?

According to some supposedly expert economists and the White House, the economy contracted by 1% in the first quarter of 2014 because of the severe weather in those three months.  Thus, keeping consumers huddled in their homes.  Not buying the things that would have otherwise driven the economy.

But, consumers didn't stop buying in the first quarter.  Spending was actually up 3.1%.  Albeit, this was down from what CNBC said was "brisk" spending of 3.3 percent in the previous quarter.  So, its a little hard to believe that the consumer was absent due to weather.

What the report does show is something that I warned about in a previous post,  Retailers Are Signalling Economic Woes For 2014.  Despite the fact that consumer spending was up, corporate profits declined by $213 billion dollars in the same quarter.  What these contradictory facts show is that the consumer is being forced to pay higher prices for essential items like food, clothing, energy, and, especially, healthcare; thus reducing the amount of discretionary spending that would have normally driven corporate profits.

Thus, the consumer is at a recessionary tipping point where he or she can't afford to buy the kind of items that would cause the economy to expand.  This is what happens when you have a combination of stagnated wages and soaring prices for essential items like food and energy.  That is why I believe that weather had nothing to do with the first quarter slowdown of the economy, and, that is why I also believe that the second quarter will also contract; thus sending us into recession.

References:

Frigid winter takes toll as US GDP contracts for first time in 3 years: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101713801

National Income and Product Accounts Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2014 (Second Estimate) Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Estimate): http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Food prices soar as incomes stand still: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-prices-soar-as-incomes-stand-still/

Electricity Price Index Soars to New Record at Start of 2014; U.S. Electricity Production Declining: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/electricity-price-index-soars-new-record-start-2014-us-electricity

Will ObamaCare Push Us Into Another Recession In 2014?: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/will-obamacare-push-us-into-another.html

On Climate Change: Obama Wants To Save A World That Doesn't Want To Be Saved

Next week, Obama plans to announce a slew of new EPA regulations that are intended to dramatically reduce carbon emissions; and, as promised, he is going it alone because Congress won't act.  As a result, every American is going to see their energy bills increase and products that heavily depend on electrical energy for their creation will begin to cost us more.  This at a time when we are in the midst of one of the worst economic recoveries in the history of the U.S..

What the President doesn't seem to understand is that, while we are cutting CO2 emissions, the rest of the world isn't.  Further, there is a complete disconnect from increased CO2 levels causing increased global warming. Proof of this comes from just four charts.

The first shows how dramatically the U.S. has cut its overall emissions despite not signing the Kyoto Treaty or implementing a Carbon Tax:

Those results are more significant when you look at CO2 emission on a per capita basis:

This chart shows that the current per-person footprint of the average American is equal to that of 1964; and, if the decline continues as projected, we should go below 1950's levels by 2040.

So, one would think that with all the CO2 reductions by the United States -- the country that uses 25% of all the world's oil -- there would be a significant drop in global levels.  But, that is simply not true.  Instead global CO2 emissions have continued to rise at a steady rate of about 2% per year:

The fact is that we are beating ourselves up trying to save the world from increasing CO2 levels when, in fact, the world doesn't seem to want to save itself.  For every ton of CO2 that we eliminate, the world just keeps adding additional tons that more than offset that gain. More importantly, despite the consistent rise in CO2 levels, the earth has stopped warming for the last 18 years.

The only reason Obama is rolling out these new restrictions is because this is his 5th year in office. He  needs his political base to come out in droves to vote in the fall. In his first two years in office, he could have easily done something because he had both Houses of Congress in his back pocket.  Yet, only now has he decided to act because our "mixed" Congress (a Congress of supposed inaction) is forcing him to go it alone.  I personally hope Americans come out in droves to throw the Democrats out of office and use a solidly Republican House and Senate as a hammer to stop this President and his lawless and economy killing actions.


References:

Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution: Proposed regulations could cut carbon pollution by up to 25%: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/29/obama-unveil-historic-climate-plan-carbon-pollution

No global warming for 17 years 8 months: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/

The Questionable Sincerity of Senators Calling For the Redskins Name Change

Recently, 49 Senators -- all Democrats -- signed a letter that was sent to the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell urging that the Washington Redskins football team change its name.  Not one Republican was even asked to sign that letter.  Thus, making it seem that "only" the Democrats are concerned that the name "Redskins" is is considered demeaning to Native Americans.

This change-the-Redskins-name demand has been around for years; but, only now, when it appears that the control of the Senate may shift over to the Republicans in the Fall, are the Senate Democrats suddenly concerned over Capitol Hill's local football team's name. I guess, along with the war on women, we are now somehow to believe that Republicans are also at war with Native Americans.

Somebody ought to tell these Senators that most people don't consider the name to be a slur and don't think it should be changed. Further, some tribes, themselves, call their football teams "Redskins."  A Navajo reservation high school in Arizona proudly wears this jersey when on the football field:

No football team in this country wants to go by a term that insults people.  Instead, they carefully choose names that suggest courage, and that demand physical respect, from their opponents.  Notre Dame doesn't seek to demean Irishmen by somehow implying they fight all the time.  Instead, the name implies that, when given a challenge, the Irish will fight to win. Similarly, I think, like a lot of Americans, the name "Redskins" implies strength and the ability to win when facing off against another team. For those reasons, the name could actually be considered a compliment; not hateful or racist as some would claim.

References:

Redskins say name 'respectful,' suggest Senate Dems don't have all the facts: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/24/redskins-president-calls-team-name-respectful-after-senators-urge-change/?intcmp=latestnews

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur?: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Red Mesa High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mesa_High_School

Russia's Foolish Attempts To Foil Our Space Program

On May 13, Dmitry Rogozin, the bureaucrat who leads Russia's defense industry, announced two retaliatory actions against the U.S. in response to the sanctions being placed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis.  First, Russia will no longer allow Americans to ride on their rockets in order to gain access to the International Space Station (ISS) after 2020.  Secondly, effective immediately, Russia will stop selling their RD-180 and NK-33 rocket engines to American companies which are currently being used to launch commercial and military satellites.

Certainly, this announcement seems to spell the end of our involvement in the International Space Station after 2020 because, since the ending of our Space Shuttle program in 2011, the U.S. has had no manned space capability.  This is a result of Obama killing Shuttle replacement as a budget cutting effort in 2010.  In actuality, America is scheduled to return to manned low-earth orbit missions in 2017 in a NASA program called Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

Unlike the original replacement program, which would have been fully NASA funded and controlled, the CCP is intended to be more of a civilian based system.   The program has two crew vehicles: a CST-100 capsule and the Dream Chaser space plane.  In terms of launch vehicles, both crew vehicles are capable of being launched by either the Atlas V, Delta IV, or the Falcon 9 rockets.  Of those, only the Atlas V rocket uses the embargoed Russian engines. Even so, the makers of Atlas V still have enough stockpiled Russian engines to keep that vehicle operating for another two years.  Beyond that, I am quite sure that the Atlas V will be retrofitted with U.S. made engines; once the Russian supplies are depleted.

In essence, Russia's attempts at retaliation are quite foolish.  My guess is that Putin cooked this whole thing up for public consumption in mother Russia.  This way, he is seen as a strong leader,  capable of taking strong actions against Obama and his sanctions.

References:

Russia casts doubt on US' future with the ISS over Ukraine sanctions: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/13/russia-casts-doubt-on-us-future-with-iss-over-ukraine-sanctions/

NASA's Commercial Crew Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

CST-100: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100

Dream Chaser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

ATLAS V Rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development

Guns and the Mental Health System that Jack Built

Following the recent Santa Barbara shooting rampage, many seem outraged that someone so mentally unstable could be able to buy a gun. In fact, the police visited his apartment over issues that could possibly be related to mental illness but did nothing about it.  That's because, in this country, someone must commit an actual crime in order to be held for mental observation. It wasn't always this way.

Prior to 1963, anyone suspected of having serious mental health issues could be held for observation against their will.  If found to be dangerous to either themselves or others, they would be institutionalized at any one of the numerous state-run mental facilities across the country.  Now with institutionalization, there were abuses.  Some people were improperly diagnosed and falsely held.  Others, while being treated, suffered physical abuse from hospital staff.  Then all those abuses were sensationalized in news stories, films, and documentaries.  So, in 1955, the Democrat-led Congress commissioned a study of  mental health treatment.  In 1961, the results of that study and recommendation's were submitted to both Congress and the then-President Jack Kennedy.  Just like ObamaCare, the recommendation was that the current system of treating mental illness should be scrapped and replaced with a Federally-mandated system. So, Kennedy, as part of his New Frontier initiative, urged his fellow Democrats, who controlled both Houses of Congress, to pass into law the Community Mental Health Act (CMHA).  The CMHA was ultimately passed and signed into law by  Kennedy in 1963.

What this law did was to completely change how the severely mentally ill were treated. First of all, it was supposed to create numerous Community Mental Health Centers so that patients could live and work in their communities while getting care at one of these centers.  Secondly, no longer could anyone be mandatorily institutionalized unless it was proven that they had actually done harm to themselves or someone else.

As a result of this law, 90% of all the existing state-run mental facilities were shuttered.  As for the Community Centers, only about 50% were built and, of those, many were severely understaffed; all for lack of Federal funding.  But, the biggest problem with the concept of community centers is the fact that many,  mental patients don't think their ill.  As a consequence, they won't voluntarily seek help or take medication.  That is one reason why we have so many homeless people living on our city streets.

So, when you hear Democrats calling for better mental health screening for people seeking to buy guns, they have only themselves to blame for the lack of that screening.  The Santa Barbara shooter definitely had mental issues because, as reported, he was being treated by multiple therapists for many years. So, somehow saying that our nation's police should have better recognized the problem and done something about it is simply a "cop" out.  However, if it was pre-1963, he probably would have been institutionalized; or, at least, categorized as someone who was dangerous to himself and others, and therefore not able to buy a gun.

This situation proves, just like ObamaCare, that the Federal government has no place being involved in healthcare.
 
References:

After Santa Barbara Killings, Questions About Police Dealing With Mental Health Issues: http://abcnews.go.com/News/santa-barbara-shooting-police-face-difficulty-working-mental/story?id=23864247

Community Mental Health Act of 1963:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act

"He was being treated by multiple therapists, according to the lawyer, and had been diagnosed as “a high-functioning patient with Asperger syndrome.”: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

The President's Plausible Deniablity Excuse Is Getting Quite Tiring

For decades, the CIA has practiced something called Plausible Deniability, whereby their operatives in the field are given just enough information to accomplish their mission. This way, if they were to be captured or interrogated, they could easily deny any knowledge of the broader reasons for their activities or who else might be involved.

Then, there's a tactic in business called "mushroom management."  In this case, employees are treated like mushrooms:  Kept in the dark and fed shit. The shit being little or no information or even misinformation so that management would be insulated from any potential whistle blowing or leaks regarding other secret activities.

When it comes to Obama's White House, it seems that the exact "inverse" of these two tactics is being practiced.  Whenever a scandal breaks, the President acts as if he's the last to know and as if he is the "operative" and, not the boss, but the employee who is being kept in the dark.

When the Veteran's Affairs (VA) scandal broke, Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said that the first Obama heard of the backlog was when CNN aired a report on April 23rd of this year.  This, despite the fact that he had given speeches, going all the way back to 2007, where he excoriated the poor conditions at VA hospitals. He also denied any prior knowledge of the NSA spying activities when that story broke.  Thus we got the excuse that the first he heard of it was when the press heard of it.  The same with "Fast and Furious" and the IRS scandals.  It's as if the President never gets a daily briefing. Or, if he does, he is being shielded from what's really going on so he always has the "plausible deniability" excuse.

If the President isn't getting briefed, it clearly shows his incompetence as a leader.  It reveals his failure to pick reliable and competent staff and cabinet members whose primary responsibility is to keep him apprised of important activities or problems. Then too, I could easily believe that he actually is being informed but, when things blow up, merely assumes that we are all so dumb that we will just believe and accept his Sgt. Schultz, "I-know-nothing" excuse.  Sadly, all too many "do" believe him.

References:

Definition: Plausible Deniability: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plausible%20deniability

Definition: Mushroom Management: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mushroom%20management

President Barack Obama first learned through news reports on CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/19/carney-president-first-learned-about-va-allegations-from-cnn-repor/

 Obama Administration Was Reportedly Warned in 2008 of VA’s Long Wait Times, Questionable Records: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/19/obama-administration-was-reportedly-warned-in-2008-of-vas-long-wait-times-questionable-records/

Obama 2007: It's Time To End The Deplorable Conditions At Some VA Hospitals: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/378322/obama-2007-time-end-deplorable-conditions-some-va-hospitals-jim-geraghty

 V.A. Accusations Aggravate Woes of White House: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/us/obama-faces-new-test-in-mismanagement-at-veterans-hospitals.html