“Even casual observers of the international situation would be aware of the conflict between Sunni and Shiite communities in Iraq. But what has achieved less prominence in the national and international media is the fate of other Iraqi minorities: Assyrians, Chaldeans and Mandaeans.

Mandaeans, followers of John the Baptist, have non-violence as one of the tenets of their religion. Any form of violence, even in self-defence, is forbidden. They have thus been particularly vulnerable to attack. The much more numerous Assyrians and Chaldeans have also suffered significantly. This group are descendants of the ancient Assyrian empire, but no longer have a nation state to call their own. They predominantly live in Iraq’s north and are Christians.

It is hard to pinpoint the numbers of these minorities in Iraq. However, credible estimates put Assyrians and Chaldeans as 4 per cent of the population of Iraq, while they have constituted 40 per cent of the refugees leaving Iraq. Jordan and Syria have 2 million Iraqi refugees living within their borders, and they are not allowed to work. They live, by and large, in squalor, and they often rely on their children to bring in a little income. Thousands of children are being turned to crime to support their family.

It is estimated that there were 1.5 million Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq before the war; 600,000 are left, at most. Two thousand Assyrians and Chaldeans are still leaving Iraq every day. Churches have been bombed, priests and bishops kidnapped and murdered. Hundreds of thousands of Assyrian and Chaldean refugees live in desperate circumstances in Syria and Jordan. It is simply too dangerous for them to return.

There are of course, many millions of people from different groups around the world who face diabolical human rights and humanitarian catastrophes, all of whom deserve greater attention. However, in all the public debate about Iraq over recent years the Assyrian and Chaldean minorities have received scant attention from both governments and the media. Their plight is one of the untold stories of the narrative of post-Saddam Iraq. Their situation as minorities in Iraq has substantially worsened since the war.

As others have pointed out, the exodus of refugees from Iraq has been greater than that after the Vietnam War. But because the exodus has occurred quietly and to other Middle Eastern countries, as opposed to by boat, the crisis has become largely invisible. There is no monopoly of suffering in Iraq. But the suffering of these minorities has received scant international attention.

Of course, as a relatively small country on the other side of the world we are limited in what we can do to help. However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, has recently met two delegations of Assyrians and Chaldeans to discuss what more can be done, and he raised the issue with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq on his visit last month.

More here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don’t forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

In one of the most ridiculous examples of unbridled hyperbole, Reuters has decided that singer Bruce Springsteen is the one responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall and ending the Cold War. Yes, that’s Bruce “Scorn in the USA” Springsteen, one of the most anti-American rockers on the scene. I know what you’re thinking, “But what about Ronald Reagan?” Forget it, man, it’s Bruce all the way as far as Reuters is concerned. Maybe it was his gravely warbling that Joshua-like brought those walls tumblin’ down, maybe his caterwauling is what turned the trick, but, quite despite any common sense and in a childishly, foolish and overly simplistic review of history, Reuters is sure that Bruce is the hero of Berlin. It is a great example of reductio ad absurdo if there ever was one, not that Reuters is aware of it.

This Reuters piece is so filled with nonsense, so blind to all the complicated political and social influences that really ended the Cold War, that it is hard to know where to start reviewing it. I can but shake my head at its simple minded analysis.

Seriously. Reuters really means it. Oh, don’t confuse them with all that economic and political history gobbledegook. It was one concert that ended a generation of communist oppression not the might of the US and its president determined to destroy the “evil empire.” It was “Thunder Road” and “Born to Run” sung in that less then melodic Springsteen style that brought the end to the Cold War.

From the title onward, a half sentient review of history prevails.

“Did Bruce help bring down the Berlin Wall?,” the headline asks, with the subhead helpfully telling us that yes is the answer. “His comments at 1988 concert helped fed East Germans’ discontent,” Reuters earnestly informs us.

See, here is the thing, maybe Bruce’s little concert did momentarily add to the zeitgeist of the times, but it had little to do with the final conclusions arrived at. There was no causality. Zip. Nada. In fact, the eventual outcome had already been set in motion before this screeching rocker ever took to the stage.

Just look at the revisionism in this absurd story:

But now — 20 years after the American rock star went behind the Iron Curtain — organizers, historians and people who witnessed it say his message came at a critical juncture in German history in the run-up to the Wall’s collapse.

Please, spare us this idiocy.

And look at the puffery they lend to Springsteen.

Springsteen, an influential songwriter and singer whose lyrics are often about people struggling, got permission at long last to perform in East Berlin in 1988.

“Influential” in what way, exactly, Reuters does not say.

All the wild claims of how “important” was the 1988 Springsteen concert in East Berlin aside, there really is one small, almost unnoticeable thing in this story that speaks as to what Bruce Springsteen really is. Tucked into this story are two references that tells us why, exactly, the oppressive East German commies thought that it was a good idea to have Bruce Springsteen come to their benighted city. It was his anti-American political positions.

In two sentences we get the gist of how the East German authorities saw this singer.

Even though his songs are full of emotion and politics, East Germany had welcomed him as a “hero of the working class.” The Communists may have unwittingly created an evening that did more to change East Germany than Woodstock did to the United States.

And…

Dietrich, 63, said Communist party hopes that a small taste of Springsteen might pacify youths backfired. There was even a positive advance review in the Neues Deutschland daily: “He attacks social wrongs and injustices in his homeland.”

In other words, the reason the East German commies thought his appearance might not be such a bad thing is because they felt Springsteen SHARED their principles. They thought they were welcoming a compatriot to their city.

And one of the things Springsteen is reported as having said on stage that night could be construed to show that the East German commies were right.

“I want to tell you I’m not here for or against any government,” Springsteen said, as he pointedly introduced his rendition of the Bob Dylan ballad “Chimes of Freedom.”

He isn’t “for or against any government?” He didn’t stand against a police state that shot its own citizens just because they wanted to visit another, neighboring country? Bruce wasn’t against a state that arrested people, tortured and imprisoned them with no recourse to due process of law? Springsteen wasn’t against a country that nearly starved its people to death?

No wonder the East German commies didn’t think a Bruce Springsteen concert would threaten their iron grip on the state. They thought he was one of them!

There is so much balderdash in this Reuters piece that I just can’t get to each morsel of its blather here. All I can say is that this thing has to be read in its entirety to be believed. Only a full read can make one appreciate the total ignorance of real history and the wild puffery of a self-loathing, over rated singer such as Bruce Springsteen.

(Photo credit: msn.com)

**UPDATE of monumental import**

Stop the presses. It looks like Reuters was behind the curve in assigning the end of the Cold War to a simple songster. The BBC beat Reuters to the punch in 2004 by finding that it was really David Hasselhoff what took down that wall!

Yes, the Hoff, the Hoffenstein, the Hoffmeister, if you will, was really the triumphant Cold Warrior cum warbler.

Did David Hasselhoff really help end the Cold War?

Baywatch star David Hasselhoff is griping that his role in reuniting East and West Germany has been overlooked. So what part, if any, did the hunk in trunks play in ending the Cold War?

Barely a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the city that had been divided by politics for more than 40 years was united in song…

…You’ve just GOT to read the rest of this one.

Unions have been decrying outsourcing for years. The word “outsourcing” has been used as a boogieman to blame declining union jobs upon for the last decade. Unions, for their part, claim to desire to stand up against outsourcing — especially that of outsourcing jobs overseas — and wish to push the home grown alternatives to outsourcing jobs, namely keeping them in the country and under the control of the union.

Yet what have we discovered here on the blog? Why that the nation’s largest union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has outsourced the design of one of their own web pages to someone in Slovakia, that’s what.

We’ve waited to report this story because the webpage in question presented a time sensitive situation. The SEIU was trying to create what they were calling the “Take Back the Economy Day” and that day was to be July 17th. The SEIU hoped to spur people to “take aim at the special perks and tax loopholes that buyout firms depend on to get rich,” and get people involved to protest the success of “buyout firms” such as Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts.

Well, July 17th has passed us by and we here on the blog are not in danger of accidentally advertising their event in time to assist anyone in joining their July 17th effort.

That being said, here is what we found not long ago. The original SEIU webpage looked quite a bit different than the one that graced the web during the several days before their July 17th kick off day. The major overhaul was interesting in the respect of where the design of the page had come from.

It appears that the original page was designed by a fellow named Milan Kohut who’s business of web design is based in Slovakia, a small Eastern European nation (Near Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic).

But, on July 6th, only a short time before the July 17th event deadline, the SEIU suddenly undertook a major overhaul of the webpage design. Gone was the outsourced work and in was one hosted from here in the USA.

The constant griping about outsourcing by unions is common, as mentioned. But here we had one of the largest unions in the nation outsourcing their web design? Was it so hard to find an American web designer to have created their pages? And why the sudden overhaul eliminating the Slovakian designer’s work?

Curiouser and curiouser, eh?

The EPA is looking to expand its powers even more thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is about to meddle ever more in our national economic health with its claimed “fixes” to the non-existent “problem” of global warming.

But, we citizens have a chance to have our say. The EPA has opened up to public comments on their latest power grab. I urge each of you to email your insistence that the EPA lay off our economy with their anti-capitalist notions of fixing the non-existent problem of global warming.

We only have 120 days to make our comments so get this to EVERYONE you know. To email a comment use this address: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

And be sure and put in the subject line of the e-mail the following information:

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318

Here is some of the info on the government website:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment from all interested parties on options and questions to be considered for possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. EPA is issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to gather information and determine how to proceed.

The Advance Notice

The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency’s legal obligations in a timely manner.

Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR:

• Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions;
• How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants;
• Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and,
• Scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR for 120 days following its publication in the Federal Register.

Background

In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles – an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.

To view the five technical supporting documents in the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov. The document titles are:

1. Technical Support Document - Benefits
2. Technical Support Document - Stationary Source
3. Draft Technical Support Document - Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
4. Technical Support Document - Section 202 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5. Vehicle Technical Support Document - Mobile Source

Email them right away.

In a surprise appearance at Netroots Nation — which apparently was the worst-kept secret in Austin, Texas — former Vice President Al Gore followed up a speech by Nancy Pelosi by laying out a narrative on climate change and the energy crisis that seems ready-made for the Obama campaign to download

Ah. One loser who couldn’t carry his own home state followed by another who has set records for low Congressional approval.

“The defenders of the status quo are the ones who have dug us into this hole,” he said, commenting that Americans have been “so often fooled into finding a remedy for a problem” that has nothing to do with the problem at hand — pointing to the invasion of Iraq when America was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as an example.

Say, Al, I know you are a bit busy running around the world to exotic vacation spots like Bali, and cruising in your private jets and luxury sedans and SUVs, but, you do know that we went in to Afghanistan, right? Or, are you just a sore loser? But, hey, building a coalition of grassroots activists will surely solve the energy problems we face, what with them sitting around and chanting, you know.

Remember this report from late June? Global warming linked to terrorism

Global warming probably will mean more illegal immigration and humanitarian disasters, undermining shaky governments and possibly expanding the terrorism threat against the US, intelligence agencies say.

“Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated (by climate change) would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism,” said Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis. Fingar said the intelligence agencies have only low to moderate confidence in the assessment because climate data tend to focus broad global changes instead of specific countries.

Well, Fingar was right

Green campaigners are being blamed for vandalising a number of 4×4 cars in Marston, Oxford, on Thursday night. The owners of six vehicles found that tyres had been let down and warning letters plastered to the windscreens.

‘Driving an SUV is an unacceptably selfish act in the face of this global emergency,’ the notes state. ‘Your destructive vehicle and scores of others across Oxford have been disabled as part of a wider struggle to avert a global emergency.’

And they wonder why environmentalists are not taken seriously. On one end of the spectrum you have people like Al Gore who extol a lifestyle that must be lived otherwise the Earth WILL END!!!!!!!!!, yet is one of the worst offenders. At the other end, we have violent wackjobs. And both pretty much want the same thing.

Say, I wonder if we can direct the little vandalisers over to Al’s house?

Cross posted at Pirate’s Cove

Cross posted from Radarsite with a special preface for my friends at Stop The ACLU. Although this essay was originally written for my Radarsite readers, I feel that it’s message is equally appropriate here at STACLU. I hope you agree.- rg
A note from Radarsite:
Warning: The following article is unfair and unbalanced.
If you are looking for a gentlemanly debate on the morality of America, or on the moral justification of American national or foreign policy you should probably stop right here. There are a great number of sites out there that will be more than happy to accommodate you. But this isn’t one of them.

Our mission here is simple, clear and unequivocal: we support our great nation. This means that whatever we do here on these pages is done to promote the cause of American victory in this great Clash of Civilizations which we call the Global War on Terror. We love our country. We do not devote all of our talents and energies seeking to undermine her credibility. We do not seek to discredit, dishonor or embarrass her. We will do everything in our power to honor and strengthen her.

Our obvious enemies, the blood-soaked Islamists, the relentless Communists, and this world’s brutal petty potentates are generally clear and open in their statements of hatred; there is little that is ambiguous about their opinions of us, or their intentions toward us. Their mission, too, is simple, clear and unequivocal: they wish to destroy us or subjugate us.

But we have other, perhaps even more dangerous enemies, enemies who live amongst us; indeed they are us. They are that part of us who hates us. They are the Treacherous Patriots. You know who they are. They are our friendly next door neighbors and our good-hearted relatives, they are our children’s school teacher or perhaps the young girl at the supermarket checkout counter. Above all, they will tell you, they are all patriotic Americans, loyal Americans who sincerely believe that somehow by burning our flag they will save our country. They eagerly remind us daily of our supposed misdeeds, our long, self-centered, ruthless history of oppression of the weak and powerless of this world. They love America so much that they are willing to see us defeated in order to change our misbegotten ways. They thoroughly believe in their mission, too; they thoroughly believe that they know better. You see, they have the inside scoop. They’ve read the articles and listened to their professors. They watch tv and they know the score. They will not be misled by war-mongering racists or xenophobic right-wing Christian zealots.

To support their bleak assessment of America they patiently sift through the detritus of our shameful history, searching for the incontrovertible evidence of our manifest crimes. They are convinced that the only way to heal these grievous self-inflicted wounds is to heed the admonishments of our enemies. We must, they say, be willing to learn from our adversaries, and, most importantly, we must be willing to learn from our own past mistakes. That great long litany of dreadful mistakes which comprise the awful history or this flawed nation. We must learn from the unmitigated and unnecessary horrors of our Hiroshimas and Nagasakis, from our murderous Vietnams and Kent States. We must learn from our horrific ethnic cleansing of our noble Native Americans and the brutal enslavement and continuing subjugation of our down-trodden African-Americans.

Perhaps, they are willing to concede, we were noble once, perhaps long ago, but not lately. Certainly not now. Whatever we started out to be, somewhere along the way we lost our bearings and now we have become the enemy of the world. The oppressor of mankind. The Great Satan.

They are proud of their enlightenment and eager to share it with us. Here is one of them now:

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?

So, there you have it. The voice of the Treacherous Patriot. This is their grave message to America: You were wrong when you woke up in the morning, and it’s been going downhill since then. Not quite hopeless, though, not quite yet. There’s still time to change our ways, still time to heed their dire warnings. There’s still November. There’s still that Change we can believe in.

I don’t know about you, but I cannot, I will not tolerate this pompous and ignorant bulls**t any longer. I will ignore it, I will delete it, but I will not debate it. I will no longer just agree to disagree with them. I will no longer allow these saboteurs a place at my table. This is the enemy within. This is the deliberate and shameless perfidy of the Treacherous Patriot.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel. …

Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.

“We’ll put all things on the table,” Oberstar said, but the gas tax “is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.”

It seems the State Department is selling calenders that feature “the mosques of America.” If the State Department sold a calender of the “Churches of America” how fast do you think the ACLU would be up in their grill about the mythical separation clause? Faster than the French surrendering is my guess.

Go read the Gates of Vienna (which is always a great read anyway) and let your mind boggle at the hypocrisy of our favorite group of Anti-American Communist Lawyers outside of the Kremlin.

That is all.