http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

Cliff Cunningham, Commentary Associate

commentary.associate@paxamericanainstitute.org

Iran’s central bank warned oil will rise above $150/barrel if sanctions against Iran are not lifted soon. –Wash.Times. http://bit.ly/dJqJ97

d

Latest Tweet by: WICONSERVATIVES

More impactful to the current situation in Libya is that of these fighters, 3.4% come from Misratah (aka Misrata), 23.9% from Benghazi and 60.2% from Darnah, all being current strongholds in the anti-Gadhafi rebellion.

As reported, Gadhafi himself has recognized the dangers of the city of Darnah as being a hotbed for Al-Qaida and has tried to convince the world AQ is the reason for the uprisings against him.  The international community has rightly disregarded his assertion.  However, the facts derived from the Sinjar reports and West Point’s analysis are important to keep in mind as U.S., NATO and UN military operations continue and possibly grow in scope.

Dissimilar to the Egyptian rebellion, where Al-Qaida was absent in the movement and had little to no foothold in the country, the United States and NATO allies must be cautious in the progression of their involvement in Libya with a known radical foothold.   With Gadhafi vowing a long, drawn out fight to the death, there will be significant differences in the ideology of the people fighting, and the longer fighting continues, the higher the possibility that AQ and other extremists with resources and weapons will gain influence when Gadhafi is out of power.

As the debate unfolds on whether or not to arm a large Islamic faction, about whom we know very little, the United State and her allies would do well to recall the lessons learned from arming rebels in a 1980’s Afghanistan.  Nothing is more important than foresight during operations like these.

This commentary and analysis was written by Michael Hopfersperger, Global Security Intern at PAI, and Drew Davis, Executive Director, PAI.  Reach the authors at global.security.intern@paxamericanainstitute.org and execdirector@paxamericanainstitute.org.

In light of his recent unilateral commitment of U.S. forces in the international military action against Muammar Gadhafi in Libya, the nation is left wondering how he plans to justify these acts, without contradicting his earlier comment. WHAT?!

Read Full Article Online.

Cliff Cunningham, Commentary Associate, Pax Americana Institute

commentary.associate@paxamericanainstitute.org

This special report identifies 55 clear violations of international law by the Islamic Republic of Iran:

hh

Nuclear Program/Proliferation Violations: 18

8 IAEA Resolutions,

6 UNSC Resolutions,

4 Treaties/Agreements;

hh
Crimes Against Humanity: 30

21 UNSC Resolutions,

3 Treaties,

6 G.A. Resolutions;

hh
Human Rights: 7

7 All Treaties/Agreements;

Each of the below cited conventions, treaties, resolutions, statutes, and agreements was examined individually, assuring reviewers that the sources and information are accurate and were not derived from corrupt or inaccurate online, print or television reports.  It should be noted this report does not evidence every violation of the cited conventions, treaties, resolutions, statutes, and agreements between 1948 and 2011, as entire books have been written on the collusion between the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. This report is intended to provide reviewers with a comprehensive framework with which to judge the actions and declarations of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

hh

Download SPECIAL REPORT: Iran’s Violations of International Law 03-2011

hh

Executive Summary

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the relationship between the United States and Iran has transformed from staunch allies to intractable opponents.  Today, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and blatant violations of human rights constitute some of the most complex and pressing challenges facing the United States.  This problem is exacerbated by growing pessimism about whether the international community’s diplomatic efforts can compel Iran to comply with its obligations under international law.

This report draws on diverse branches of substantive international law and shows that Iran is in violation of over 50 international laws.  While diplomacy has failed to gain traction, Iran continues to blatantly violate the rights of its citizens, support international terrorism, and advance its nuclear program to the point where it is now well within striking distance of having a nuclear weapon.  Clearly, Iran’s violations of international law pose a grave and pressing threat to the United States and the international community as a whole.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

As a non-nuclear state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran owes a legal duty to the international community to refrain from manufacturing and acquiring nuclear weapons.  These obligations are interpreted by the NPT’s enforcement agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to also require states to provide credible assurance regarding non-diversion of nuclear material and the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

Iran’s systematic violations of the NPT are well documented.  Despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran’s nuclear work is not consistent with any other application than the development of a nuclear weapon.  Iran continues to conceal its nuclear program and conduct enrichment-related activities, in violation of the NPT, the IAEA Safeguards Agreement, all subsequent IAEA Safeguards Resolutions, and numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Crimes Against Humanity

Iran’s incitements to commit genocide are not only preludes to tragedy, but are crimes in themselves under international law.  Pursuant to the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention, and the Rome Statute of the ICC, Iran has a legal duty to refrain from the threat of genocide or force against members of a group or the political integrity of any other state.  Iran’s public call for Israel to “wiped off the map” is a state-sanctioned call to genocide that threatens the territorial integrity of Israel and contravenes its obligations under international law.

Iran has also violated numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to the state-sponsorship of terrorism.  At least thirteen Resolutions have reaffirmed the obligation of Member States to deny all forms of support to terrorists and those supporting terrorism.  As this report will detail, there is compelling evidence that Iran provides training, financial support, and arms shipments to terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  This is in clear violation of the Security Council resolutions and poses a serious threat to international security.

Human Rights

As a party to several human rights treaties and as a Member State of the United Nations, Iran is legally obligated to protect the civil, political and religious rights of its citizens.  Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran has been involved in large-scale abuses of human rights, including systematic persecution of religious minorities and severe restrictions on the freedoms of expression and assembly.  This report will detail the failure of Iran to comply with numerous international covenants to which it is a signatory.

Iran in Iraq

Iran’s Qods Force, a wing of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, provides funding, training, weapons and other lethal support to Iraqi militant groups that target Coalition and Iraqi forces.  Despite President Ahmadinejad’s pledge to cut off such support, the United States Department of Defense continues to assert that there has been no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal militias in Iraq.

Iran’s support of Iraqi militant groups is contrary to six United Nations General Assembly Declarations and thirteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions which prohibit all Member States from using force against the political independence of any other state and impose the duty upon all Member States to refrain from supporting terrorist activities.  Iran’s failure to comply with these obligations remains a significant impediment to stabilizing Iraq.

Unrest in the Middle East has been occurring for the last couple of weeks, which shouldn’t be news for most.  The local effect for Americans is the rise in gas prices that have occurred as a result of the unrest.  I recently was questioned as to why gas prices in the U.S. have increased even though the U.S. receives very little of its oil from Libya.  First I will provide some background and then I will explain why Americans are seeing higher prices at the pump.

Oil is a world commodity, meaning that it is valued throughout the world and is transportable to any country.  This in turn leads to a world price being established for oil in the form of a per barrel price.  The implication is that any threat to oil production, regardless of who receives oil from that country, will result in increased prices.  An analogy that has been used is a bathtub where each oil-importing country is a drain and each producer is a spout.  In the case of Libya, their production has decreased, which has caused there to be less oil in the tub to go around.  The market result of the decreased production is increased prices.

That said, price increases are more to do with speculation rather than Libya decreasing its supply.  In 2010 Libyan production was 1.65 million bb/d in an approximately 85 million bb/d market; while this amount isn’t trivial, it is not large enough to significantly increase prices. The world price is based on contracts that are exchanged between traders and take into account any uncertainty that investors have about future supply.  The general unrest in the Middle East has caused investors to question the access to oil in the future and thus bid up oil contracts.

The uncertainty that investors are using to justify paying higher prices is reasonable.  It is clear that the Middle East is full of negative sentiments towards those in power.  A March 7 “Day of Rage” in Saudi Arabia definitely got the attention of investors looking at uncertainty.  Saudi Arabia produces 9.71 million bb/d and any reduction in their output would send prices on a steep upward trend.  The continued unrest in the Middle East will definitely affect oil prices by either decreased production or increased uncertainty.

Overall, any decrease in production or increase in uncertainty in oil exporting countries has the ability to increase the price of oil and in turn gas.  The only way that the U.S. can affect the negative consequences of increased oil prices is relying less on oil as an input.

This Layman’s Terms Series piece is the product of PAI’s Energy Security Policy Division. Energy Security Fellows can be reached at energy.fellow@paxamericanainstitute.org.

Whether via MediCare, MedicAid, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc… one in three of all income-dollars is spawned from a government fund, whether or not there is actually tax revenue to cover the outflow.

This is before ObamaCare has completely settled in and taken hold.  This is before we have seen the end of our current recession.  This is before the states have finished their local battles on finance reform.  Where does it stop?  And, what will it take to change course? 2012 may reveal the answer.

Read more about this article online here.

President Obama’s signature legislative victory continues to show its ugly underbelly.  As the months roll by after passage of the ObamaCare, the analysis continues, and it does not look good.  As the numbers are crunched, eyes are steadily growing wider as the true impact of the bill is becoming clear: Some companies will simply be crushed by the increased costs resulting from this far-reaching, amazingly-meddlesome beast-of-a-bill.

Among many, we pose two questions here:  First, if the bill is so wonderful, why is the Chief Sponsor of the bill having to capitulate to so many exemption requests?  Second, can President Obama’s granting of such exemptions be construed as corporate welfare?  Shouldn’t these companies “pay their fair share”?  Is President Obama just repaying his fat-cat cronies for some campaign assistance, past or future?

Read more about these waivers online here.

Poll Results:

• I like it. The unions need to be reined in (78%)
• Something needs to be done with the unions, but this is a little harsh (3%)
• Hate it. These are dedicated public servants (19%)

Vote here or read more: http://bit.ly/efsAJQ

The proposed budget would increase federal spending and the budget deficit just as the American economy has finally begun to stabilize, threatening future prosperity at just this decisive moment.  Perhaps most disconcerting about the Obama budget is that it fails to address in any way the single greatest menace to economic prosperity in the 21^st century and beyond: entitlement spending.  The budget deficit already stands at a staggering $14.1 trillion and continues to grow; as long as entitlement reform continues to be neglected, the American economy will keep moving toward the precipice of insolvency.

The Obama Budget in brief.  The FY 2012 federal budget as proposed by President Obama does next to nothing about the looming entitlement crisis and actually increases non-defense, domestic discretionary spending.  In a press statement on Monday, President Obama sang the praises of his budget proposal, claiming, “Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new.  Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.”

But this very budget actually makes the mountain higher.  J.D. Foster, a budgetary expert at the Heritage Foundation, writes of President Obama’s budget proposal, “Under the President’s budget, the deficit in 2011 will hit a new record of $1.645 trillion, and the national debt held by the public over the next 10 years would nearly double, rising by $ 7.2 trillion.”  In addition, the Obama budget increases domestic discretionary spending by $31 billion in 2012 and total government spending by 49 percent in the next decade.

The colossal spending increases proposed by President Obama—again—will have a calamitous effect on American economic prosperity.  This dangerous trend is unsustainable in the long-term and counterproductive even in the short-term.

Federal spending.  The White House and the Office of Management and Budget agree that their $3.73 trillion budget proposal will raise this year’s budget deficit to $1.65 trillion.  This means that the deficit will reach nearly 11 percent of the national GDP—a figure not seen since WWII.  At the time of this writing, the annual budget deficit is already a whopping $1.48 trillion.  President Obama’s budget proposal would increase the annual budget deficit by 12 percent in FY 2012 alone, and it estimates yet another $1 trillion+ deficit the year after that.

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, contend that government spending will increase by a mind-boggling $46 trillion over the next 10 years if President Obama’s budget proposal is enacted.  To put this in perspective, America’s entire GDP is a little under $15 trillion.  It is plain that President Obama has little interest in following through with his pledge to reduce government spending and the federal budget deficit.

Tax Increases.  Just two months after working with Republicans to extend most of the Bush tax cuts for another two years, President Obama proposed a federal budget that is laden with tax increases—some of which appear to be intentionally camouflaged.  For example, he proposes to extend the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent from 15 percent, but the budget describes this as a “tax cut that reduces revenues” by $124 billion in the next ten years.  That’s right: the Obama budget proposes a tax hike but calls it a tax cut that, by its own estimate, will cost the government money in the long-run.  This is nonsense.

As another example, President Obama’s budget proposal prevents the Alternative Minimum Tax from increasing in 2013.  But instead he proposed a $321 billion tax hike to offset the cost of not raising the Alternative Minimum Tax.  Here is another example of reneging on his campaign promises.

Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Jeff Sessions contend that President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget would impose a $1.6 trillion tax hike on America’s families and workers.  Contrary to the president’s assertions and liberals’ philosophy, no one can afford these tax hikes right now as the nation emerges from recession—especially considering that their purpose is not actually to balance the budget but, instead, to further expand government spending.

Political opposition to President Obama’s budget proposal.  Leaders from both sides of the political spectrum are angry with President Obama’s unwillingness to reduce government spending and taxes or propose changes to the entitlement system.

Several leading Democrats have criticized President Obama for his unwillingness to reduce federal spending for FY 2012.  “Senator Chris Coons [D-DE] said Obama should have followed through on the recommendations of his own debt commission, which in December proposed nearly $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade that included reforms to Medicare, Social Security, and the tax code.”  Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and head of President Obama’s debt commission, severely criticized the president’s proposed budget.  Mr. Bowles said that the Obama budget proposal goes “nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.”  Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said that he could not accept the budget proposal in its current form unless the administration provided him with a specific plan for serious deficit reduction.  Conrad, in an interview with The Hill, said of his reservations about Obama’s budget proposal, “It cannot be the answer that we are going to have a debt of over 100 percent of the GDP.”  Several other Senate Democrats, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, have expressed their consternation with President Obama’s budget proposal.  The lack of Democratic support for President Obama’s budget in the U.S. Senate provides Republicans an opportunity to offer major revisions.

This week, House Republicans began drafting their own version of the FY 2012 budget.  At the time of this writing, few specifics of that proposal have been released.  What is clear, however, is that Republicans intend to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending for the upcoming fiscal year.  In addition, the Republican budget proposal will likely include entitlement reform, a drastic reduction in the capital gains and alternative minimum taxes, and significant reductions in the long-term structural debt.

Discussing the need to address the entitlement crisis, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, “You have to do entitlement reforms if you are serious about this budget, if you are serious about this debt.  The sooner we tackle it, the better off everyone is.”  The Republican caucus in the House is still divided over the intricacies of their budget proposal.  Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner will have to ensure that everyone is united whatever revisions they propose.

Conclusion.  President Obama’s proposed budget for FY 2012 fails to address the gravest threats facing the nation in the years ahead: out-of-control spending, as large a budget deficit as we have ever had, and an entitlement system that is breaking the bank.  In November 2010, the American people made it abundantly clear that they had had enough of the reckless spending, tax hikes, and job-killing legislation that define the agenda of Congressional liberals and President Obama.  Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer put it well: “A more cynical budget is hard to imagine.”  It is paramount that conservatives in Congress ensure that legislative revisions to the budget include a real reduction in non-defense domestic discretionary spending, the eradication of Congressional earmarks, and drastic alteration to our archaic entitlement system.  Failure to address these problems that the president ignored will simply make the financial crisis worse as it continues to grow.

The National section of the Weekly Political Forecast is authored by PAI’s Deputy Policy Director.