Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Although this post does not offer an exhaustive list of funding provided for earthquake relief purposes to Haiti the reports featured raise questions. But that does not address a broader question on why each ‘natural disaster’ or other catastrophic event is treated the way they are. If ET were to visit the planet Earth the impression for the extra=terrestrial might be that this is the first time humans have encountered such an event.

The shock and awe reaction in the main stream media suggests we have never witnessed such an event. The wailing and gnashing of teeth expressed by those affected and interviewed by the same MSM demonstrate a universal theme. There is the expectation that someone else is responsible to return ‘victims’ to their pre-disaster condition.

No, this is not a heartless rant targeting millions affected by the earthquake in Haiti. It is an observation presented during a crisis to offer suggestions for future events. It seems little if anything is done to effectively prepare for such contingencies by those most likely to be affected. Certainly those who are least prepared to face life in general are not in a position to prepare themselves properly for extreme conditions like a quake. But that is the whole point.

Just as issues like education avoid the responsibility of the family component e.g., good parenting, and the so-called global economic crisis sidesteps greed on every level, preparation for natural disasters receives little attention between events or focus on simple preventative measures addressing those most likely to be harmed.

Most ongoing ‘humanitarian’ efforts elicit funds based on emotional appeals for money to address problems after the fact. Outside of legitimate organizations raising funds to accomplish goals like teaching the have=nots to fish in order to feed themselves rather than give them food to solve an immediate need, most ‘humanitarian’ appeals are a scam.

Here are some reports regarding the current difficulties in Haiti that illuminate the world’s curious reponse to such events.

UN Appeals for $550 Million for Haitian Quake Victims

If millions are affected it is not surprising the UN would request $550 million. If there are 3 million ‘victims’ that is less than $200 per person. But while the request receives much attention during the disaster little valid disclosure will follow documenting where the money went.

Obama Pledges Sustained Commitment To Haiti

Okay, so the UN asks for $550 million and the US offers $100 million. That’s nearly 20% of what the UN asked for and a decent percentage for the US to offer. It seems large compared to what reports show for other countries thus far.

China Sends Aid to Quake-Stricken Haiti

Purely based on the report, China claims they will do what’s necessary to help but the only specific monetary amount is $1 million from the Chinese Red Cross.

Sarkozy Calls For International Donors Conference to Help Haiti

Go figure, France calls for a conference to solve the problem.

France Calls for Cancellation of Haiti’s Debt

Okay, correction, France calls for a conference and cancelling Haiti’s debt. So what does that cost France?

Haiti Aid Pouring in Through Text Message Campaign

Some reporting has warned the public about fraudulent websites accepting donations for earthquake ‘victims’ in Haiti. The bottom ilne warns there are genuine relief sites and frauds. Let the donor beware. The point is the public may represent the only honest source of aid for this event. Are the other sources bogus and do they feed on these events to perpetrate fraud?

And of course to repeat the broader point of this post, why does there seem to be no effort to prepare humans on this planet to be prepared to handle disaster in an effective manner?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are content with the Obama Administration’s handling of matters regarding nuclear weapons and Iran the following information should cause you to reconsider that position.

[But] the more telling detail, as a recent White House “guidance paper” acknowledges, is that the U.S. has been “carefully observing and analyzing this facility for several years.” That timeline is significant, because it was less than two years ago, in December 2007, that a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programs asserted with “high confidence” that Tehran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in the fall of 2003.

That NIE gave liberals and Iran a reason to cheer. Some internal critics in the Bush Administration may have sabotaged national security for political gain.

Fast forward to the present, and it turns out the NIE was misleading even on its own terms: Iran did have a covert facility, perhaps for enrichment, and the intelligence community knew or at least strongly suspected it. We are also learning that the NIE’s judgment puts the U.S. intelligence community at odds with its counterparts in Britain, Germany and Israel, which have evidence to show that Iran resumed its weaponization work after 2003.

Three US allies indicate Iran resumed the pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003 yet the US report cited above held the opposite view. Red flags abound in this story if for no other reason then both positions cannot be correct. If the ‘allies’ assertion is correct then once again US intel is suspect. And if the Obama Administration is acting like the Qom facility is news to them more red flags are raised. Including support for the criticism that current US foreign policy is a strategy of appeasement. In which history and Neville Chamberlain serve as guidance in avoiding a 21st century failure.

Here are some recent reports demonstrating the complacency on the topic of Iranian nuclear weapons.

UN Nuclear Inspectors to Tour Iran’s Second Enrichment Plant Near Qom
Iran’s English-language Press TV reports that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are beginning a three-day visit to Iran, Saturday, to examine the country’s Fordoo nuclear enrichment facility.

The timeline suggests a month long delay between Iran’s preemptive disclosure about the facility in Qom and an impotent UN inspection.

Iran to Respond to UN Uranium Proposal Next Week
Iran has delayed its response to a United Nations-backed uranium enrichment plan aimed at easing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program is being used to develop weapons.

Above is one more example in an extremely long list of delaying tactics the rest of the world allows Iran to use.

US Says Patience With Iran on Nuclear Issue Not Unlimited
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said the United States would obviously have liked to see an Iranian reply but is willing to give Tehran a few more days. “We’re looking for concrete steps. And we take it as a positive sign that they’ve agreed in principle to take a couple of significant steps - the opening of the Qom facility, and then working out a procedure for having their low-enriched uranium re-processed in another country. At the same time, our patience is not limitless. I think we can stretch things out a few days, and that’s really what we’re talking about. But we’re not going to wait forever,” he said.

Equalling the extremely long list of Iranian delay tactics are statements from the US suggesting ‘we are really serious this time’. There is an uncanny similarity between US rhetoric on Iranian nukes and the useless parental response to a child allowed to dictate the rules.

The US, UN, IAEA and the remainder of the ‘international community’ have not just recently adopted an Iranian appeasement strategy like the parent who spoiled the child with lack of discipline. A list of resources below aid in demonstrating this point.

IAEA, Multilateral Talks, Iran Nukes, What’s Changed?

IAEA, International Community Complicit in Iran’s Nuke Strategy

Iran, the UN, IAEA, Elbaradei and Do-Nothings

IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes

Democrats Raise White Flag in Advance on Iran Nukes

Bush Warns Iran If Controversial Nuclear Work Continues…

US Criticizes Iran’s ‘Partial Answers’ on Nuclear Program

UN: Iran Still Defying Demands to Stop Enriching Uranium

US Spars With IAEA Chief ElBaradei Over Iran

Iran Says 3,000 Centrifuges Are Operational

US Official Criticizes Iran, IAEA Deal on Nuclear Program

IRAN, IAEA Make Progress in Nuclear Talks

IAEA Says Iran to Allow Inspections of Heavy Water Reactor

The bulk of the items above are from 2007 with some from 2009. The titles alone suggest the recurring theme of Iran’s delays and the wait and see appeasement of everyone else. If there’s a betting line in Vegas on this story one would have to guess the odds on favorite is Iran. With time being about the only thing the Iranians need to complete their pursuit of nuclear weapons they have one each round of this game.

One way or another this game will end sometime. An appeasement strategy ushered in WWII. Can we afford to make the same mistake on the possibility of WWIII?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could someone explain how this solves anything?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Pressure Mounts on Iran Uranium Enrichment Program (Right Truth) 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has drafted an agreement to supply enriched uranium to Iran following three days of negotiations at its headquarters in Vienna. If all parties agree to it, the deal could mark a breakthrough after a years-long international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

The draft agreement was announced to reporters by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has given all parties involved until Friday to approve it.

“I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgment, a balanced approach on how to move forward,” he said. “The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement that we can send to the (IAEA) board of governors.”

ElBaradei said France was included in the draft agreement. Talks this week gathering Russia, the United States, France, Iran and the IAEA, stalled on Tuesday over Iran’s reluctance to have France participate in any deal on enriching its uranium. ElBaradei however described the discussions as constructive and forward-looking.

The IAEA chief did not elaborate on the draft deal, but news agencies report that it is essentially similar to an agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. That deal would commit Iran to shipping about 75 percent of its lightly enriched stockpile of uranium to Russia for further enrichment.

The material would then be shipped to France to be converted into metal rods before being delivered back to Tehran. The rods would be used to power a research reactor in the Iranian capital making medical isotopes.

More broadly, if all parties agree to the deal, it would defuse international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes , but western nations fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Powers of observation may be a bit lacking with Somali pirates. Ya think? Brings to mind a minor quip, ’sucks to be you’. Had to be a large collective ‘oops’ from the pirates upon realizing their error in a recent target selection. But after all it was a ‘French warship’ (okay, refueling vessel) so you can understand the confusion. Do you suppose this story has any effect on the warship deal the French are offering the Russians?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

France says its navy has captured five Somali pirates who attacked a French naval vessel, after apparently mistaking it for a commercial boat.

Military spokesman Christophe Prazuck says pirates on speedboats attacked the La Somme, a refueling ship, off the Somali coast early Wednesday.

He says crew members repelled the attack and then chased the pirates, seizing one boat and taking five men into custody.

French officials say no one was injured in the incident.

France is a key member of Operation Atlanta, the European Union’s anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden.

Somali pirates have made tens of millions of dollars over the past two years hijacking ships and holding them for ransom. The number of hijackings has dropped in recent months as foreign navies patrol the coast and provide protection to commercial vessels.

During the 2008 US Presidential election campaign many noticed the personal history of candidate Barack Obama appeared cloaked in secrecy as little was uncovered about his earlier days growing up or attending college and the candidate was not offering any clarity on the topic. Surprisingly, the NY Times is offering an account of at least one aspect of student Obama’s thinking on nuclear arms. And Jennifer Rubin offers a report expanding on the concerns that President Obama may still hold these youthful idealistic notions. Unfortunately, Mr Obama may be operating without benefit of the practical realities that typically guide world leaders through the dangerous territory of foreign affairs.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.

With Iran, North Korea and surely others pursuing nuclear weapons arsenals and Russian leaders expressing concern over US missile defense proposals leading up to current arms negotiations the Obama mindset may be of concern to you. Especially if the new President has an obsession with youthful idealism.

Obama Has Gotten It Wrong for Twenty-Five Years

Jennifer Rubin - 07.05.2009 - 8:31 AM

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement.

The line below from the Rubin piece should feature prominently with any US position on arms negotiations.

And really, what excuse is there for Obama’s ludicrous worldview? Unlike student Obama, President Obama knows how the Cold War ended. And it wasn’t by disarming America.

The impotent ‘international community’ has done nothing to stop rogue states from pursuing an arms race in a time ideally suited for such a collective effort. That alone should raise suspicion about the intentions of those courting the US on disarmament. Other recent reports are offered below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia Still Opposes US Plan for Missile Shield in Eastern Europe

Russia Wants Deeper Cuts in Numbers of Nuclear Warheads

Next Round of US-Russian Arms Talks Set for June 23

Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms

Russia, US Begin Talks Over New Arms Control Pact

Russia, US Work on New Missile Pact

Are U.S.-Russian Relations Warming?

Clinton, Russian FM Agree to Improve US-Russian Relations

Resurgent Russia Poses Challenge for Obama Administration

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia and Iraq have agreed to work toward restoring contracts established before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said the understanding was reached during Friday’s talks in Moscow between prime ministers of the two countries.

Russian energy firms such as Lukoil signed agreements with the government of Saddam Hussein. But Saddam later canceled Lukoil’s deal to develop Iraq’s West Qurna oil field, and other contracts were frozen after the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Russian counterpart discussed improving cooperation on the oil and gas industries and other subjects.

Russian state media, Itar-Tass, quoted Mr. Maliki as saying that Russian companies will play an important role in Iraq’s reconstruction.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told reporters that his country and Iraq will likely resume cooperation in the area of military technology.

Mr. Maliki met later Friday with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev during his first official visit to Russia.

Iraq’s foreign minister signed an agreement last year to repay about $900 million in Soviet-era debt over 17 years. Russia agreed to forgive nearly $13 billion as part of the deal.

from MoreWhat.com:

Does anyone remember that Russia, France and Germany were among the loudest opposition to military force against Saddam Hussein at the UN before the war? One theory was the trio worried about lost revenue for contracts they had with Iraq at the time. Coming full circle it would appear.

Stanford Matthews

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This month President Barack Obama caused the eyes of many to glaze over with his wandering message expressing an interest in a world free of nuclear weapons. Those who applauded the announcement were from one of three groups. Those who share membership in the not so exclusive nuclear club of planet Earth or wannabees who are delighted the new American President will try to disarm the US. Or uber liberals with reality issues who still believe surrender and appeasement will bring peace to the world. Or really nice folks who thought it impolite not to applaud the person on stage accepting blame for everything on behalf of the country he represents.

Yo Barry. Here’s a heads up for you. Most people accept the events in history that led to the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France being the original, and for a time only, members of the group known as the Nuclear Club. Well, except maybe for France, but that’s another story. They’re the same ones who support the US strategy in Afghanistan but won’t send troops or ones that can fight. Oh ya, and they’re the ones like some others in the EU who support the G20 idea of providing a trillion in stimulus but are fine with the US contributing more than their share. And apparently, Mr Obama, you agree.

In addition to the original members of the Nuclear Club are India and Pakistan. Just like Iran and North Korea now, no one had a clue how to prevent these two countries from joining. And there are about a dozen other countries included in discussions of who has the ability to go nuclear. (Israel’s ability is assumed but not declared ) So the number is at or approaching a couple of dozen. Are you following this so far, Mr President?

If you understand the previous few paragraphs then why the hell are you making these public statements about a nuclear free world? This is one time most Americans would hope you are offering another promise you will break. Otherwise one can only assume the pressure is getting to you and you’re losing it. If the problem was so simple to solve and all the people of the planet could get along as you and your followers believe, don’t you expect it would have been achieved by now? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the problem has not been corrected is that no one has the answer yet? It is fair to assume that what was once feared as the ultimate fate of a nuclear armed Earth still remains.

But a likely alternative expectation, given the UN’s typical failure to respond to the DPRK’s missile launch, is that with proper handling avoiding catastrophe can be achieved in much the same way as it was in the past. All parties will be attracted to their nuclear power of choice while the nuke powers will maintain a balance still based on mutual assured destruction if the worst would happen. At some point thereafter this game will be exhausted and other circumstances yet to arrive will cause nations of the world to abandon this stupidity. Not because we will then be wiser but some other equally scary threat will require extraordinary cooperation between all the people on this planet in order to survive. And no, Mr Gore, it’s not Global Scamming Warming. It’s those peaceful Muslims carrying suitcases. (hint, hint)

We may then have a taste of peace long enough to become addicted to its benefits. But it won’t happen due to some idealistic fantasy that we can all get along because that is the way ti is supposed to be. That may come within time but for now you are trying to put the cart before the horse at best or transforming the human race to an endangered species at worst. Starting with the United States for whom you took an oath. It may be time for you to read it again for the first time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If the reports below are any indication of what can be expected from the G20 summit in London this week anyone skeptical of good news resulting will not be disappointed. It is likely the optimistic expectations suggested by President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain will not come to fruition.

Apparently those in charge of releasing a collective statement for leaders in attendance are having difficulty deciding what to say. After embarrassing leaks and reports of numerous revisions this may demonstrate the feeble performance yet to appear from the world’s, ah hem, leaders.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Times understands that the money will come in three separate packages.

The first are new lines of credt worth more than $100 billion to encourage countries to trade more.

The second is a possible tripling to $750 billion in the resources held by the International Monetary Fund to rescue struggling economies. The extra money will come from Japan, the EU, China and others.

The third is a one-off allocation of “special drawing rights” that enable countries to swap their own currencies for IMF backed resources.The effect is to give those countries more confidence to deplete their reserves and expand.

The report above is from the Times and the one below from the Telegraph (UK)

A version that surfaced in Germany last week appeared to show that leaders are still not agreeing on what to say about “fiscal stimulus” measures to boost economic activity by borrowing.

British officials have insisted that that the German leak was out of date and failed to reflect the intense negotiations carried out by “sherpas” and other officials ahead of the actual summit.

In fact, the text being circulated in London today commits leaders only to make “the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth” and contains no detail about the size and type of stimulus countries should undertake.

For a little entertainment you may wish to follow the link from the excerpt below.

The G20 protests

Wagging the dog

Apr 2nd 2009
From Economist.com
On the barricades and behind the cameras in London

OUR day of covering the protests starts with a failure: the Whitechapel Anarchist Group, whom we had emailed about interviewing, fail to answer their phone (too busy preparing to spread mayhem if other press reports are to be believed, though their blog huffily decries these accounts). At 7am, the City is quiet. Work traffic is light for a weekday, and my camera-wielding colleague and I are keen to get shots of the City prepared for protests, so set off looking for banks and offices that have shut for the day. HBOS and Halifax both sport locked doors, but security guards prevent us from filming. Frustrated, we head toward London Bridge where one of the marches is due to start.

Seriously: “Send in the Clowns” on Queenzbop playlist (Michelle Malkin)

The report below suggests use of the word ‘global’ when referring to current economic troubles around the world not only describes the geographic nature of the problem but geopolitical as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concern of money going to US automakers from US taxpayers putting German automakers at risk provides a substantially humorous face on this reverse order of trade subsidy worries. How many foreign countries place barriers to US goods all the while accepting US corporate outsourcing to spur growth in their own economies?

The early promise of ‘a new direction’ in France with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may be giving way to the honeymoon is long over and the French are scurrying back to their old ways of sending up flares of impending doom and expecting external concessions. This blog’s suggestion that the best thing about Sarkozy leading France was the opportunity for more photo ops of Carla Bruni may end up being less comedy relief and more political reality.

Russia seems to be the only country in this report which relies greatly on the other part of the auto industry equation, energy. The recent dive in the price of oil from its July record highs leaves the nation with the split personality between cold war demon and new world democracy with a severe reversal of fortune in petro dollars.

The only thing missing from all this international intercourse is the predictable hope for world peace and global tranquility. The only common ground here is that all concerned are on equal footing when it comes to playing the game, ‘blank’ on your neighbor. But it is reassuring that good and evil in international politics is equally balanced among the nations described in the report. And that is only because the likes of Iran and similar nations are not noticeably involved. Maybe they are a little less noisy with the fall of oil prices too.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

European officials are taking a close look at how the United States is helping its ailing auto industry.

President George W. Bush welcomes Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she wants to make sure aid to the U.S. auto industry will not put Europe’s own auto companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Merkel’s comments came at a news conference Tuesday in the northern Italian city of Trieste with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Carmakers in both the U.S. and Europe have been asking for government help, with French automaker Peugeot, Europe’s second largest car company, warning the global auto industry is in danger of a collapse.

Meanwhile, France wants to see a stronger international response to the global financial crisis.

In a statement released today, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France will host a summit in January because world leaders must show they can offer “concrete solutions.”

At a meeting of industrial and developing countries last week in Washington, leaders only managed to agree on a set of principles to prevent the global economy from getting worse.

The Paris summit will be co-hosted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and will include world leaders as well as Nobel prize-winning economists.

Reuters news agency reports International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn says the list of countries asking for help is growing every day. And Russian President Dmitri Medvedev says his government may need to spend another $180 billion to stabilize the Russian economy.

Russia has already spent almost $200 billion on a series of measures to counter the economic meltdown. The World Bank today cut its growth forecast for the Russian economy in 2008 and 2009.

India is also worried about the effect of the global financial crisis on its economic growth. Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said Tuesday the government should cut interest rates. He also called on businesses to cut prices and accept lower profit margins to help stimulate the Indian economy.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies says the financial crisis is having an impact on donations from wealthy nations.

And migrant workers from the Philippines tell VOA the financial crisis is having an impact on how much money they are able to send to their families back home.

In 2007, Filipino migrant workers sent more than $14 billion to the Philippines, equal to 13 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

GOP bailout stooge to Cavuto: “It’s not your money” (Michelle Malkin) 

There will be plenty of support provided President-elect Barack Obama from liberals and anyone else who voted for him. To keep the discussion honest some of us will have to present the less positive aspects of this new development. Questions raised during the campaign and not answered by the Obama/Biden team are again surfacing in responses from around the world on the US election results. This post starts with European leaders weighing in with their reaction to the new President.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown began with a comment that was relatively benign. He said he looked forward to working with the new President. A statement one might expect if the source was trying to remain somewhat neutral. The part that raises questions similar to those from the campaign would be his conclusion that Obama is ‘a true friend of Britain’ and that he has shared values and policies with Britain for solving current economic issues. What information did Gordon Brown have access to that the rest of us have been denied? Or more precisely how did Mr Brown come up with that analysis? No one else seems to know what he will do for sure when this whole thing gets under way.

Sarkozy of France is buying into the Obama and DNC hope mantra. He says this election raises hope for just about everyone on the planet. This entire hope and change slogan seems to be long on optimism and short on details. Are people so simplistic to believe that just putting someone else besides George Bush in the White House will cause some sort of global enlightenment? Will all the barriers between people of the world be suddenly vanquished? No one yet has provided a coherent agenda that may be forthcoming from the Obama/Biden team. Why all the high praise and complimentary expressions for a huge unknown?

The German Chancellor and EU foreign policy chief expressed closer cooperation and an emphasis on change, respectively, as their appraisal of President-elect Obama. Aside from possibly echoing the hope and change mantra, a more realistic assessment of Merkel’s statement may be the reason many foreign powers are happy about Obama being elected. Appeasement and caving to the demands of foreign governments may be the hope from abroad regarding the new US Presidential Administration.

The statements from foreign leaders sound as uninformed as those from people on the street where one person said they are excited that Obama might bring some changes. This is a sentiment that was repeated regularly during the campaign and now again afterwards. It is alarming that people can base such an important decision on such flimsy rhetoric. The reliance on the idea of hope and change as a reason to vote for Obama and Biden is absolutely stunning. Perhaps privately those being quoted from around the world are laughing hysterically at the foolish Americans who chose a President on a vague idea and promise. One which Barack Obama quickly extinguished in his acceptance speech when he said things may not get done in one year or his entire first term. Rather than help the middle class he expressed everyone’s need to sacrifice.

That was President-elect’s first speech, the acceptance speech. You may wish to read or hear it again. It is available around the internet in text and mp3 form. The first words he uttered after the deal was done. After the campaign was over and the votes were in and tallied for the most part Mr Obama made a speech. It could very well be that all bets are off based on his comment that nothing may get accomplished in his first term.

As stated at the top of this post someone has to bring up the less than positive as the MSM and staunch Obama/Biden supporters will dominate the discussion. You may or may not wish to consider the possibility you were just sold something equating to the well known swamp land in Florida or the Brooklyn bridge or just the simple bill of goods the value of which are suspect.

You may not but foreign leaders around the world may get what they want from President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This picture of Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni could work for a caption contest. Lookin’ a little saggy there Nick, is the better half giving you the ‘what for’ starting on your wedding day? Wuz up, Nick, is she suggesting a beach diet? Gotta have some fun with a country’s leader when they marry a high profile celeb, current creds subject to debate, and then lectures the world on finance, Africa and who should or shouldn’t be subjected to the humiliating experience of membership in the UN.

But you have to give Sarkozy some credit. He’s done more to raise France’s reputation in the world since being elected than, uh, since, uh, I dunno, Napolean? Suggesting Marie Antoinette might be tasteless, but she was given a bad rap by the MSM or something.

Can’t be helped. On this blog any opportunity to exploit Carla Bruni at France’s expense is just too hard to resist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

France Calls for Global Summit on Financial Crisis
By VOA News
23 September 2008
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for an emergency summit of world leaders to address what he calls the most serious financial crisis the world has experienced since the 1930s.

In a speech at the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday, Mr. Sarkozy said the international community has a political and moral responsibility to deal with the effects of such crises. He said world leaders should act now to create globalized institutions that will regulate financial activity and rebuild a system of capitalism where rules of caution apply to all.

Mr. Sarkozy, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, also called for solidarity between Europe and Russia. He said Europe wants a partnership with Russia, but he warned that Moscow must not compromise respect for international law or territorial sovereignty.

Mr. Sarkozy mediated a truce ending last month’s conflict between Russia and Georgia for control of Georgia’s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

On Iran, the French leader said Europe respects Tehran’s right to peaceful nuclear activity. But he said it cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran that would endanger the peace and stability of the entire region.

Turning to Africa, Mr. Sarkozy said the world cannot wait to achieve peace and end the “tragedy” in Sudan’s western Darfur region. He said Europe also is committed to helping Somalia combat piracy off its coasts.

Mr. Sarkozy said Europe is working to ensure Africa has a place among the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and in what is currently the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations.

The French president called for enlarging the U.N. Security Council and the G8 in an effort to make the institutions more representative. He said the world can wait no longer to bring India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil into the fold of international institutions.
Some information for this report was provided by AP.

Okay, what’s the deal with Sarkozy? Is it time for some conspiracy theories? Okay, let’s say that it is true Sarkozy is a fan of President Bush. And let’s further say that Speaker Socialist Pelosi’s trip to Syria in defiance of the Bush Administration got George thinking. Do you suppose President Bush asked Sarkozy to hook up with Syria to hedge his bets without looking like he agrees with Pelosi? That’s too sick to even consider while having fun with conspiracy theories.

How about this? Sarkozy is willing to try anything to find solutions in the Middle East even if it is a mistake. And let’s not forget that leading up to the Iraq War France was in the group of those opposing armed intervention in Iraq along with Russia and Germany largely due to all the money owed them by Saddam Hussein.

This latest move by Sarkozy could fuel the criticism that France never saw a conflict in which they weren’t willing to surrender. Occasionally France is involved as a third party negotiator between nations in conflict. Does that suggest they try to get one or the other to surrender?

About the only thing this blog likes about France is with Sarkozy in charge there it provides an excuse to post pics of his wife. Another gratuitous display is offered at the bottom of this post. It’s about the only good that comes out of the story below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

French President Visits Syria

By Lisa Bryant
Paris

Bryant report - Download (MP3)
Bryant report - Listen (MP3)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy arrives in Damascus Wednesday, in the first visit to Syria by a Western head of state in five years. From Paris, Lisa Bryant reports the visit marks a change in French foreign policy and an effort to bring Syria back into the international fold.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy gestures while speaking during a media conference after an EU summit in Brussels, 01 Sep 2008

Nicolas Sarkozy said he would break from the past, when he was elected French president last year. He is making good on his word when it comes to Middle East policy. He is more favorable toward Israel than his predecessor Jacques Chirac and willing to invite controversial leaders to France, such as Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Middle East Analyst Judith Cahen, a Middle East analyst for the French Institute of International Relations, in Paris, says Mr. Sarkozy wants to send a clear message with his visit.

“The message is that France is back in the Middle East and with a new policy. And, Nicolas Sarkozy wants to say that the former politics of France are now over. That means Jacques Chirac’s policy is now over,” said Cahen.

Mr. Chirac would have nothing to do with Syria, particularly after the 2005 assassination
on of his close friend, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria denies any involvement in his killing.

And, less than a year ago, Mr. Sakozy said France would break contact with Syria if it did not allow Lebanon to hold free presidential elections.

Now, Mr. Sarkozy is breaking new ground, with a two-day visit to Syria that includes indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel with two other Middle East nations. The United States considers Damascus a sponsor of terrorism. But French analyst Philippe Moreau Defarges says it is impossible today not to include Syria in the Middle East equation.

“Today, the Syrian geopolitical situation has really changed. Syria is considered as one of the key partners to make peace with Israel. At a certain time, you must have dinner with the Devil. Even if Syria is a dangerous regime, a non-democratic regime, it is clear that it is one of the most reliable partners in the Middle East,” said Defarges.

Mr. Sarkozy invited his Syrian counterpart to Paris in July, as part of a larger summit between European Union countries and Middle Eastern and North African states. There, Syria and Lebanon agreed to establish embassies after years in which Syria was considered the unwanted, behind-the-scenes power in Lebanon.

Analyst Cahen believes Mr. Sarkozy’s trip this week primarily aims to boost France’s role in the Middle East.

“Especially now, with Russia also trying to get back into the Middle East policy. I didn’t know if it’s realistic, but we’ll know in the next few months,” added Cahen.

Mr. Sarkozy has already been criticized at home for hosting Mr. Ghaddafi and Mr. Assad. Human Rights Watch has urged the French President to bring up rights violations by Damascus, when he is in Syria.

But Cahen, for one, believes Mr. Sarkozy’s visit is unlikely to generate much controversy here, where French are more concerned about the economy and other issues closer to home.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the prime ministers of Italy and Spain have suggested a region-wide policy of expelling illegal immigrants from their countries.Mr. Sarkozy, a strong advocate of immigration reform, spoke Tuesday at a wide-ranging news conference in Paris.

He told reporters that both Spain and Italy have in the past month suggested a joint expulsions policy, and said he welcomes the progress of his ideas in Europe.

The French leader also defended his recent decision to sign multi-billion-dollar trade and investment deals with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Separately, he said that his government will stop funding the English-language version of the state-owned 24-hour news channel, France 24. He said he is not prepared to support programming that is not voiced in French.

France 24 currently broadcasts in French, English and Arabic.

In defending his support for the trade and investment agreements with Libya, Mr. Sarkozy noted that the Libyan leader has scrapped his suspect nuclear program and released six foreign medical workers imprisoned in Libya since the late 1990s.

Mr. Sarkozy also defended his recent decision to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin after his “United Russia” party’s victory in widely criticized parliamentary elections last month. President Sarkozy said he could not justify criticizing Mr. Putin one day for suspect electoral practices, and then ask him for help to resolve the ongoing international dispute with Iran over its suspect nuclear program.
By VOA News
08 January 2008

Syria Halts Contacts With France on Lebanon