Snake’s last meal comes back to bite her

0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 15 Second

A young viper was found dead with a centipede’s head protruding out of the snake’s body. As reported by NBC News, Ljiljana Tomovic, a Serbian herpetologist, was tagging snakes in Macedonia when she made the eye-catching discovery. According to a scientific correspondence recently published in the journal Ecologica Montenegrina, while shorter in length, the 4.8 gram mass of the prey, Scolopendra cingulate, was actually greater than the 4.2 gram female nose-horned viper (Vipera ammodytes).

The find was made on May 14, 2013 and the scientist reported, “…we cannot dismiss the possibility that the snake had swallowed the centipede alive, and that, paradoxically, the prey has eaten its way through the snake, almost reaching its freedom.” Dissection showed that only the snake’s abdominal wall remained, so the centipede caused damage to the snake’s internal organs either chemically or mechanically. When found, the centipede occupied the entire volume of the viper’s body.

The viper and centipede were found on the island of Golem Grad, which is also known as “Snake Island.” Tomovic told NBC News that she has never known of a centipede biting its way out of a predator, however, “It’s possible that this situation is not so uncommon, just we did not have opportunity to see it until now.” As the title of the report indicates, “Two fangs good, a hundred legs better.”

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

The Legal Challenge to Obamacare You Probably Haven’t Heard of (And Why It Matters)

0 0
Read Time:3 Minute, 28 Second

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is debating a challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that could completely destroy the law’s stated goal of offering affordable health insurance coverage.

“What you’re asking for is to destroy the individual mandate, which guts the statute,” Judge Harry Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said during a hearing in March, according to ABC News.

Edwards, an appointee from the Carter administration, is joined by two other judges: Thomas Griffith (appointed by George W. Bush) and A. Raymond Randolph (appointed by George H.W. Bush).

The case, Halbig v. Sebelius, deals with the American Health Benefit Exchanges, known more commonly as the “exchanges.” The exchanges were created with the idea that if enough people use them to sign up for health insurance coverage, the cash put into the system would then make it easier and more affordable for people without coverage to enroll.

Obamacare dictates that individual states can either set up and operate their own exchanges or the federal government will do it for them. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia currently run on their own exchanges. The remaining 34 states have elected to rely on the federally operated exchanges.

And this is where we run into an issue: Depending on various factors, including income levels, people signing up through the state and federal exchanges may be eligible for subsidies that could drastically reduce the cost of health insurance coverage. The little-known challenge being argued in the District of Columbia deals with the government’s definition of who is eligible for these tax credits.

The IRS claims it has the authority under the law to grant subsides to people enrolling in both the state and federal exchanges. The challengers, however, argue that only the states have the authority to grant tax subsidies and that it’s unlawful for the federal exchanges to do the same.

“This is yet another example where the president and his agencies are playing fast and loose with the text of the law because they are trying to get the result they want,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, according to ABC News.

The IRS believes that it has the power to “dispense billions of dollars in federal spending that Congress never authorized,” Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer who is representing challengers of the Obamacare provision, said in court briefs.

An official with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the architects of Obamacare likely didn’t expect so many states would decline to establish their own exchanges.

“Congress gave states the power to veto exchange subsidies,” Cato’s Michael Cannon said. “That’s the last thing President Obama wants, so the president decided to issue the subsidies in federal exchanges, even though he only had the authority to issue them for state exchanges.”

If the challenge wins, it could mean that the federal government would have to cease dispensing tax subsidies, meaning coverage would be anything but affordable in 34 states.

The Department of Justice disagrees with the challengers, saying they are misinterpreting Obama’s signature domestic policy.

“Congress made clear that an exchange established by the federal government stands in the shoes of the exchange that a state chooses not to establish,” the DOJ said in court briefs.

Judge Edwards has referred to Carvin’s Obamacare argument as “preposterous.” Judge Randolph, on the other hand, agreed with the challengers that the health care law was “poorly written” and “cobbled together.” Meanwhile, Judge Griffith has only weighed in to ask if it’s the job of the federal appeals court to “fix the problem” if Congress has failed to make itself clear.

The three judges are expected to offer their decision in the next few months. If they rule against Obamacare, the federal government can request that a larger panel of judges review the same case.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Obama Laughs About ‘Crazy’ Birth Certificate Questions

0 0
Read Time:58 Second

President Barack Obama reminisced about the conspiracy theories surrounding his birth certificate during a speech at the National Action Network convention in New York City Friday afternoon. Obama referenced the doubts about his citizenship that led him to release a copy of his birth certificate in 2011, while criticizing voter I.D. laws that require people to present documentation like passports and birth certificates to vote.

"Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is," he added. 

Obama then began to laugh.

"You remember that? That was crazy," said Obama. "Haven't thought about that in a while."

Obama's speech focused on voting rights. He cited a "recent effort to restrict the vote" that he said was "led" by the Republican Party.

"Not only is it ultimately bad politics, I believe it ultimately harms the entire country," he said.  

Obama said the "right to vote is threatened today in a way it has not been" since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and he called on Congress to update that legislation. 

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Shocking Note’ Apparently Penned by Justina Pelletier to Her Parents

0 0
Read Time:4 Minute, 49 Second

The Connecticut teen who has been in state custody for more than a year after her parents were accused of medical child abuse after disputing a diagnosis has apparently penned a note, giving a look into how she says she’s being treated.

“They hurt me all the time push me all the time and more,” the purported note from Justina Pelletier says. It also says “[they] do not let me sleep vary [sic] much.

“Hury [sic]!”

Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, a group helping lead the Free Justina Coalition, told TheBlaze that Justina gave the note to her parents a few weeks ago.

“There has been some hesitation to release it because of how tyrannical the DCF has been,” Mason said.

Mason called the note “troubling” and said it’s “part of the reason we’ve put a lot of urgency on this campaign.” He said he thinks Justina is referring to her treatment by DCF employees and staff at Wayside Youth and Family Network, a facility in Framingham, Mass., where Justina has been living for the last few months as a ward of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families.

Lou Pelletier, Justina’s father, told TheBlaze that Justina snuck her parents the note.

“She’s very intelligent and figures out ways to sneak us stuff,” he said. “She’s been risking life and limb to get any bit of information to us.”

In-person visits with Justina, which happen once a week on Fridays, are supervised by DCF staff, he said.

Pressed for more details about the note, including why some of the content was cut off at the top in the image provided, Lou Pelletier became animated, frequently citing his frustration with the case and said published news reports seem to have resulted in DCF crackdowns on allowing Justina to communicate with them.

“She’s being allowed to be tortured in this country, I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

Personhood USA, which originally released the image in its press release, did not immediately return a request from TheBlaze for a complete image of the note.

The case surrounding 15-year-old Justina began last year when her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, brought her to Boston Children’s Hospital to see a gastrointestinal specialist while she was suffering from the flu. Justina had previously been diagnosed with mitochondrial disease by a doctor at Tufts Medical Center. She had been receiving treatment for the disorder, which manifests itself in various ways, impacting the function of the energy producing organelles of cells.

When admitted to Boston Children’s, her parents say, another doctor disagreed with the mitochondrial disease diagnosis, saying she had somatoform, a psychiatric disorder, instead. When the Pelletiers disagreed with physicians’ proposed plan to remove Justina from her treatments for mitochondrial disorder in favor of psychiatric treatments, they tried to discharge her to take her to Tufts. At this time, they served with a 51A, a report of alleged physical or emotional abuse.

On Feb. 14, 2013, the state stepped in and took emergency custody of Justina. Over the course of the next year, the Pelletiers appeared in juvenile court several times, fighting to get their daughter back. Most movement in the case occurred in the first months of 2014, when a judge ordered Justina to be moved from Boston Children’s. The most recent decision by Judge Joseph Johnson in late March to allow DCF to retain custody of Justina, making the family’s next opportunity to appeal in juvenile court May 20.

“DCF isn’t listening, the judge sure isn’t listening … where we have left to go?” Mason said, explaining why the family ultimately decided to allow the release of Justina’s note.

“This shocking note reveals for the first time, in Justina’s own words, how she is being abused by Massachusetts DCF. The Pelletiers are devastated to see how their daughter is being mistreated while under the custody of the State of Massachusetts,” Rev. Patrick Mahoney, the Pelletier’s spokesperson, said in a statement.

“Sadly, Justina’s own words paint a picture of mistreatment by DCF that we can see for ourselves,” he continued. “Fourteen months ago, when she was removed from her home, she was taking part in ice-skating competitions and living an active life. Under the care of DCF, she is in now a wheelchair and can barely walk. She has not been allowed to attend church, and has not been given her individualized education program which is required by federal law.”

On Monday, the family’s lawyers filed an appeal to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. The petition requests for custody of Justina to be removed from DCF and restored to her parents.

“This case comes down to the simple fact that new doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital, who had no experience with Justina, came up with a different diagnosis than her expert treating physicians at Tufts Medical Center,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. “The state cannot take children from their parents when the parents make reasonable choices for their medical care. This case is outrageous.”

Mason also said the Free Justina Coalition is focusing its efforts toward reaching out to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to get involved in the situation.

DCF did not immediately respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment regarding the note.

This story has been updated to include comments from Lou Pelletier.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Economic War with Russia: A High Price for German Business

0 0
Read Time:9 Minute, 7 Second

The EU has imposed new sanctions to prevent Vladimir Putin from further escalating the crisis in Ukraine. Berlin has played a leading role in the punitive actions, despite protests from the German business community. There's no turning back for Merkel.

Some of the guests attending a ball organized by German companies high above the rooftops of Moscow brought along machine guns and pistols. It was a James Bond-themed evening and the weapons in question were, of course, toys. The party also featured a scantily clad woman slithering in a giant martini glass.

With champagne and cigars, the owners of mid-sized companies toasted the dazzling profits they earn in Russia. At the time, everything all was still rosy in the world of German-Russian business relations. The event took place two Saturdays ago.

Just days later, there is no longer much reason to celebrate. Relations between the West and Russia have sunk to the lowest levels seen since the Cold War because of the Ukraine crisis. The leaders in Moscow are preparing to take over the Crimean Peninsula — a development that came an important step closer to reality on Sunday after 97 percent of those who turned out for a referendum voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. The West is responding to the vote by imposing new sanctions on Russia, including the freezing of bank accounts and travel restrictions.

Germany has taken a leadership role in those efforts — a role that Berlin has sought to claim for itself since the early days of the unrest in Kiev. At the beginning of the year, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier pledged that Germany would become more active in its foreign policy, and the current initiative is one manifestation of that aspiration.

But it is also becoming clear that those ambitions come with a price tag. Despite pressure from many European Union member states and the US, Steinmeier and Chancellor Angela Merkel initially managed to prevent swifter sanctions. They wanted to attempt to resolve the Crimean crisis through talks. The strategy ultimately failed because of Putin's intransigence.

Hitting Putin Where it Hurts

At a summit meeting the Thursday before last, EU leaders had already prepared for that potential outcome. Both the Americans and the Europeans have ruled out the possibility of a military response and instead want to strike Putin where he is most vulnerable: Russia's economic dependency on the West. They want to show the Russian president that the economic damage caused by sanctions will outweigh any regional political advantage won through his actions.

The main role here also continues to lie with Germany. The reason is simple: The country has very close business relations with Russia and has the greatest capacity to exert pressure. Still, German businesses would also be vulnerable were Russia to take retaliatory measures. Economic warfare could prove expensive for Germany. And this puts Merkel in a difficult situation since she may be forced to push through political measures that harm her country's business interests. Now that it has made a claim to leadership, Berlin can't simply retract it.

The sanctions the EU imposed against Russia on Monday in response to Sunday's Crimea referendum remain moderate. The plan involves freezing bank accounts and issuing travel bans against 21 Russian and Crimean politicians. If Putin continues to escalate the situation, however, more decisive action could follow.

'Prepared and Determined'

In an address before parliament on Thursday, Merkel warned Russian leaders against destabilizing the situation in eastern Ukraine, also home to a large Russian-speaking population. She has threatened economic sanctions if this happens. "We will all be prepared and determined if they are unavoidable," she said. They are words she can no longer back away from.

The consequences would be serious — for both sides. Last year, Germany and Russia had trade in goods of close to €77 billion ($107 billion). Russia primarily supplies petroleum and natural gas to Germany. Germany, on the other hand, exports mechanical engineering products, medicines, trains and automobiles to Russia. More than 6,000 German companies are registered in Russia and, together, they have invested €20 billion in recent years. German chemical giant BASF has holdings in Siberian gas fields and Russian gas monopoly Gazprom obtained natural gas storage facilities in the state of Lower Saxony in exchange. Without special chemicals from Germany, it would be difficult for Russia to refine its crude oil. It would be a shattering blow to supplies for Putin's massive country if Merkel were to turn the screws on Germany-Russian economic relations.

At the same time, Germany's business community would also have to assume some severe losses. All it takes is a mere sampling of businesses to see just how deep economic ties go between Berlin and Moscow.

Joe Kaeser, the recently appointed CEO of the multinational engineering firm Siemens traveled to Russia three times within his first 100 days in the position to arrange further investments. And building materials manufacturer Knauf alone employs more than 5,000 people in its Russian plants. All of that could now be at stake.

Indeed, even though serious economic sanctions have yet to be applied, the mere threat that they might has been felt. German retailer Metro wanted to take its Russian subsidiary public this year, but the plan is now imperiled. Volkswagen also wants to invest a further €1.2 billion in the expansion of its Russian plants. It is now uncertain whether this will happen. Last Friday, Germany's state-owned KfW development bank had planned to sign a contract together with Russia's government-held VEB bank for a €900 million investment initiative on behalf of mid-sized companies, but the German side cancelled the event at the last minute.

Will Russia Get Kicked Out of the G-8?

The next step could be Russia's ouster from the G-8, the group of the world's most powerful industrialized nations. The group's next summit is scheduled for June in Sochi. The first rounds of talks are already taking place between the so-called sherpa negotiators, but without the participation of representatives of the host country. Indeed, a new issue is pushing its way to the top of the G-8's agenda: The impact sanctions against Russia could have on the global economy. The British government has proposed that the seven remaining members instead hold a summit in London without Russia. Other participants welcomed the suggestion.

If Putin doesn't relent, Berlin is also considering cancelling planned German-Russian Government Consultations scheduled in Leipzig during April. At most, a "small, frosty format" would be conceivable, government sources told SPIEGEL. "Nothing else would make any sense given the current situation."

It is unlikely that such punitive measures would go unanswered by Russia; Putin has not been shy about threatening retaliation. A senator with his United Russia party is now calling for the expropriation of foreign companies doing business in the country. Moscow could respond by freezing bank accounts held in Russian banks as well as seizing assets.

300,000 Jobs at Risk?

But how high could the price get for the Germans if an economic war ensues and escalates? Corporate representatives and lobbyists are already busy drafting horror scenarios. They claim energy supplies could be at risk and that upwards of 300,000 jobs could be threatened. "I am very worried that we are going to unleash a downward spiral of sanctions and counter-sanctions that don't help anyone," said Eckhard Cordes, chairman of the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations, an organization representing German business interests in the east. Cordes has called for greater understanding of Putin's position. "Many mistakes have been made in the relationship between Russia and the West, and those mistakes have not only been made by the Russian side," he said. Klaus Mangold, the chairman of the supervisory board of Rothschild Deutschland and Cordes' predecessor on the Eastern Europe Committee also opposes taking punitive measures against Moscow. "It would be a mistake if the West were to spark a new level of escalation following the Crimea referendum," he said. "Sanctions are the wrong approach."

So far, the government in Berlin hasn't taken much notice of voices of protest in the business community. "The Russian economy would be far more vulnerable to sanctions than German businesses," said one high-ranking government ministry official in Berlin. Nor do officials in Berlin believe that Russia would suspend its delivery of natural gas. "The Russians are dependent on income from the gas," one member of Merkel's cabinet told SPIEGEL. Besides, after a historically mild winter, Germany's natural gas storage facilities are well filled, meaning that the country's dependency on Russia is currently less than it might have been.

The German government is nevertheless hoping to prevent an economic war. This approach is also prudent out of domestic political considerations. A survey conducted by German pollster Forsa found that two-thirds of all Germans reject sanctions against Russia relating to the Crimean crisis. This helps to explain why both Merkel and Steinmeier want the conditions under which the third level of sanctions are implemented to remain as flexible as possible.

So at what point would the West accuse Moscow of destabilizing eastern Ukraine? It's a question that EU leaders will ultimately have to answer.

It's also an issue in which the fronts haven't been clearly drawn, as indicated by public statements made by EU leaders. Members of the German government are keen to point out that many Eastern European politicians speak in far less radical terms behind closed doors than they do when addressing their citizens. It makes sense, too. Countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania purchase almost all their natural gas from Russia, and pressure from Putin could have a far greater impact on places like the Baltic states than on Germany.

In Berlin, all officials can do is guess at just how far Putin might be willing to go. Under the more optimistic assessment, the Russian president might offer a diplomatic olive branch following the annexation of Crimea to prevent a further escalation. However, high-ranking diplomats believe it is just as conceivable that Moscow might attempt to destabilize other regions like the Baltics or the Caucuses by using economic pressure or the presence of strong Russian minorities in countries in those places. It's a scenario for which the West still has no answer.

REPORTED BY MARTIN HESSE, ALEXANDER NEUBACHER, RALF NEUKIRCH, CHRISTOPH PAULY, CHRISTIAN REIERMANN AND MATTHIAS SCHEPP

Translated from the German by Daryl Lindsey

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Pregnant Woman Dies After Horrifying Medical Mixup

0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 27 Second

As far as medical mix-ups go, it's a horrifying one. In October 2011, a 32-year-old woman underwent an operation at Queen's Hospital outside of London; Maria De Jesus was suffering from appendicitis and needed to have her appendix removed. Instead, her right ovary was taken out, and De Jesus, who was 21 weeks pregnant with her fourth child at the time, ended up dying roughly three weeks later. The case is now in front of a medical tribunal, which is weighing the medical fates of the two doctors involved, then-trainee surgeon Dr. Yahya Al-Abed, and Dr. Babatunde Coker, who was supposed to be supervising him.

During the Oct. 23 surgery, De Jesus began to bleed "quite heavily. … In the midst of this, Mr. Al-Abed removed what he clearly believed to be the appendix. He thought he found it, removed it, and gave to a nurse what later turned out to be Patient A's ovary," the tribunal heard. Coker, who was eating lunch at the time, was never summoned, nor was he aware the surgery was taking place. The mistake wasn't uncovered until much later.

The Telegraph reports that De Jesus returned to the hospital in severe pain on Nov. 7; two days later another doctor realized she still had her appendix, and the next day she went into surgery to have it actually removed. Instead, she died on the OR table, having earlier delivered a stillborn boy. Her cause of death was ruled as multiple organ failure due to septicemia. The Press Association reports the hearing will likely last a month. (A New York man is suing over an appendix mix-up of his own.)

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Netanyahu calls Putin, takes neutral stance on Ukraine

0 0
Read Time:2 Minute, 27 Second

Call follows US denial of reported anger in Washington over Jerusalem's "neutrality" regarding Crimean issue.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu initiated a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to discuss bilateral issues, Iran and Ukraine, the Kremlin said in a statement.

The conversation came amid escalating tensions in eastern Ukraine, and as Netanyahu was trying to maneuver carefully through the Ukraine crisis, not antagonizing or alienating neither Washington or Moscow.

According to the Kremlin statement, Putin provided an assessment of the processes occurring in Ukraine, and “pointed out that the sharp escalation of the crisis is the result of Kiev’s irresponsible policy, which disregards the lawful rights and interests of the country’s Russian-speaking citizens. He stressed the inadmissibility of the current regime’s use of armed forces to suppress public protests in southeastern Ukraine.”

The statement said that the leaders “agreed to continue regular exchanges of opinion on issues of mutual interest.”

The Prime Minister’s Office did not issue any readout on the conversation. Netanyahu has made it a point to visit Moscow about once a year, and he does speak to Putin by phone from time to time, so Tuesday night’s conversation – though not a regular occurrence – is by no means unprecedented.

Russia is a major player in three areas of major concern to Israel: Iran, Syria and arms sales to the Middle East.

Putin spoke on the same day about Ukraine with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

On Monday, US Stated Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki denied a Haaretz report last week that White House and State Department officials “have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem ‘neutrality’ regarding the Crimean issue.”

Asked if the US was, indeed, “irate, infuriated” with Israel because of its “lack of a position” on Ukraine, Psaki said “that wouldn’t be how we would characterize it.”

“As you know, we work closely with a range of countries, not just European countries, on Ukraine and we have been for months,” she said. “And so we were surprised that Israel did not join the vast majority of countries that voted to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the United Nations. But that’s more our view, not the way you just characterized it.”

Israel did not show up for a recent vote at the General Assembly on the issue, with Israeli officials attributing Israel’s no-show to the recent Foreign Ministry strike.

Asked if Israel’s position was “a major concern” in Washington, Psaki said, “I would not characterize it as a major concern.

We work closely with Israel on a range of issues and we can move forward.”

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

What Putin is rebuilding

0 0
Read Time:4 Minute, 10 Second

No, Putin isn't re-building the third Reich: Chamberlain isn't a historic villain because he did nothing after Hitler seized neighboring German-speaking territories. He's a historic villain because he did nothing after Hitler blamed Christianity for poisoning Europe with weakness, swore to destroy the Jews, build a master race, set fire to the Reichstag, seized all police powers, built concentration camps and THEN invaded German-speaking lands.

No, Putin isn't re-building the Soviet Union: He has implemented a flat, low tax rate, struck the authority of local commissars to impose taxes, decriminalized tax disputes, decentralized agriculture and industry, seen the numbers of abortions decrease 83%, and championed Christianity in the public square.

No, Putin isn't building Aleksandr Dugan's Eurasia, a concept that sounds almost as if it were written by the C.I.A. to justify paranoia and panic. Dugin has been called a trusted advisor to Putin. In fact, Dugin and his allies have been enemies of Putin since before the fall of Gorbachev. Dugin is to Putin what Pat Buchanan is to Barrack Obama, what Rev. Wright is to George W. Bush. Dugin's Eurasia is a communist-Islamicist alliance, whereas Putin has been deeply ingratiating himself as a devout Orthodox Christian.

One thing everyone who has met him, whether Bush supposedly seeing into his soul, or Clinton's loathing the sight of him, is that Putin is a pragmatist, not a crazed ideologue like Hitler, Stalin, Dugan or Zhirinovski. Even his Christianity is pragmatic: He's no like King Henry IV of France, who feigned Catholicism because one mass was a small price to pay for Paris. No, he believes in Christianity because he believes it works. While this sounds grating to the Protestant ear, bear in mind the Orthodox revere Emperor Constantine as a great saint. Western Catholics and Enlightenment-era Protestants might even call it "Natural Law." And the re-Christianization of Russia is progressing rapidly. (If you're such the believer that works and justice have nothing to do with Christianity, it's at least the re-Orthodoxidation?)

In 1991, only 30% of Russians considered themselves Christian. In 2001, that number increased to 51%. Today, the same poll says 73% do. Another poll says 82% of Russians consider themselves Christian. Millions of Muslims have converted. (2 million had by 2005, and reports say the rate of conversions has increased.)

Christian morality is coming back, and Putin's government is leading the char gem crusading against abortion, childlessness, divorce, and alcoholism. As I mentioned, abortion is down an astounding 83%. But parenting is also up more than 50%. And life expectancy has risen 5 years in just the last 8 calendar years.

Putin cannot achieve his goals largely by military annexation. He needs to keep a Duma that supports him, and the leftists coalition of socialist, communists, pensioners and Eurasianists have closed the gap on his right-wing alliance. He can't afford more opponents, politically, economically or militarily. In fact, Russia so far has declined to annex South Ossetia, Transdneiper, Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia; Crimea was an exception because it had been so long Russian and was so dominated by Russian people. He also must seduce allies to his side, and one is seldom seduced by another who has been seen raping a third. If the Donbas region of the Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, etc.) becomes part of Russia, Putin must be able to convince Russophiles that they did so willingly. Any further intrusions into the Ukraine will come years later, should other oblasts (counties) decide that annexation has profited the Donbas.

Putin has defended Christians in the Middle East while the West has sided with Islamicist radicals. Putin will continue to seek a constructive relationship with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. (Yes, Israel is turning away from America as a fickle ally who punishes her friends and coddles her enemies.)

The Eurasian Economic Community consists of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, and will likely soon include Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgystan, Moldova and Tajikistan. Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are majority-Muslim nations with sizable Christian minorities, like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Putin's involvement in Egypt, Israel and Syria demonstrates that the Christian communities in these nations will have a defender. Russia may well be Christianity's best shot for maintaining a foothold in the Islamic world.

If he's really ambitious, Putin may hope that the whole of the Orthodox world may be attracted to Russia, and to expand the Russian-led customs union to Greece, Romania, Serbia, etc. But military aggression would be deadly to such ambitions.

Russia abolished serfdom before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, so don't misread me. But what Putin wants is a modern Russian Empire. And if his methods aren't evil, I'm pretty sure that's not a bad thing.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

U.S. should send troops to quell Ukraine crisis

0 0
Read Time:4 Minute, 50 Second

James Jeffrey is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the Obama administration and deputy chief of mission to Kuwait from 1996 to 1999.

Despite much diplomatic effort, the situation in Ukraine worsens. A coordinated Russian campaign, including an invasion threat, special operations destabilization in eastern Ukraine patterned on the Crimea model, and warnings of gas cutoffs document ever more clearly Vladi­mir Putin’s aim to cripple the Ukrainian government and control much or even all of this strategically vital European country.

The West’s reaction has been weak. The sanctions imposed and contemplated are not dramatic, regardless of immediate Russian losses in volatile stock and currency exchange markets. Europe’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, and affinity for Russian investments, were apparent last week when the German foreign minister feted Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov for trade talks, even as NATO photos of Russian military equipment stockpiled near Ukraine emerged. While European foot-dragging is the biggest obstacle to an effective response, some of Washington’s initial comments and actions suggested unwillingness to face the reality of Putin’s actions. The Obama administration also bears the burden of its Middle Eastern policy of avoiding military conflicts. NATO member states in Eastern Europe are asking the same question many in the Middle East have: Can we rely on Washington to make hard military decisions?

The best way to send Putin a tough message and possibly deflect a Russian campaign against more vulnerable NATO states is to back up our commitment to the sanctity of NATO territory with ground troops, the only military deployment that can make such commitments unequivocal. To its credit, the administration has dispatched fighter aircraft to Poland and the Baltic states to reinforce NATO fighter patrols and exercises. But these deployments, like ships temporarily in the Black Sea, have inherent weaknesses as political signals. They cannot hold terrain — the ultimate arbiter of any military calculus — and can be easily withdrawn if trouble brews. Troops, even limited in number, send a much more powerful message. More difficult to rapidly withdraw once deployed, they can make the point that the United States is serious about defending NATO’s eastern borders.

While examples of effective ground force “tripwires” date to the U.S. brigade in Berlin during the Cold War, the most relevant recent example is Kuwait after 1993. To deter Saddam Hussein from any new attack, the United States maintained a “heavy brigade package” of armor and other material to equip a force of 5,000 troops to be quickly flown over in an emergency. The United States and Britain also maintained fighter aircraft in Kuwait. All this, however, was not sufficient to fully deter Hussein. U.S. ground forces were deployed in 1994, 1996 and 1997-98. Even with equipment already deployed, it took time to fly the troops in, such decisions were publicly known, and the decisions themselves required precious time for Washington and the Kuwaiti government to deliberate.

To deal with these issues, the Clinton administration finally stationed a small ground force in Kuwait, rotated from stateside units on six-month deployments. In a crisis, the thinking went, it would buy time for a full brigade to deploy and encourage rapid Kuwaiti deployment, possibly deterring a ground attack. In Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, the United States went with the force on the ground, rapidly reinforced by a Marine expeditionary unit, rather than wait for a brigade to deploy and thus signal its intentions to Hussein.

Such a ground deployment in the current crisis with Russia could change perceptions on all sides. The administration, after consulting with NATO, should inform Moscow that it will station limited forces in Poland, the Baltic states and Romania if Russia continues its aggression against Ukraine and does not withdraw troops. Initial contingents could be as small as companies (150 soldiers) on “training” maneuvers, but equipment for larger forces, and a permanent rotation of troops, could be quickly organized. Although Russian ground forces number an estimated 40,000 or more, such a small-scale U.S. force could rally the affected nations to commit unequivocally their own larger forces and encourage other NATO states to deploy troops. Taken together, that would provide more than a tripwire, generating time for larger reinforcements, and complicating any threat against NATO states or even Crimea-style intervention in Ukraine.

Would such a deployment be provocative? Only if being serious about deterring Putin is provocative. Would it violate “understandings” with Moscow eschewing such U.S. stationing? Probably, but Putin has already violated a library’s worth of understandings, agreements and treaties pertaining to territorial integrity. His actions undercut the basis for NATO defense thinking since 1991, but no U.S. or European response has delivered the West’s promised “serious consequences” and “different relationship” with Russia. Deploying troops would do so.

We do not need to be apologetic about the risk of even “tripwire” presences. Putin has no illusions about America’s combat-hardened conventional superiority. But by all appearances he has great doubt about America’s will to use force, and that creates a dangerous situation. After seeing American boots on the ground, Hussein decided not to threaten Kuwait anew. But recall that half a world away and six decades ago, the United States took a different approach, withdrawing its forces from South Korea. North Korea and its Russian supporters saw that as a green light to invade, only to learn, three years and millions of casualties later, that the United States was serious about defending a friend.

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %

Slain Richmond boy was father of suspect’s child

0 0
Read Time:44 Second

(04-16) 16:51 PDT RICHMOND — A 30-year-old woman shot and killed a teenage boy in Richmond after the two – who had a child together – argued over the victim's girlfriend, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

Melinda Gaffney surrendered Monday to San Francisco police in connection with the April 8 slaying of Terrance Forks, 16, outside the Crescent Park apartment complex, said Richmond police Sgt. Nicole Abetkov.

Prosecutors have charged Gaffney with murder and an enhancement for allegedly using a gun.

Gaffney shot the boy during the latest in a series of arguments over Terrance's girlfriend, said Contra Costa County prosecutor Mary Knox. Terrance died at the scene.

Gaffney fled in a Lexus that was later recovered, police said.

Henry K. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: hlee@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @henryklee

About Post Author

Anthony-Claret Ifeanyi Onwutalobi

Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Happy
0 0 %
Sad
0 0 %
Excited
0 0 %
Sleepy
0 0 %
Angry
0 0 %
Surprise
0 0 %