October 5, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-commander-afghans-requested-deadly-airstrike-doctors-without-borders-hospital-kunduz/

U.S. commander: Afghans requested strike that killed 22 at hospital
CBS/AP
October 5, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Doctors Without Borders blames U.S. for deadly strike on Afghan hospital
Play VIDEO -- Pressure mounts on U.S. over bombed Afghan hospital


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. airstrike that killed 22 at a medical clinic in northern Afghanistan over the weekend was requested by Afghan forces who reported being under Taliban fire, and was not sought by U.S. forces, the top commander of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan said Monday.

Gen. John F. Campbell made the statement at a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference. He said he was correcting an initial U.S. statement that said the airstrike had been in response to threats against U.S. forces.

"We have now learned that on Oct. 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces," Campbell said. "An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. This is different from the initial reports which indicated that U.S. forces were threatened and that the airstrike was called on their behalf."

His revised account does not clarify whether the clinic was targeted in error or whether other mistakes may have been made by U.S. forces.

"If errors were committed we will acknowledge them," Campbell said.

He declined to provide more details, saying a military investigation is ongoing. He said he learned from the investigator that it was the Afghans, not the Americans, who requested the airstrike.

Campbell, whose headquarters is in Kabul, was in Washington on Monday because he is testifying before two congressional committees this week.

Meanwhile, the medical charity Doctors Without Borders continued to press U.S. and Afghan officials for an independent investigation into the bombing early Saturday of its hospital in Kunduz, in which at least 22 people were killed.

Christopher Stokes, the general director of MSF, the charity's French acronym, said on Monday he was "disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack."

The Afghan government has said that Taliban fighters were inside and shooting from the hospital, CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports. Vickie Hawkins, Executive Director of MSF U.K., told Phillips that those comments are "outrageous."

"They are to an extent justifying the destruction of a fully functioning hospital," Hawkins said.




“The U.S. airstrike that killed 22 at a medical clinic in northern Afghanistan over the weekend was requested by Afghan forces who reported being under Taliban fire, and was not sought by U.S. forces, the top commander of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan said Monday. Gen. John F. Campbell made the statement at a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference. He said he was correcting an initial U.S. statement that said the airstrike had been in response to threats against U.S. forces. "We have now learned that on Oct. 3, Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces," Campbell said. …. Campbell, whose headquarters is in Kabul, was in Washington on Monday because he is testifying before two congressional committees this week. Meanwhile, the medical charity Doctors Without Borders continued to press U.S. and Afghan officials for an independent investigation into the bombing early Saturday of its hospital in Kunduz, in which at least 22 people were killed.”

Unfortunately, no matter who requested it, according to Doctors Without Borders, bombing a health or religious building is against International Law. See the following BBC article.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34444053

Afghan conflict: Is it ever legal to bomb a hospital?
October 5, 2015 3 hours ago

International charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has demanded an independent international investigation into the bombing of its hospital in the city of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan.

At least 22 people, including MSF staff, were killed in Saturday's early morning attack. MSF says dozens were injured and the hospital severely damaged by a series of air strikes lasting more than an hour.

The charity blames US-led Nato forces. But Afghan government officials have implied the hospital was being used by the Taliban for military purposes. The US is investigating the incident.

Who is saying what?

The Afghan defence ministry said "armed terrorists" were using the hospital "as a position to target Afghan forces and civilians".

But MSF says the warring sides were well aware of the hospital's location, and that the bombing went on for an hour despite repeated calls to US and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington to call off the strikes.

MSF also denied there were any militants in the hospital at the time of the strikes and said the attack amounted to a war crime: "Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the hospital compound prior to the US air strike on Saturday morning."

On Monday, the US military changed its account of how the air strike came about, saying it was requested by Afghan forces under Taliban fire.

The US commander in Afghanistan, Gen John Campbell, also said no US forces had been under fire at the time, reversing an earlier statement, and acknowledged that civilians were accidentally hit.

The US had previously said insurgents had been firing at American personnel.

'I saw doctors and patients burning' - survivors speak to the BBC's Shaimaa Khalil
What do international rules say about the bombing of hospitals?

International humanitarian law bans any attack on patients and medical personnel - indeed, any attack on medical facilities, which are zones that must be respected under the rules of war.

Even if combatants, such as the Taliban, take refuge in them, they should not be attacked.

Under rules established by the International Criminal Court, any such incident would probably result in too high a number of civilian casualties - what is called the rule of proportionality.

According to Human Rights Watch, "given the hospital's protected status and the large numbers of civilians and medical personnel in the facility, attacking the hospital would still likely have been an unlawfully disproportionate attack, causing greater harm to civilians and civilian structures than any immediate military gain.

"The laws of war require that even if military forces misuse a hospital to deploy able-bodied combatants or weapons, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded," the group said in a statement.

And under international humanitarian law rules, "in the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects".

Those same rules also state that "the parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks".

And on the subject of medical units, they say that "units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances". However, "they lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy".

Have there been other such bombings elsewhere?

In February 2009, nine people were killed by shells which hit a hospital in a rebel-held area of north-east Sri Lanka.

The hospital, in the town of Puthukkudiyiruppu, Mullaitivu district, was hit three times in 24 hours, and shells were said to have hit a crowded paediatric unit.

Sri Lanka's army denied it was behind the shelling. It accused separatist Tamil Tiger rebels of using civilians as human shields.

The International Committee of the Red Cross at the time called the strikes "significant breaches of international humanitarian law".

A Palestinian employee inspects damages at the hospital in the Gaza Strip after an air strike last year

Last year, at least five people were killed and 70 injured by an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza.

Doctors at the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip say several Israeli tank shells hit the hospital's reception, intensive care unit and operating theatres.

The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".

"Civilian casualties are a tragic inevitability of [Hamas'] brutal and systematic exploitation of homes, hospitals and mosques in Gaza," it said in a statement.

Has something like this happened before in Afghanistan?

Experts point out that this is not the first time international humanitarian law may have been violated in Afghanistan's current conflict.

At least 18,000 civilians have died in 14 years of war. Hundreds of people have been killed in coalition raids and bombings - although many more have been killed in militant attacks.

At times, foreign and local troops have entered medical facilities to arrest people.
But because of its long-term implications on medical assistance, the Kunduz incident, in the words of one ICRC official, ranks as an especially serious one.




“Under rules established by the International Criminal Court, any such incident would probably result in too high a number of civilian casualties - what is called the rule of proportionality. According to Human Rights Watch, "given the hospital's protected status and the large numbers of civilians and medical personnel in the facility, attacking the hospital would still likely have been an unlawfully disproportionate attack, causing greater harm to civilians and civilian structures than any immediate military gain. "The laws of war require that even if military forces misuse a hospital to deploy able-bodied combatants or weapons, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded," the group said in a statement. …. And under international humanitarian law rules, "in the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects". Those same rules also state that "the parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks". And on the subject of medical units, they say that "units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances". However, "they lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."


“And on the subject of medical units, they say that "units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances". However, "they lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." Maybe I’m misunderstanding this statement, but it appears to mean that a MASH unit or ambulance which is used purposely in an attack on “the enemy,” cannot maintain its protected status. Would you agree? So if Doctors Without Borders was actively fighting for the Taliban by offering them the hospital as cover, then its’ hospital would be fair game. However, I’m willing to bet that wasn’t the case. If Taliban fighters were in or on the property of the hospital, I believe that Doctors was unaware of the fact, and certainly not voluntarily helping them against Afghan government troops. Either way, I believe US forces should “err on the side of caution” and see to it that the do not bomb a hospital. We’re going to hear more about this, of course, and it won’t be good.




http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33072-how-conservative-state-think-tanks-will-spin-alec-s-2016-agenda

How Conservative State "Think Tanks" Will Spin ALEC's 2016 Agenda
By Brendan Fischer, PR Watch | Report
Friday, 02 October 2015

(Photo: Money via Shutterstock)

This week, a shadowy network of state-based, right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups will convene with Koch operatives and other big donors in Grand Rapids, Michigan to coordinate their 2016 agenda for all 50 states.

The State Policy Network (SPN) is a network of state-branded groups, like the Civitas Institute in North Carolina and the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, which appear to be independent yet actually are operating from the same national playbook. SPN plays a key role in driving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agenda, particularly by providing academic-like cover for ALEC's corporate-friendly policies.

Union-busting, attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, privatization of higher education, and other items are on the SPN meeting agenda this week, offering a preview of the right-wing state legislative strategy for 2016.

The importance of the sprawling SPN network cannot be understated. SPN and its affiliates take in more than $80 million cumulatively each year, and documents provided to The Guardian in 2013 show that SPN coordinates fundraising for the supposedly "independent" groups, from Maine's Heritage Policy Center to Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute.

A significant chunk of the funding for SPN and its affiliates flows through Donors Trust and Donors Capitol, which are "donor-advised funds" that give funders an added layer of anonymity. Known funders of SPN and its affiliates include a number of usual suspects, such as the billionaire Koch brothers and the Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation, as well as big tobacco companies like Altria/Phillip Morris and telecommunications players like AT&T and Time Warner. SPN's president, Tracie Sharp, has noted that "grants are driven by donor intent," and that "the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen."

This week's meeting will take place at a resort named for Amway, the company that fueled the enormous wealth of the DeVos family, which has underwritten parts of the SPN-ALEC agenda.

Coordinated, National Effort Advances ALEC Agenda

ALEC and SPN are, for the most part, interconnected, which is little wonder, given that SPN was housed with ALEC at the Heritage Foundation when it was founded in the late 1980s. Indeed, the topics discussed at this week's SPN meeting overlap significantly with the agenda at ALEC's annual meeting in July.

Where ALEC connects lobbyists with state legislators and promotes corporate-drafted model legislation, SPN affiliates provide the ground support. After an ALEC bill is introduced in a state, the SPN affiliates create the appearance of in-state support for the effort, generating "studies" or "news" stories purporting to show the benefits of the legislation or drumming up a façade of grassroots support.

The enactment of right-to-work in Wisconsin this year provides a good example of this coordinated effort.

Wisconsin ALEC politicians introduced a word-for-word copy of the ALEC "Right to Work Act" in early February. A week later, one of the SPN affiliates, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), published a "study" from ALEC Scholar Richard Vedder purporting to show that right-to-work would be great for Wisconsin's economy. (The study was very similar to reports that Vedder penned for SPN affiliates in Minnesota and Ohio).

David Koch's Americans for Prosperity - an SPN associate member - dropped at least $1 million in pro-right to work TV ads. Groups associated with SPN, like Michigan's Mackinac Center and the Heritage Foundation, testified in favor of the Wisconsin bill. And SPN member the MacIver Institute was "a leading voice during Wisconsin's battle to become the 25th Right to Work state in the country," according to a recent SPN publication.

And throughout the Wisconsin right to work debate, the Koch-connected Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity - an SPN associate member that operates state-based "news" sites on the Watchdog.org platform - published stories on its "Wisconsin Watchdog" website boosting right to work and deriding protesters.

All of those same groups - ALEC, WPRI, AFP, Mackinac Center, Heritage, MacIver Institute, Franklin Center/Watchdog.org - will be represented at this week's meeting, as will representatives of the funders that backed these policies, like the Charles G. Koch Foundation and Koch Industries' lobbying arm.

Right to work in Michigan followed a similar pattern in 2013, with the SPN member in the state, the Mackinac Center, playing a key role in laying the groundwork for the measure and promoting the word-for-word ALEC right to work act. Later that year, SPN singled out the Mackinac Center's president, Joseph Lehman, for its highest award, the "Roe Award," for his group's role in making Michigan a right to work state. (Notably, despite being credited for this legislative victory, Mackinac told the IRS it did zero lobbying in 2013.)

As the failure of Scott Walker's presidential bid indicated, bashing unions may have limited resonance among the electorate - but it remains a top priority for big donors, and in turn, remains a top priority for SPN and ALEC.

SPN has several anti-union sessions at this week's meeting, including one called "Labor Unions in the Modern Workplace" featuring Rebecca Friedrichs, the plaintiff in the upcoming US Supreme Court case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association that could eviscerate public sector unions.

Attacking the EPA Clean Power Plan

A major priority for ALEC and SPN in recent months has been pushing back on the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan," which is a set of rules limiting carbon dioxide pollution from coal plants.

This week, SPN will hold two separate sessions attacking the Clean Power Plan rules, with presentations from groups like the Koch-backed Independent Women's Forum and the coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

SPN member the Beacon Hill Institute has been central to the anti-Clean Power Plan effort, generating studies purporting to show the costs of the EPA plan - but without actually analyzing the plan. In February, The Guardian revealed that the notorious PR flak Richard Berman (called "Dr. Evil" by 60 Minutes) was secretly funding the Beacon Hill Institute studies, which were released and promoted by SPN member think tanks.

So far in 2015, Beacon Hill has released seven "studies" purporting to show the impact of the Clean Power Plan rules in seven states, in partnership with seven SPN member think tanks. As Media Matters has described, those include:

Iowa: Public Interest Institute, February 2015
Louisiana: Pelican Institute for Public Policy, February 2015
New Mexico: The Rio Grande Foundation, January 2015
North Carolina: The Civitas Institute, January 2015
South Carolina: Palmetto Promise Institute (formerly Palmetto Policy Forum), February 2015
Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, March 2015
Wisconsin: MacIver Institute for Public Policy, January 2015


ALEC has also been organizing a state-level campaign against the rules. The group organized legislators to press their state attorneys general into joining litigation backed by the energy industry that challenges the regulations, adopted a model resolution attacking the plan, and adopted a model bill that would create new hurdles for the Plan's implementation. At its most recent meeting, ALEC adopted the "Environmental Impact Litigation Act," a bill that effectively allows corporate interests to hire a state's Department of Justice as their own private attorneys. The bill creates a corporate-backed fund for states to sue over federal environmental laws - such as the Clean Power Plan - guided by an "environmental impact litigation advisory committee" made up of political appointees and representatives of "individuals representing agriculture and energy trade commissions."

Privatizing Higher Ed

Another session, called "Winning the War of Ideas in Higher Education: a Toolkit for State Reformers," is sponsored by the Pope Center for Higher Education, one of the many North Carolina-based institutions founded and funded by billionaire discount store magnate Art Pope, a close associate of the Koch brothers and an ALEC alum. Pope is credited with flipping North Carolina's legislature to Republican control in the 2010 elections, and bankrolling Governor Pat McCrory's win in 2012 (for which Pope was rewarded by being appointed budget director). Pope is also on the board of the Bradley Foundation and previously chaired David Koch's Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

This session is described in the SPN agenda as informing attendees "how your state can improve higher education- by limiting spending, fostering competition and protecting students' civil liberties. Successful reforms in North Carolina can be a model for your state."

By most measures, North Carolina is hardly a model for higher education policy. Since 2008, the state has cut its higher education spending per-student by 25 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Public Priorities, and tuition has gone up by nearly 35 percent over the same period. The state and university have additionally limited financial assistance for low-income students.

Yet according to those leading the presentation - Jay Schalin and Jenna Robinson of the John W. Pope Center - the crisis in higher education isn't cost or access. As The Nation reported earlier this year, Schalin says the main problem with higher education "has to do with the ideas that are being discussed and promoted," those being "multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism."

North Carolina is a "model" for SPN because it is ground zero for the right-wing attach on academia. Art Pope's network has led the charge not only to slash education funding in North Carolina - under the theory that higher education is an economic good, and that "subsidized" low tuition distorts the market - but also to shut down programs housed at the university that advocated for the poor and promoted civil engagement, and to instead create privately-funded education programs that advance the ideology of billionaire donors like Pope.

Earlier this year, the Pope Center for Higher Education released a report entitled "Renewal in the University" celebrating privately-funded centers that promote "the morality of capitalism" in order to balance "academia's gradual purging" of courses dedicated to "liberty, capitalism, and traditional perspectives."

It looks an awful lot like a calculated quest for power: cut public funding for universities, creating a financial shortfall, making it impossible for universities to turn-down funding from billionaires like the Popes and Kochs - even when strings are attached. It is a slow means of privatizing universities, of giving billionaires the ability to pull the strings at public universities, and to reshape academia in order to advance a personal ideological agenda.

Freeing the Poor and Learning From Amway

Other sessions include:

"The Lessons from Amway for Nonprofits," modeled after the multi-level marketing scheme that made the DeVos family billionaires. The DeVos' are big funders of some SPN member organizations as well as school privatization efforts, and Betsy DeVos herself will be speaking at SPN on how "to revolutionize the country's antiquated education model."

A workshop attacking municipal broadband (a longtime ALEC priority) sponsored by telecom industry front group "Coalition for the New Economy." The session will be moderated by a representative of the "news" site Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity/Watchdog.org.

"Freeing the Poor from the Government Poverty Trap through Policy Solutions and Private Services," which will include a presentation from the Foundation for Government Accountability, the Florida-based group best known for promoting welfare drug testing laws that critics say humiliate the poor.

A session highlighting a purported "lack of respect for job creators in many state policies," and a discussion of "how to build respect for job creators, remove barriers to employment and address this foremost concern of Americans."

"Case Studies in Effective Executive Branch Outreach," with presentations from groups like the Illinois Policy Institute and Ohio's Buckeye Institute.

"Free Market Approaches to Lowering Health Care Costs and Improving Access," with a presentation from the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon, who developed the challenge to the Affordable Care Act that was rejected by the US Supreme Court in King v. Burwell.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

BRENDAN FISCHER

Brendan Fischer is the Center for Media and Democracy's law fellow and a returned Peace Corps Volunteer - El Salvador.

RELATED STORIES
ALEC Wants to Educate High Schoolers on Balanced Budgets and Fiscal Austerity
By Mary Bottari, Jonas Persson, PR Watch | Report
ALEC Admits School Vouchers Are for Kids in Suburbia
By Jonas Persson, PR Watch | Report
ALEC, Where Corporations Are "People" Like You and Me
By Nick Licata, PR Watch | Op-Ed




“This week, a shadowy network of state-based, right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups will convene with Koch operatives and other big donors in Grand Rapids, Michigan to coordinate their 2016 agenda for all 50 states. The State Policy Network (SPN) is a network of state-branded groups, like the Civitas Institute in North Carolina and the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, which appear to be independent yet actually are operating from the same national playbook. SPN plays a key role in driving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agenda, particularly by providing academic-like cover for ALEC's corporate-friendly policies. Union-busting, attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, privatization of higher education, and other items are on the SPN meeting agenda this week, offering a preview of the right-wing state legislative strategy for 2016. …. A significant chunk of the funding for SPN and its affiliates flows through Donors Trust and Donors Capitol, which are "donor-advised funds" that give funders an added layer of anonymity. Known funders of SPN and its affiliates include a number of usual suspects, such as the billionaire Koch brothers and the Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation, as well as big tobacco companies like Altria/Phillip Morris and telecommunications players like AT&T and Time Warner. SPN's president, Tracie Sharp, has noted that "grants are driven by donor intent," and that "the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen." …. Where ALEC connects lobbyists with state legislators and promotes corporate-drafted model legislation, SPN affiliates provide the ground support. After an ALEC bill is introduced in a state, the SPN affiliates create the appearance of in-state support for the effort, generating "studies" or "news" stories purporting to show the benefits of the legislation or drumming up a façade of grassroots support. …. Wisconsin ALEC politicians introduced a word-for-word copy of the ALEC "Right to Work Act" in early February. A week later, one of the SPN affiliates, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), published a "study" from ALEC Scholar Richard Vedder purporting to show that right-to-work would be great for Wisconsin's economy. …. As the failure of Scott Walker's presidential bid indicated, bashing unions may have limited resonance among the electorate - but it remains a top priority for big donors, and in turn, remains a top priority for SPN and ALEC. …. A major priority for ALEC and SPN in recent months has been pushing back on the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan," which is a set of rules limiting carbon dioxide pollution from coal plants. …. In February, The Guardian revealed that the notorious PR flak Richard Berman (called "Dr. Evil" by 60 Minutes) was secretly funding the Beacon Hill Institute studies, which were released and promoted by SPN member think tanks. So far in 2015, Beacon Hill has released seven "studies" purporting to show the impact of the Clean Power Plan rules in seven states, in partnership with seven SPN member think tanks. …. At its most recent meeting, ALEC adopted the "Environmental Impact Litigation Act," a bill that effectively allows corporate interests to hire a state's Department of Justice as their own private attorneys. …. Privatizing Higher Ed: Another session, called "Winning the War of Ideas in Higher Education: a Toolkit for State Reformers," is sponsored by the Pope Center for Higher Education, one of the many North Carolina-based institutions founded and funded by billionaire discount store magnate Art Pope, a close associate of the Koch brothers and an ALEC alum. …. By most measures, North Carolina is hardly a model for higher education policy. Since 2008, the state has cut its higher education spending per-student by 25 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Public Priorities, and tuition has gone up by nearly 35 percent over the same period. The state and university have additionally limited financial assistance for low-income students. Yet according to those leading the presentation - Jay Schalin and Jenna Robinson of the John W. Pope Center - the crisis in higher education isn't cost or access. As The Nation reported earlier this year, Schalin says the main problem with higher education "has to do with the ideas that are being discussed and promoted," those being "multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism."

Dangerous ideas – "multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism." We should include the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, and that when Jesus says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” he means all races and all religious groups (even when you don’t agree with them). When the Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” Jefferson in his heart meant that to include black slaves. Of course, he wasn’t decent enough to free Sally Hemming when his wife died and let her pursue a free life rather than simply making her his permanent mistress and the mother of his additional children. That’s because good ideas only go so far when it comes to living up to their standard. But it’s “dangerous” to teach those things as basic truths, because that changes the degree of malleability of our American citizens. A truly well-educated public is harder to quash and confuse, even when most of them are too poor to buy legislators like the Koch brothers can. Educated and truly patriotic people can detect these neo-fascist ideas that are being promulgated now by ALEC and those other “think tank” organizations, and arise against them. How did “good” become so perverted? “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” springs to my mind, and I think it is pretty much true. The reason ISIS is triumphing in Iraq and Syria is that the local residents won’t organize themselves and stand up against them like the Kurds have been doing. Timidity should not be confused with virtue in my opinion. Unfortunately, when I went to Google to trace the famous quotation and credit its' originator, I found nothing but confusion.

See the following article: “http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
John F. Kennedy? Edmund Burke? R. Murray Hyslop? Charles F. Aked? John Stuart Mill?” It is too long to quote, but it's very interesting. Read it for information or fun, whichever. I “read at” it just for fun.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-invading-turkish-airspace-no-accident-us-official/

Russia invading Turkish airspace no "accident": U.S. official
CBS/AP
October 5, 2015

Video -- A fighter jet believed to be Russian is seen flying over Latamneh, in the northern Syrian governate of Hama, Sept. 30, 2015, in video posted online by anti-government activists.


The incident comes amid Turkish concerns over Russian airstrikes in Syria that have targeted some foreign-backed insurgents. Turkey - along with NATO ally the U.S. and others -- have conflicting positions with Russia on the Syrian regime, with Russia backing President Bashar Assad and Turkey insisting on his ouster.

"Obviously, along with quite a bit of Russia's behavior in Syria right now this just confirms our deep concern over what they're doing and continues to call into question their intent, and certainly raises questions about basic safe combat, professional behavior in the skies," a senior U.S. defense official told CBS News. The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss sensitive military matters and spoke on condition of anonymity, added: "I don't believe this was an accident."

Turkey said Monday that a Russian warplane along the Syrian border violated its airspace, prompting it to scramble F-16 fighter jets and summon the Russian ambassador in protest, reports CBS News correspondent Holly Williams.

A fighter jet believed to be Russian is seen flying over Latamneh, in the northern Syrian governate of Hama, Sept. 30, 2015, in video posted online by anti-government activists.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu vowed Monday to take all necessary measures to protect Turkey's borders from violation.

Russia admitted the plane had entered Turkey but insisted it was "by mistake." They tried to assure Ankara it would not happen again.

In Madrid, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday that the U.S. is conferring with Turkish leaders about the infringement.

Davutoglu said during an interview with Haber Turk television that NATO-member Turkey would enforce its rules of engagement if its airspace is violated. Those rules call for the treatment of any element approaching the Turkish border from Syria as an enemy.

"The Turkish Armed Forces have their orders," he said. "The necessary will be done even if it's a bird that violates Turkey's border ... Our rules of engagement are clear."

A Foreign Ministry statement said Monday that a Russian warplane entered Turkey's airspace near the town of Yayladagi, in Hatay province on Saturday. Two F-16 jets intercepted the Russian aircraft and forced it to fly back into the Syrian airspace.

Also Monday, Turkey's military said a MIG-29 jet had harassed two Turkish F-16s for five minutes and 40 seconds on Sunday by locking its radar onto them. In a brief statement, the military said the incident occurred while 10 F-16s were patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border. The military said it did not know which country the MIG-29 belonged to.

Turkey summoned the Russian ambassador and demanded that Russia avoid future infringements, the Foreign Ministry statement said. It warned that Russia would be held "responsible for any undesired incident," that may occur. The same message was also relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by telephone.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed solidarity with Turkey and said the situation would be taken up at a meeting later on Monday.

"I call on Russia to fully respect NATO airspace and to avoid escalating tensions with the Alliance," Stoltenberg said. "I urge Russia to take the necessary steps to align its efforts with those of the international community in the fight against ISIL."


Davutoglu told Haber Turk television that Russia assured Turkey that the airspace would not be violated again.

"The information we got from Russia this morning is that it was an incident that occurred by mistake," he said. "They said they are respectful of Turkey's borders and that it would not happen again."

Last week, Turkey issued a joint statement with its allies involved in the U.S.-backed campaign against the Islamic State group asking Moscow to cease attacks on the Syrian opposition and to focus on fighting the IS.

On Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Russian airstrikes were unacceptable and a grave mistake that could alienate Moscow in the region.

Russia says the airstrikes that began Wednesday are targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, but at least some of the strikes appear to have hit Western-backed rebel factions.




“The incident comes amid Turkish concerns over Russian airstrikes in Syria that have targeted some foreign-backed insurgents. Turkey - along with NATO ally the U.S. and others -- have conflicting positions with Russia on the Syrian regime, with Russia backing President Bashar Assad and Turkey insisting on his ouster. "Obviously, along with quite a bit of Russia's behavior in Syria right now this just confirms our deep concern over what they're doing and continues to call into question their intent, and certainly raises questions about basic safe combat, professional behavior in the skies," a senior U.S. defense official told CBS News. The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss sensitive military matters and spoke on condition of anonymity, added: "I don't believe this was an accident." …. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed solidarity with Turkey and said the situation would be taken up at a meeting later on Monday. "I call on Russia to fully respect NATO airspace and to avoid escalating tensions with the Alliance," Stoltenberg said. "I urge Russia to take the necessary steps to align its efforts with those of the international community in the fight against ISIL." Davutoglu told Haber Turk television that Russia assured Turkey that the airspace would not be violated again.”

"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom,” were the words of President Obama on Putin. He is unquestionably aggressive, and is not a believer in a strictly democratic society. He and many Russians behind him are believers in power at any cost. So are many of our own Republicans, especially in the Tea Party, but during the whole time I have been alive they were generally considered “hawks.” Democrats tend to try to talk before attacking. I agree with that philosophy because it prevents wars many times. Even I, at 70 years old, if someone pushes me down and I can still walk, I will come up fighting. That’s partly because I’ve always had “a temper,” and also because I believe that self-defense is not only my right but necessary. That’s why I approve of Turkey’s stepping up in this incident strongly. Immediately the Russians backed down.



http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/02/445379809/stuff-happens-comment-creates-firestorm-for-jeb-bush

'Stuff Happens' Comment Creates Firestorm For Jeb Bush
Jessica Taylor
OCTOBER 02, 2015

Photograph -- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush acknowledges the crowd while being introduced before speaking at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in San Francisco in January.
Jeff Chiu/AP


Jeb Bush sparked controversy yet again with his word choice on the campaign trail Friday.

When asked about Thursday's shooting at an Oregon community college, the former Florida governor argued for caution against more gun control as an instant reaction, saying that "stuff happens, there's always a crisis" you have to respond to when in leadership.

"I had this challenge as governor," Bush said of the way government should respond after such incidents. "Look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it's not necessarily the right thing to do."

Bush wasn't flippant in discussing the tragedy on Thursday, earlier calling it "heartbreaking." But when asked about the appropriate response to these types of incidents, Bush cautioned that "more government" wasn't "necessarily the answer."

The "stuff happens" part of his remark is what many on Twitter and Democratic opponents immediately zeroed in on.

And in the full context, Bush isn't dismissive of the shooting in Roseburg, Ore., that killed nine people.

President Obama was asked about Bush's remarks at his Friday afternoon news conference. He responded, "I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments based on the fact that every couple of months we have a mass shooting. And they can decide whether they consider that 'stuff happening.' "

Bush spokeswoman Allie Bradenburger criticized the furor, calling it "sad and beyond craven that liberal Democrats, aided and abetted by some in the national media, would dishonestly take Governor Bush's comments out of context in a cheap attempt to advance their political agenda in the wake of a tragedy."

But it's another statement — and one that Bush didn't back down from speaking with media after the event — that the Republican is left having to explain as his poll numbers slip. And there have been others.

Just last week, Bush said Republicans didn't have to promise "free stuff" to win over African-American voters.

"Our message is one of hope and aspiration," Bush said. "It isn't one of division and get in line and we'll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success."

But the remark echoed one Mitt Romney made on the campaign trail in 2012, saying that if people "want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy — more free stuff."

Here are some of his other controversial comments:

He said "I'm not sure we need half a billion dollars in funding for women's health programs" when asked about defunding Planned Parenthood. He later said he misspoke and just believed that the money shouldn't be given to the organization but instead to other centers.

To expand the economy to the 4 percent growth he projects, Bush told the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial board that "people need to work longer hours." Bush later clarified he meant boosting the hours of part-time or underemployed people, not adding longer work hours for full-time employees.

Amid criticism for using the term "anchor babies" — a derogatory term for women who come to the U.S. to have babies so that they gain birthright citizenship — Bush said he wasn't referring to Hispanics, but that "frankly it's more Asian people" who are guilty.

Bush said we should not have a "multicultural society" in the U.S., which slows assimilation to American society.

After first fumbling an answer on whether he would have gone into Iraq as his brother did "knowing what we know now," Bush spent a week trying to finally walk it back before saying, "I would not have gone into Iraq."

While one single comment or gaffe hasn't been responsible for Bush's tumble in the polls, many Republicans have said the inartful comments over several months suggest rust on the part of the former governor — who hadn't run for office since 2002, well before the age of social media and instant reporting.

So no, Bush wasn't callously dismissing this week's tragic shooting in Oregon by any means. But word choice is important for any candidate — especially for Bush, given the way he needs to shake the image of George W. Bush's presidency. And continued comments he is left explaining aren't good news for his own White House hopes.




“When asked about Thursday's shooting at an Oregon community college, the former Florida governor argued for caution against more gun control as an instant reaction, saying that "stuff happens, there's always a crisis" you have to respond to when in leadership. "I had this challenge as governor," Bush said of the way government should respond after such incidents. "Look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it's not necessarily the right thing to do." Bush wasn't flippant in discussing the tragedy on Thursday, earlier calling it "heartbreaking." But when asked about the appropriate response to these types of incidents, Bush cautioned that "more government" wasn't "necessarily the answer."

Well, I suppose we can’t honestly expect Bush to go against the standard party line, even when we have massive problems in our society. The fact that the US has many more of these insane shooter incidents than other countries doesn’t make him want to explore deeply what might be the solutions. Donald Trump, at least, did say recently that we should do more about mental illness. Better computer tracking of cases of mental illness would help a lot. We as a society can’t keep track of the cases. This particular young man didn’t go to an ordinary high school, but to a special one which is specifically for the mentally disabled and disturbed. Was he schizophrenic, perhaps? There was something there to find, and it wasn’t picked up, because he was able to buy his guns legally, and the last article I saw said that he had not 6 like I first heard, but 17. We need to make a cutoff in how many guns a buyer can collect, and put him on the FBI watch list. Gun obsession alone has popped up in a number of these killings. The average, normal good citizen just won’t do such horrible things. We need to catch them before they kill and treat their illness.