The Light: Hillary

To say I was shocked to learn that the State Department included Arizona in its section on Immigration in the paper the State Department presented to the Human Rights Commission. Surely, I misheard this. No way would the State Department include one of its own states on such a list to the United Nations. I did not mishear anything, or misread anything. Sadly, yes, the State Department did.

Let’s be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton’s willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a “model,” according to this Fox News report:

[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as “a model” to other nations.

“The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,’ Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

A “model”? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn’t already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran – IRAN – is on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it “offensive,” and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I’d rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn’t agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn’t get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I’m sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a “human rights abuse.” That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I’m waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.

UPDATE: I had a comment at my blog about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:

94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I changed the title to better reflect how AZ was mentioned in the report. I apologize for not being clearer before, but honestly, it was only my raging headache that prevented me from making the point succinctly. Sorry for that, though.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.

Recently, the United States celebrated the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote. That right was won by the significant efforts of a number of women, many of whom were jailed, beaten, and starved, fighting for this right. We honor them, and all that they have made possible for us 90 years later.

Now we have women governors, senators, representatives, and Secretaries of State. I can only imagine what out founding mothers would have thought of that, the joy, the excitement, the relief. No doubt, things have changed in this country for women. Not that women are treated as full equals yet in the United States. The sexism and misogyny evidenced by one of the two major political parties in 2008 made that abundantly clear. But things are better. We strive, still, for equal equal pay, for equal representation, for our first woman president, but there is no denying we are better off now than we were 90 years ago.

Indeed, our foremothers worked hard for this, as many of us have in the intervening years. But there are other countries, like Afghanistan, for example, where girls are in danger for merely trying to get an education. Yes, on Wednesday of this week, a girls’ school had poisonous gas spread throughout the school, sickening a number of the girls and teachers. Who would do such a thing? The Taliban would:

[snip] Wednesday’s incident follows a similar pattern seen in other recent attacks at girls’ schools involving an airborne substance which officials say could be some form of gas.

Those have raised fears that the Taliban and other allied groups who oppose female education are using a new method to scare them away from classes. [snip]

Wow. I scarcely know how to respond to this. It is despicable. And it is a pattern with the Taliban:

[snip] “This has happened a couple of times before, mainly in the northern province of Kunduz. At the time, it was also said, that these girls were poisoned and officials pointed the finger at the Taliban and rightly so,” she said.

“However, there is still no hard conclusion on who is behind this attack and what kind of poisoning is taking place.”

The Taliban banned education for girls during their Afghan rule from 1996-2001, but have condemned similar attacks in the past.

They have, however, set fire to dozens of schools, threatened teachers and even attacked schoolgirls in rural areas.

In one attack in Kandahar in 2008,around 15 girls and teachers were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.

In parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Taliban strongholds, schools for girls still remain closed. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This attitude toward women and girls is a bitter pill to swallow. As is this headline from The Hill, “Sen. Kerry: ‘Very active’ efforts under way to reach settlement with Taliban.” What? How? Why? Kerry explains:

[snip]“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious, and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged that some sort of political settlement must be reached with the Taliban — a loosely affiliated group of Islamic insurgents that control large swaths of territory in Afghanistan — in order to bring an end to the almost nine-year-long U.S. war there.

The beginning of settlement negotiations represents a significant development in terms of Western involvement there…

Kerry said any “appropriate” settlement would have to include “a renunciation of al Qaeda,” a “reduction of violence,” a “recognition of the constitutional rights of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and greater efforts to reduce sanctuaries for insurgency.”[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And what about the women and girls, Senator Kerry? What about them, in your “negotiations” with terrorists? Yeah, I know – who gives a damn about them? They are just “casualties,” I suppose, necessary capitulations to this woman-hating group.

How it is Kerry, and Obama, think having active negotiations with the Taliban is a good thing? What are the chances, really, that, if they can even get some of these groups to come to the table, they will even keep their word should a compromise be reached?

And what about these women, these girls? The ones gassed by members of the Taliban to prevent them from learning? Or, the Taliban members who throw acid in the faces of these girls in an attempt to force them our of school? Oh, yeah – these sounds like just the kind of people with whom we should be engaging in “very active” negotiations. You know, since we are choosing to negotiate with terrorists in the first place.

I cannot help but be reminded of this powerful moment (again) of CJ Craig on “West Wing”:

Wow. Yep, that sounds a little too familiar…

Indeed, I am thankful, grateful, and humbled for the work our foremothers did to secure us the right to vote in this country. For the women who fought to make this possible: Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the other remarkable women who enabled for us to have this right, thank you.

May the young girls and women of Afghanistan one day be allowed to learn, to study, to be educated. And may they, one day, one day soon, be full participants in their country. Sadly, that day is not today.

One other note – almost 200 women and 4 boys were raped near a UN Peacekeepers camp in Congo. And what has the UN said about it? They’re looking into it. Well, it only happened three weeks ago, so you can see why it might take them a while to come out with any kind of statement. Right. Sec. Clinton spoke out about this atrocity, and you can read her remarks HERE, but this sums it up:

[snip]“Sexual violence harms more than its immediate victims. It denies and destroys our common dignity, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as humans, it endangers families and communities, it erodes social and political stability, and it undermines economic progress. These travesties, committed with impunity against innocent civilians who play no role in armed conflict, hold us all back. [snip]

Amen to that.

Yes, yes, more about the whole mosque thing in New York, though this is about a different aspect of it. And that would be our First Amendment right to free speech.

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

In the recent special on an “honor killing” in Texas, an activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, spoke out about the treatment of women in Islam. Hirsi Ali knows a lot about how women are treated having grown up in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya. She has survived the genital mutilation that was (is) common in her culture (I chose not to put the tale of this act committed against Hirsi Ali, then a 5 yr old girl. If you wish to read about it, click here.).

But that is just the beginning of who she is. There is so much more to this woman’s remarkable life. In addition to the activism for which she is known now, she was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands in 1992. Hirsi Ali has written and spoken out extensively about not only her life, but the lives of women in general living under Islam, a life of subservience, of subjugating much of what makes them who they are. She speaks of her mother’s life:

[snip]Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God – to become what Ayaan calls “a devoted, well-trained work-animal”. [snip]

Hirsi Ali’s activism has not been without a price, though. She continues to live under a fatwa, even now in the United States, where she has to travel with armed guards to this day as a result of her outspokenness on Islam. But at least she is still alive. The director who worked with her on a documentary about women and Islam is not so lucky, as this article, “My Life Under A Fatwa” from the Independent UK highlights:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world’s consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh – a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent – left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him – with a handgun and two sharpened butcher’s knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: “Can’t we talk about this?” Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh’s throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh’s haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: “The letter was addressed to me.” It said that Van Gogh had been “executed” for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be “executed” too – for being an apostate.

Her story is recounted in that article, and what a life it has been. I urge you to read the rest. It is quite a story indeed.

All of that is to say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows whereof she speaks when it comes to Islam as a woman who grew up Muslim, and who has lived in several Muslim nations. Heaven knows, she is far more than an authority on it than I am.

And so, given the current brouhaha over the proposed mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, and the imam who wants to build it currently on a trip to the Middle East on our dime, this seems like a good time to focus a bit more attention on what Hirsi Ali has to say. It is timely, provocative, and disturbing.

The following clip deals more with Islam in Europe, though Hirsi Ali does mention the United States. Still, what she says encompasses what is happening in the States:

And now, Hirsi Ali speaks specifically about the United States. You do not want to miss this. It is quite something:

An “unholy alliance” – WOW. The point she makes about the second type of liberal was breathtaking.

There is so, so much more to this woman’s life, and what she has to say. I encourage you to watch more of her interviews. She is quite something.

Oh, and about that mosque near Ground Zero? Well, Hamas has weighed in on this issue. Yes, Hamas, the terrorist organization, has something to say about it. They say, build it, as this S.A. Miller NY Post article, “Hamas Nor For Ground Zero Mosque” points out:

[snip]“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC. [snip]

Oh, it gets better:

[snip]“First of all, we have to address that we are different as people, as a nation, totally different,” he said.

“We already are living under the tradition of Islam.

“Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships,” Zahar said.

“Even the Islamic people or the Muslims in your country, they are living now in the tradition of Islam. They are fasting; they are praying.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf still refuses to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Right…

I understand well Hirsi Ali’s point that liberals like many of us do not want anyone to be subjected to the kind of discrimination African Americans and others (Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics, to name a few) have experienced in the United States. I completely get that. But I think she raises some good points about how we cannot allow that to blind us to some realities we may not want to admit for fear of the historical reality some groups have faced here.

And yet, address these issues we must, with eyes wide open…

That would be sending Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, to name two, on our dime, as a representative of the United States. And yes, he first began his work for the State Department in 2007. This will be his third trip. Given his claim in 2001 that the United States was an “accessory” to what happened on 9/11, it boggles the mind that our government would use him in ANY capacity, much less to travel as a representative of our country …

So, yes, Imam Rauf will be going on his third trip abroad. On our dime. In a program to “promote the role of religion in the US.” If his name sounds familiar, it should. He is the same one who wants to build the Cordoba Institute/Mosque near Ground Zero, in case you didn’t know that already.

Here to discuss the trip, is State Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, PJ Crowley:

You’ll have noticed that this clip covers that Governor Patterson of New York offered Imam Rauk state property to build his mosque. That raises the separation of church and state issue. Did Patterson mean he would SELL the property to Rauk, and if so, for how much? Surely, he couldn’t have expected to just GIVE it to him, as a state sanctioned mosque would have been the end result. That is unacceptable. And it would be if it were a church or synagogue, or Buddhist temple or Pagan circle, or anything related. Just to be clear.

But here’s the thing that gets me about this interview. Crowley claims that, even though Imam Rauf is going on a program to discuss the role of religion in the US, he will not be discussing religion. Huh? So, um, why exactly is he going then? At our expense, I might add? That makes no sense to me, but that could just be me.

Or maybe not. Here is more on the separation of church and state from a more conservative position:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And this “certain pile of cash”? I am pretty darn sure that is our money, too. Unless some wealthy benefactor gave it to the State Department to do as it damned well pleased, like sending an Imam who blames the US for 9/11.

But that is only part of the story with Imam Rauk. Here is the big question: why is the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, enlisting an imam who supports Sharia Law, despite the State Department claims that he is a “moderate”? Sharia Law is NOT a moderate position.

Never mind that Rauk claimed he does not believe in “religious dialogue,” according to this piece by Walid Shoebat of Pajamas Media in this post, “Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe In Religious Dialogue.’” So, that pretty much puts to a lie the whole meme that this imam wants to build “interfaith understanding,” or whatever is the catch phrase du jour to justify Rauk’s intention to build his mosque near Ground Zero.

But that’s not the end of the story, either. According to Madeline Brooks, also of Pajamas Media, “Terror Ties: Ground Zero Imam Attended Hizb-ut Tahrir Conference.” This was in 2007. And while many of us may not be aware of this group (I wasn’t), this should clear things up:

[snip] Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. This is a dangerous group. It is alleged to have attempted coups in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, which were defeated, fortunately. As we see in these photos, Rauf looks quite relaxed and happy at the Hizb-ut Tahrir conference, as do the other participants with him. In fact, there is a feeling of celebration in these photos. The language in the text accompanying the photos is Malay. Although the conference was held in Indonesia, there were many Malaysians attending, including Rauf, who has lived for a great part of his life in Malaysia. An English language website promoting the caliphate states that 100,000 people attended the conference.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is similar ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both seek worldwide Islamic supremacy and the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy. But Hizb-ut Tahrir differs by also espousing Marxist-Leninist methodology, and is entirely open about its ambition to dominate the world, unlike the more discreet Muslim Brotherhood.

On two occasions, Hizb-ut Tahrir in America called for terrorism recruitment conferences in Chicago to establish their long-awaited caliphate, which would knock down capitalism, democracy, and equal rights for non-Muslims and women, and institute a Muslim-run society under sharia law. One conference, called “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” and scheduled for July 2009 in Chicago, actually did occur. But a follow-up conference slated for July 2010 at the Chicago Marriott in Oak Brook, titled “Emerging World Order: How the Khilafah Will Shape the World,” was canceled by the hotel. [snip]

And the State Department considers this man a MODERATE? Well, maybe there is the big problem right there – they are operating under a very different dictionary than the majority of us. Sharia law, blaming the US for 9/11, and associating with this group do not constitute a “moderate,” at least not in my book.

After all is said an done, what I truly do not understand is this: How is it that Secretary Clinton, a champion of the rights of women and children for her entire adult life, can possibly give this man a thumbs up? I simply do not understand this. I cannot understand it at all.

Surely there is a Muslim cleric in this country who truly is a moderate, who does not support Sharia Law, or associate with an organization banned in a number of countries, isn’t there? And it begs the question, why is the organization not banned here and in Britain? I think I know, but I want to hear what you have to say. So, why this man? Why, Secretary Clinton?

As you may know by now, ten relief workers were murdered in Afghanistan over the weekend, six of whom were Americans. The Taliban is taking “credit” for their murders.

These people were there for no other reason but to help people. They were medical personnel – doctors, dentists, nurses, and others, there to provide free eye care. According to the NY Times, this brings to 17 the number of aid workers who have been murdered in Afghanistan.

Secretary Clinton made the following remarks in regard to these tragic deaths:

Sec. Clinton’s remarks said it all. It is heartbreaking that these unarmed relief workers were gunned down when their purpose for being there was to bring medical relief to the people of Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban taking credit for this massacre, the Taliban claimed that these relief workers were killed for one reason, and one reason only, according to this AP article:

[snip] The Taliban has claimed credit for the attack, saying the workers were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver who told police he recited verses from the Islamic holy book the Quran as he begged for his life.

But Grams’ twin brother, Tim, said his brother wasn’t trying to spread religious views. “He was there to help the people of Afghanistan,” said Tim Grams, holding back tears in a telephone call from Anchorage, Alaska on Sunday, after the U.S. State Department confirmed his brother’s death.

“He knew the laws, he knew the religion. He respected them. He was not trying to convert anybody,” Tim Grams said. “His goal was to provide dental care and help people. He knows it’s a capital offense to try to convert folks.” [snip]

From the accounts I have seen, while their faith inspired them to do this kind of humanitarian work, they were not attempting to spread their faith.

And we’re going to be negotiating with these people? Really? Well, as long as they aren’t tied to Al Qaeda, that is, and promise to stop being violent. Right. I’m sure they’ll get right on that. Not.

I wonder what kind of comfort this will bring to the families of the slain relief workers? Perhaps it will, I don’t know. But this whole negotiating with terrorists thing grates at me.

My thoughts and prayers go out to these ten families as they deal with the brutal deaths of their beloved family members, as well as to their friends, and colleagues. We stand with you in this difficult time…

Yes, according to our, um, “esteemed” Vice President Biden. Oh, people, you know I am not making this up. Just one more of the crazy things that have come out of his mouth. But did you even hear about it? You had to be paying close attention if you did. It isn’t like the MSM played the clip over and over, cackling with derision at such an inane statement, especially a statement from the second in command of the country that is generally seen as the seat of the Free World.

Remember when VP Dan Quayle misspelled “potato”? I bet most of us know nothing else about the man except that he misspelled one word one time. Honestly, I had to look him up to see what his qualifications were, and how he even came to BE Vice President. Did you know he served in the Army National Guard for 6 years, earned his Juris Doctor while serving, won re-election by the widest margin ever in that part of Indiana, and was the youngest person to win a US Senate seat from Indiana? Yeah, I didn’t either. All I knew was he was a Republican and he misspelled “potato.” Turns out he had some other accomplishments. Who knew?

But here’s the thing – how is it that this man, this Vice President, was forever tarnished and castigated for ONE mistake, yet Biden routinely makes gaffes, and his are just laughed off?

For that matter, how did Biden ever even get the VP nod? That’s what I’d like to know. Someone who routinely sticks his foot in his mouth is not exactly the most reassuring person to have in the Number 2 position. Especially when he continually says stupid things.

But this time was different, as Jonah Goldberg points out in this piece, “Joe Biden’s Brussles Spout“; Brussels doesn’t stand for freedom, it sits for its own self-aggrandizement, social engineering, the tyranny of legalisms, and diplomatic argy-bargy.:

‘Joe Biden.” With the exception of “broken teleprompter,” these are the scariest two words in the White House communications shop.

One advantage Biden has over Obama is he can always claim he was “just being Joe” whenever he says something controversial. In this way, Biden reminds me a bit of the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who would say “nice” things in English and evil things in Arabic. The press would largely ignore the Arabic and take him at his word in English.

Biden gets away with a similar technique, only it’s all in English. It’s just that when he’s “just being Joe,” he gets a pass.

It would be one thing if all Biden did was offer the occasional Washington gaffe (i.e., accidentally telling the truth), or if he merely talked as if he learned history from Monty Python skits, as when he claimed that FDR went on TV to reassure Americans after the 1929 stock market crash. (FDR wasn’t president. No one had TV). But that’s not how he rolls.

Earlier this month, Biden spoke to the European Parliament in Brussels. “As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C., as the ‘capital of the free world.’ But it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.”

Now, as Biden said after the passage of Obamacare, this is a big (expletive deleted) deal. Sure, you can downgrade it to mere diplo-flattery, but that’s just the geopolitical equivalent of giving Biden the same free pass he always gets.

Still, I’d give him a pass, too, if this was crazy Joe talking. We’d all just roll our eyes if he came in there reciting Irish limericks in Klingon and claiming that we can switch from fossil fuels to Grape Nuts cereal.

But this wasn’t Joe just being Joe. How do we know? Because these were prepared remarks, and they fit perfectly with the White House’s approach to foreign policy.

And that is the big difference right there. This was not one of Biden’s usual “open mouth, insert foot” moments. These remarks were written for him to say. And that is problematic:

In speeches around the world, Obama has offered apologies, confessions, and indictments of his own country. Save for the Afghanistan surge, Obama’s foreign policy has pointed toward the idea that America needs to downgrade its sense of exceptionalism. What better way to do that than to concede the title of leader of the free world, without a fight, to a Belgian backwater known for its absurd European regulations, urinating statues, and excellent beer?

In 2003, Don Rumsfeld’s talk of “old Europe” ignited an international firestorm. But when Biden suggests that the lamplight of liberty shines most brightly from Brussels, the collective response is either quiet nodding from the Left or “there he goes again” from the Right.

Again, that is if Biden’s remarks in May even made it onto the airwaves or into the newspaper. Assuming they did, Goldberg suggests this:

How about we take Biden seriously instead?

Let’s look at Biden’s case for Brussels as Freedom Command Alpha. It’s 1,000 years old! Okay. But for most (all) of that time, Brussels was hardly synonymous with “freedom.” Beijing is twice as old as Brussels, Cairo older still. Does that burnish their liberty-loving street cred?

Aha, but Biden adds that Brussels is the capital of Belgium! While I’m sure that’s a huge matter of pride in high-school ping-pong competitions against Antwerp, does anyone else care?

It’s true that Brussels is the headquarters for NATO, but NATO takes its orders from a different capital — Washington, D.C.

Then there’s the fact that the EU has set up shop in Brussels. Surely this was really Biden’s only point. He was telling the unaccountable Lilliputians of the Eurocracy that Gulliver sees them as equals now.

We’ve gone through the looking glass. Brussels has no love for freedom as we define it in the American sense, and it has little to no power to promote it in any sense. The pencil pushers in Brussels have almost as much contempt for democratic sovereignty and free enterprise as they do for common sense. Indeed, in the endless quest to ratify the EU’s constitution, the leaders of the effort insisted that the voters’ opinion didn’t matter.

Brussels doesn’t stand for freedom, it sits for its own self-aggrandizement, social engineering, the tyranny of legalisms, and diplomatic argy-bargy.

It’s not just offensive that Biden thinks Brussels might deserve the title over Washington, it’s terrifying that he might actually think Brussels is in the freedom business at all.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

(more...)

Recently, we have been focusing on our neighbors to the south as we discuss issues of illegal immigration. But while we have been focusing our energies down there, something has been going on up in Canada. And it’s big.

What is it, you may ask? Well, this: Soaring Costs Force Canada To Reassess Health Model. Oh, dear. Isn’t this the model the Democrats claimed worked so well, and was one to emulate here in the States? Wasn’t that the constant rallying cry to shove through Obamacare, whether we wanted it or not (and “or not” was what we wanted)? Were not those of us who tried to point out that there were very real problems with the Canadian system scoffed at, derided, and dismissed? Yes, yes we were.

Well, here’s the thing. Once again, we were right, as the article mentioned above demonstrates:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

“At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Huh. Here Canada is having problems, and their relationship with drug companies seems to be a tad bit different from the one Obama has. That is to say, they are actively fighting them, and fighting FOR their citizens, as opposed to Obama making a deal with Big Pharma from the Get-go which definitely was in Big Pharma’s favor. Yt, Canada is having problems:

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

“As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed,” said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

“Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There’s going to be a finer look at what we’re paying for and, more importantly, what we’re getting for it,” he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

SEVENTY PERCENT?? Well, I don’t have to be a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics to know THAT is not good (though these days, accomplishments have become passe – ahem):

“Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them,” Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

Those sound like some possible options, but the outcome is unclear:

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

“Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them,” said U of T’s Golden. “We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now.”

Scotia Capital’s Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. “(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it’s costing,” she said.

“If it’s absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?”

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada’s national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

“It’s an area that Canadians don’t want to see touched,” said TD’s Burleton. “Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist’s standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost.”

($1=$1.05 Canadian) (Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

Isn’t that the single biggest issue right now? Once a social program has begun, people do not want to give them up? Isn’t that what happened in Greece? Isn’t that a big problem for the US, too? We continue to expand and extend programs that have massive benefits we cannot afford. For example, did you know in some states Unemployment Benefits were extended to 99 weeks? I’m sure you can do the math, but that’s almost 2 years! Could that money not have been better used in a WPA sort of way? Or some other jobs-creation plan? There are claims that the EUC is actually expanding unemployment. That is, simply put, problematic.

But here’s the biggest problem with the whole Canadian health care crisis compared to ours – our financial numbers were fudged. Only after the bill became a law did the REAL numbers start coming out, and they are NOT good. Check out what former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated recently:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Yikes. Again, this is what happens when a bill is rammed through without people bothering to read it first, filling it full of pork and giveaways, and expecting more service for less money. That is to say, it was fraught with problems from the beginning. We can only hope that before it is fully implemented, there is a massive overhaul or repeal.

I am all for people having health care, but as I have said before, let’s be smart about it. Do our homework first. REALLY look at the numbers, get out of Obama’s Big Pharma deal, and do right by all of our citizens, not corporations or political parties. Let Canada be a warning to us.

This past week President Obama hosted his big Nuclear Summit, welcoming leaders from all over the world (except for Israel, of course – Obama seems intent on breaking up with our ally int he Middle East). Oh, yes – it was quite the big to-do. Obama was on tv freakin’ non-stop, with one teleprompted speech after another.

So, just what was really ACCOMPLISHED in this major meeting? Charles Krauthammer whittles it all down in his article, Obama’s Nuclear Strutting And Fretting. Huh – how’s THAT for a soundbite? Think Robert Gibbs is going to co-opt that one? Yeah, me neither.

Anyway, here is what this whole big,”Historic!”, “Unprecedented!” summit boiled down to:

There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.

But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.

The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.

Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.

Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.

So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.

What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.

Oh, WHEW!!!!! Who cares about Pakistan and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as long as we have our Neighbors To The North under control!!! I mean, really – with their hockey sticks and curling stones, there is no TELLING what they might try against us! Way to go, OBAMA!! (Better write down this date – I doubt you’ll see something like that again, unless it is the day after the election in 2012, and Obama gets tossed out!)

Canada. O, Canada – thank you for your willingness to forgo your enriched plutonium. What a feather in Obama’s cap, this summit was. I mean, it’s a start, anyway:

Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the United States.

Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable, friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the United States and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?

The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.

Oh. Um. Well, not such a feather after all, it would seem. Oops. Hey, at least he tried, right? That’s something, anyway. Maybe not:

Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week: a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.

This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.

All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.

At which point the world changes irrevocably: The regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.

A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.

But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “work plan” has been agreed to.

Oh, yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com )

Dang, this is so irritating. This guy is such an egotist – and that is a huge piece to this puzzle. He wanted to notch his belt with another “accomplishment.” Yep, getting Canada to bend to his will was QUITE the coup, eh? Please.

So just what did Obama accomplish at this Big Summit? Changes with China? North Korea? I think this sums it up nicely:

“Whether we like it or not” we’re a military Superpower? Say huh, WHAAAAA? “Whether we like it or NOT?” WTH?? Whatever he meant by that, it was poorly, uh, uh, uh, worded, and further serves to undermine regardless of how he meant it. Doesn’t he know he cannot stray from TOTUS?? Wow. What an unbelievable statement from the President of the United States.

So what did the Summit accomplish? Not Much. At great expense to us, no doubt, hosting all of these world leaders. And, great expense to them to have to come to this “event.” That Obama – he sure does love his get-togethers, doesn’t he? I wonder if his BFFs, Jay-z and Beyonce attended the Nuclear Disarmament Summit, too? Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised. Surely if they are able to be in the Situation Room, attending this kind of Summit is nothing but a party. Woohoo!

What a wasted opportunity. At least we don’t have to lose sleep over Canada…

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I saw the headlines – that the Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, along with his wife, Maria, and numerous others, were killed flying into Smolensk, Russia. At this point, the death toll is not confirmed, with the numbers ranging between 88 and 96.

Regardless of the final tally, it is a devastating loss for Poland:

A plane carrying the Polish president and dozens of the country’s top political and military leaders to the site of a Soviet massacre of Polish officers in World War II crashed in western Russia on Saturday, killing everyone on board.

President Lech Kaczynski’s plane tried to land in a thick fog, missing the runway and snagging treetops about half a mile from the airport in Smolensk, scattering chunks of fuselage across a bare forest.

The crash came as a stunning blow to Poland, wiping out a large portion of the country’s leadership in one fiery explosion. And in a chilling twist, it happened at the moment that Russia and Poland were beginning to come to terms with the killing of more than 20,000 members of Poland’s elite officer corps in the same place 70 years ago.

“It is a damned place,” former President Aleksander Kwasniewski told TVN24. “It sends shivers down my spine.”

“This is a wound which will be very difficult to heal,” he said.

It is hard to fathom the far reaching effects of losing such a high number of a country’s leadership. The loss personally for the people of Poland is tremendous, and my heart just aches for them. But imagine losing so many of the people, including the president, in one fell swoop. Unbelievable. Especially since the plane was being warned off:

A top Russian military official said air traffic controllers at the Smolensk airport had several times ordered the crew of the plane not to land, warned that it was descending below the glide path and recommended it reroute to another airport.

“Nevertheless, the crew continued the descent,” said Lt. Gen. Aleksandr Alyoshin, the first deputy chief of the Russian Air Force Staff. “Unfortunately, the result was tragic.”

Russian emergency officials said 97 people were killed. They included Poland’s deputy foreign minister and a dozen members of Parliament, the chiefs of the army and the navy, and the president of the national bank. They included Anna Walentynowicz, 80, the former dock worker whose firing in 1980 set off the Solidarity strike that ultimately overthrew Polish Communism, as well as relatives of victims of the massacre that they were on their way to commemorate.

Poles united in their grief in a way that recalled the death of the Polish pope, John Paul II, five years ago. Thousands massed outside the Presidential Palace, laying flowers and lighting candles.

Magda Niemczyk, a 24-year-old student, held a single tulip. “I wanted to be together with the other Polish people,” she said.

“It’s a national tragedy,” said Ryszard Figurski, 70, a retired telecommunications worker. “Apart from their official positions, it is also simply the loss of so many lives.”

Precisely – it is the loss of so many lives:

Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, one of the highest-ranking Polish leaders not on board the plane, told Radio Zet in Poland that he was the one to inform Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who “was in tears when he heard about the catastrophe.”

The crash happened days after Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin became the first Russian leader to join Polish officials in commemorating the 1940 massacre at Katyn Woods, a wound that has festered between the two countries for decades and to Poles was a symbol of Russian domination.

Former President Lech Walesa, who presided over Poland’s transition from Communism, called the crash “the second disaster after Katyn.”

“They wanted to cut off our head there, and here the flower of our nation has also perished,” he said.

How can it be that an area already fraught with sorrow, tension, and animosity would once again be the site of so much pain and loss? Just heart breaking.

There is the inevitable question about what happens now for Poland’s leadership:

The repercussions on Poland’s coming presidential elections were far from clear. The Law and Justice Party lost numerous important leaders in addition to the president, including its parliamentary leader. Mr. Kaczynski had been trailing far behind his opponent in the polls, but the outpouring of sympathy from the mourning public might benefit his party in the moved-up presidential election.

Under Poland’s Constitution, the leader of the lower house of Parliament, now acting president, has 14 days to announce new elections, which must then take place within 60 days.

While the crash is not likely to substantially change Poland’s relationships with other countries, including its plans to host part of an American missile defense system, it could agitate Poland’s relationship with Russia.

Mr. Kaczynski, 60, a pugnacious nationalist who often clashed with Russia, was on his way to Katyn, where members of the Soviet secret police executed Polish officers captured after the Red Army invaded Poland in 1939.

Relations between Warsaw and Moscow have been strained ever since. For half a century, Moscow denied involvement in the killings, blaming the Nazis. But last Wednesday, Mr. Putin took a major step to improve relations by becoming the first Russian or Soviet leader to join Polish officials in commemorating the massacre’s anniversary. He was joined there by Mr. Tusk.

Mr. Kaczynski, seen by the Kremlin as less friendly to Russia, was not invited. Instead, he decided to attend a separate, Polish-organized event on Saturday.

Russia’s leaders, acutely aware of the potential political fallout of the crash, immediately reached out to Poland with condolences. Mr. Putin left Moscow to meet Mr. Tusk at the site of the crash, and President Dmitri A. Medvedev recorded an address to the Polish people, saying, “All Russians share your sorrow and mourning.”

Hmmm – yes, I would say that was strained. Not unlike Israeli PM Netanyahu’s decision to cancel his trip to Obama’s “Nuclear Summit.” Yeah, like that kind of strained. Ahem.

Back to Poland, and how something like this could happen to envelope this country in sorrow:

The plane that crashed was a 20-year-old Tupolev Tu-154, designed by the Soviets in the mid-1960s and operated by the Polish Air Force. Russia halted mass production of the jet about 20 years ago, and about 200 of them are still in service around the world, said Paul Hayes, director of accidents and insurance at Ascend, an aviation consultancy in London. He said the Polish presidential jet was one of the youngest of them.

Officials in Poland have repeatedly requested that the government’s aging air fleet be replaced. Former Prime Minister Leszek Miller, who survived a helicopter crash in 2003, told Polish news media he had long predicted such a disaster.

“I once said that we will one day meet in a funeral procession, and that is when we will take the decision to replace the aircraft fleet,” he said.

It was unclear whether the plane’s age was a factor in the crash. The crash site was cordoned off, but Russian news media reported that the airplane’s crew made several attempts to land before a wing hit the treetops and the plane crashed about half a mile from the runway. Correspondents at the scene said the plane’s explosion was so powerful that fragments of it were scattered as far as the outskirts of Smolensk, more than a mile from the crash site.

A spokesman for Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said 88 passengers were on the plane.

Among them, the Polish government said, were Mr. Kaczynski; his wife, Maria; Ryszard Kaczorowski, who led a government in exile during the Communist era; the deputy speaker of Poland’s Parliament, Jerzy Szmajdzinski; the head of the president’s chancellery, Wladyslaw Stasiak; the head of the National Security Bureau, Aleksander Szczyglo; the deputy minister of foreign affairs, Andrzej Kremer; the chief of the general staff of the Polish Army, Franciszek Gagor; the president of Poland’s national bank, Slawomir Skrzypek; and the commissioner for civil rights protection, Janusz Kochanowski.

Mr. Kaczynski was elected president in 2005 just as his identical twin brother, Jaroslaw, became head of the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice government. He forged close relationships with Ukraine and Georgia and pushed for their accession into NATO, arguing passionately that a stronger NATO would keep Russia from reasserting its influence over Eastern Europe.

He was a major supporter of plans for part of an American antiballistic missile defense system to be based in Poland, infuriating Russia. Although that proposal by President George W. Bush was scaled back by President Obama, Polish officials have said they still plan to host American surface-to-air missiles in northern Poland.

That plan is unlikely to be affected by the crash. (Nicholas Kulish and Michal Piotrowski reported from Warsaw, and Ellen Barry from Moscow. Clifford J. Levy and Viktor Klimenko contributed reporting from Moscow, and Nicola Clark from Paris

This crash is such a tragedy, such a tremendous loss, for Poland. For what it is worth, I hope the people of Poland know that we are thinking of them, and carrying them in our hearts as they deal with the aftermath of this terrible moment in history…

Thanks to NQ faithful reader for finding the National Anthem of Poland: