Israeli Forces Attack Convoy on Syria-Lebanese Border

Israel hits target in Syria border area: sources

January 30, 2013

Reuters - Israeli forces attacked a convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, a Western diplomat and regional security sources said on Wednesday, as concern has grown in the Jewish state over the fate of Syrian chemical and advanced conventional weapons.

The sources, four in total, all of whom declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, had no further information about what the vehicles may have been carrying, what forces were used or where precisely the attack happened.

In the run-up to the raid, Israeli officials have been warning very publicly of a threat of high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles reaching Israel's enemies in the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from Syria. They have also echoed U.S. concerns about Syria's presumed chemical weapons arsenal.

The Lebanese army reported a heavy presence of Israeli jets over its territory throughout the night.

"There was definitely a hit in the border area," one security source said. A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said "something has happened", without elaborating.

An activist in Syria who works with a network of opposition groups around the country said that she had heard of a strike in southern Syria from her colleagues but could not confirm it. A strike just inside Lebanon would appear a less diplomatically explosive option for Israel to avoid provoking Syrian ally Iran.

Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.

Israeli sources said on Tuesday that Syria's advanced conventional weapons would represent as much of a threat to Israel as its chemical arms should they fall into the hands of Islamist rebels or Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon.

Interviewed on Wednesday, Shalom would not be drawn on whether Israel was operating on its northern front, instead describing the country as part of an international coalition seeking to stop spillover from Syria's two-year-old insurgency.

"The entire world has said more than once that it takes developments in Syria very seriously, developments which can be in negative directions," he told Israel Radio, recalling that President Barack Obama has warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of U.S. action if his forces use chemical weapons.

"The world, led by President Obama who has said this more than once, is taking all possibilities into account," Shalom added. "And of course any development which is a development in a negative direction would be something that needs stopping and prevention."

BORDER STRIKE

Whether the strike took place within Syrian territory, or over the border in Lebanon, could affect any escalation from the incident. Iran, Israel's arch-foe and one of Damascus's few allies, said on Saturday it would consider any attack on Syria as an attack on itself. During and since Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah, there have been unconfirmed reports of Israeli strikes on convoys just after they entered Lebanon from Syria.

Israel has long made clear it claims a right to act preemptively against enemy capabilities. Alluding to this, air force chief Major-General Amir Eshel on Tuesday said his corps was involved in a covert and far-flung "campaign between wars".

"This campaign is 24/7, 365 days a year," Eshel told an international conference. "We are taking action to reduce the immediate threats, to create better conditions in which we will be able to win the wars, when they happen."

He did not elaborate on any operations, but did single out the threat Israel saw from Syria's arsenal, calling it "huge, part of it state-of-the-art, part of it unconventional".

Israel fought an inconclusive war in Lebanon with Iranian-backed Hezbollah in 2006. Its aircraft then faced little threat, though its navy was taken aback when a cruise missile hit a ship off the Lebanese coast. Israeli tanks suffered losses to rockets and commanders are concerned Hezbollah may get better weaponry.

Israeli jets regularly enter Lebanese airspace, but its forces have been more discreet about Syrian incursions.

Israel's bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, though revealed by then U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, is still not formally acknowledged by the Israelis.

According to Bush, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought to keep the matter quiet so as to reduce the risk of Assad feeling public pressure to retaliate. Syria and Israel are technically at war but have not exchanged fire in a significant way in decades.

A U.N. force sits on the line, north of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, where a ceasefire ended their last war in 1973.

Israeli media reported this week that the country's national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, was sent to Russia and its military intelligence chief Major-General Aviv Kochavi to the United States for consultations.

Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London said that there are indications that Hezbollah is training near chemical weapons sites in Syria, with which the Shi'ite Lebanese militia has historically had a strong alliance.

"We also know that (Syria's) use of tactical ballistic missiles has been escalating - presumably as air power becomes harder to use in contested areas, and rebels seize larger targets like bases that are amenable to missile attack," he said.

Worries about Syria and Hezbollah have sent Israelis lining up for government-issued gas masks. According to the Israel post office, which is handling distribution of the kits, demand roughly trebled this week.

"It looks like every kind of discourse on this or that security matter contributes to public vigilance," its deputy director Haim Azaki told Israel's Army Radio. "We have really seen a very significant jump in demand."

Related:

• Israel to give Palestinians $100 million in withheld funds
• Israel to transfer tax funds to Palestinians

State Policies on Unemployment Benefits Encourage Millions of Jobless Americans to Receive Payments Through Bank-issued Cards with Heavy Fees Rather Than Direct Deposit

Report: States force jobless to pay needless fees

January 29, 2013

AP - Jobless Americans are paying millions in unnecessary fees to collect unemployment benefits because of state policies encouraging them to get the money through bank-issued payment cards, according to a new report from a consumer group.

People are using the fee-heavy cards instead of getting their payments deposited directly to their bank accounts. That's because states issue bank cards automatically, require complicated paperwork or phone calls to set up direct deposit and fail to explain the card fees, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit group that seeks to protect low-income Americans from unfair financial-services products. An early copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press.

Until the past decade, states distributed unemployment compensation by mailing out paper checks. Some also allowed direct deposit. The system worked well for people who had bank accounts and could deposit the check without paying a fee.

It also cost states millions of dollars each year to print and mail the checks.

Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp and Bank of America Corp. seized on government payments as a business opportunity. They pitched card programs to states as a win-win: States would save millions in overhead costs because the cards would be issued for free. And people without bank accounts would avoid the big fees charged by storefront check cashers.

However, most of the people being hit with fees already have bank accounts. The bank-state partnerships effectively shifted the cost of distributing payments from governments to individuals. The money needed to cover those costs is deducted from people's unemployment benefits in the form of fees.

Consumer advocates like NCLC are focused on ensuring access to the direct-deposit option so that people can avoid the card fees.

The trouble, the new report says, is that many states make it difficult for people to sign up for direct deposit. The rate of people using direct deposit ranges from a national high of 82 percent in Minnesota to a low of 16 percent in Arizona, the report says.

Minnesota offers direct deposit to people when they apply for benefits, and allows them to change their payment method online or over the phone, the report says.

In Arizona, by contrast, people are automatically enrolled in the card program. After they receive the card, they must find a paper form, fill it out, and submit it by mail. There is no way to change payment methods online or over the phone.

"The difference in direct-deposit rates among states seems primarily due to how hard or easy the state makes it for workers to choose direct deposit," the report says.

In five states — California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland and Nevada — unemployed people aren't offered direct deposit at all. The report says that setup is illegal under a federal law that bars states from requiring benefits recipients to open an account at a particular bank.

The federal government recommended in 2009 that people with bank accounts receive payments via direct deposit. Nearly four years later, the report says, "there is no excuse for any state not to be offering direct deposit as the first choice for payment of unemployment benefits."

Banks make more money when more people use the cards. In the past, some of their deals with states prevented states from offering direct deposit, or required states to promote the card program as a first option.

To cover the cost of issuing cards and running the programs, banks charge a plethora of fees, including charges for balance inquiries, phone calls to customer support, leaving an account inactive for a period of months, or making a purchase using a personal identification number.

Many states have eliminated some fees and improved consumer protections in the two years since NCLC published its first comprehensive review of state unemployment payments. Banks no longer charge overdraft fees, which skimmed up to $20 from the benefits of card users whose spending exceeded the balance on the card.

Pennsylvania was singled out for praise in the report. Residents of that state will save $5.2 million in card fees each year because the state switched to a lower-fee card offered by JPMorgan.

JPMorgan declined to comment. US Bancorp and Bank of America did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In part because of the recent improvements, the report says, prepaid cards often are the best option for people who don't have bank accounts. Those people would often pay even bigger fees to storefront check cashing services.

"A well-designed prepaid card is safer, cheaper and more convenient than paying to cash a paper check," said Lauren Saunders, one of the report's authors, in a prepared statement. But she said "it is no substitute for direct deposit to an account of your own choosing."

Related: 

• Eliminating Cash and the "Unbanked" in the New World Order
• Biometric National ID Cards and a Cashless Society 
• Nationwide Mobile Phone Payments By 2013 Will Lead to a Cashless Society 
• A Cashless Society: The Electronic Payment Revolution Gathers Momentum 
• A Cashless Society is Right Around the Corner; the Endgame is the Microchip Implant 
• Mobile Phones Will Open the Door to a Cashless Society 
• A Cashless Society in Five-to-Seven Years 
• Facts on the National ID Card 
• The National ID Card and Biometric ID 
• Biometric National ID Cards and a Cashless Society
• ID Cards with RFID Chips, Then Microchip Implants  
• Go Off Grid Before the Grid Goes Off
• The Secret Bailout of J.P. Morgan Chase
• Goldman Sachs' Low Road to High Profits 
• The Dirty Secrets of Goldman Sachs 
• All Roads Always Lead Back to Goldman Sachs
• Goldman Sachs and the Carbon Credit Scam

Starting Jan. 1, 2014, Virtually Everyone in the Country Will Be Required by Law to Have Health Insurance or Face Fines

Consumer alert: new health care markets on the way

January 27, 2013

AP - Buying your own health insurance will never be the same.

This fall, new insurance markets called exchanges will open in each state, marking the long-awaited and much-debated debut of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The goal is quality coverage for millions of uninsured people in the United States. What the reality will look like is anybody's guess — from bureaucracy, confusion and indifference to seamless service and satisfied customers.

Exchanges will offer individuals and their families a choice of private health plans resembling what workers at major companies already get. The government will help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while low-income people will be referred to safety-net programs they might qualify for.

Most people will go online to pick a plan when open enrollment starts Oct. 1. Counselors will be available at call centers and in local communities, too. Some areas will get a storefront operation or kiosks at the mall. Translation to Spanish and other languages spoken by immigrants will be provided.

When you pick a plan, you'll no longer have to worry about getting turned down or charged more because of a medical problem. If you're a woman, you can't be charged a higher premium because of gender. Middle-aged people and those nearing retirement will get a price break: They can't be charged more than three times what younger customers pay, compared with six times or seven times today.

If all this sounds too good to be true, remember that nothing in life is free and change isn't easy.

Starting Jan. 1, 2014, when coverage takes effect in the exchanges, virtually everyone in the country will be required by law to have health insurance or face fines. The mandate is meant to get everybody paying into the insurance pool.

Obama's law is called the Affordable Care Act, but some people in the new markets might experience sticker shock over their premiums. Smokers will face a financial penalty. Younger, well-to-do people who haven't seen the need for health insurance may not be eligible for income-based assistance with their premiums.

Many people, even if they get government help, will find that health insurance still doesn't come cheaply. Monthly premiums will be less than the mortgage or rent, but maybe more than a car loan. The coverage, however, will be more robust than most individual plans currently sold.

Consider a hypothetical family of four making $60,000 and headed by a 40-year-old. They'll be eligible for a government tax credit of $7,193 toward their annual premium of $12,130. But they'd still have to pay $4,937, about 8 percent of their income, or about $410 a month.

A lower-income family would get a better deal from the government's sliding-scale subsidies.

Consider a similar four-person family making $35,000. They'd get a $10,742 tax credit toward the $12,130 annual premium. They'd have to pay $1,388, about 4 percent of their income, or about $115 a month.

The figures come from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation's online Health Reform Subsidy Calculator. But while the government assistance is called a tax credit and computed through the income tax system, the money doesn't come to you in a refund. It goes directly to insurers.

Obama's law is the biggest thing that's happened to health care since Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. But with open enrollment for exchange plans less than 10 months away, there's a dearth of consumer information. It's as if the consumer angle got drowned out by the political world's dispute over "Obamacare," the dismissive label coined by Republican foes.

Yet exchanges are coming to every state, even those led by staunch GOP opponents of the overhaul, such as Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. In their states and close to 20 others that are objecting, the exchanges will be operated by the federal government, over state opposition. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has pledged that every citizen will have access to an exchange come next Jan. 1, and few doubt her word.

But what's starting to dawn on Obama administration officials, activists, and important players in the health care industry is that the lack of consumer involvement, unless reversed, could turn the big health care launch into a dud. What if Obama cut the ribbon and nobody cared?

"The people who stand to benefit the most are the least aware of the changes that are coming," said Rachel Klein, executive director of Enroll America, a nonprofit that's trying to generate consumer enthusiasm.

"My biggest fear is that we get to Oct. 1 and people haven't heard there is help coming, and they won't benefit from it as soon as they can," she added. "I think it is a realistic fear."

Even the term "exchange" could be a stumbling block. It was invented by policy nerds. Although the law calls them "American Health Benefit Exchanges," Sebelius is starting to use the term "marketplaces" instead.

Polls underscore the concerns. A national survey last October found that only 37 percent of the uninsured said they would personally be better off because of the health care law. Twenty-three percent said they would be worse off in the Kaiser poll, while 31 percent said it would make no difference to them.

Insurers, hospitals, drug companies and other businesses that stand to benefit from the hundreds of billions of dollars the government will pump in to subsidize coverage aren't waiting for Washington to educate the public.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, for example, are trying to carve out a new role for themselves as explainers of the exchanges. Somewhere around 12 million people now purchase coverage individually, but the size of the market could double or triple with the new approach, and taxpayers will underwrite it.

"Consumers are expecting their health insurance provider to be a helpful navigator to them," said Maureen Sullivan, a senior vice president for the Blues' national association. "We see 2013 as a huge year for education."

One goal is to help consumers master the "metals," the four levels of coverage that will be available through exchange plans — bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Blue Cross is also working with tax preparer H&R Block, which is offering its customers a health insurance checkup at no additional charge this tax season. Returns filed this year for 2012 will be used by the government to help determine premium subsidies for 2014.

"This tax season is one of historical significance," said Meg Sutton, senior advisor for tax and health care at H&R Block. "The tax return you are filing is going to be key to determining your health care benefits on the exchange."

Only one state, Massachusetts, now has an exchange resembling what the administration wants to see around the country. With six years in business, the Health Connector enrolls about 240,000 Massachusetts residents. It was created under the health overhaul plan passed by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and has gotten generally positive reviews.

Connector customer Robert Schultz is a Boston area startup business consultant who got his MBA in 2008, when the economy was tanking. Yet he was able to find coverage when he graduated and hang on to his insurance through job changes since. Schultz says that's freed him to pursue his ambition of becoming a successful entrepreneur — a job creator instead of an employee.

"It's being portrayed by opponents as being socialistic," Schultz said.. "It is only socialistic in the sense of making sure that everybody in society is covered, because the cost of making sure everybody is covered in advance is much less than the cost of putting out fires."

The Connector's executive director, Glen Shor, said his state has proven the concept works and he's confident other states can succeed on their own terms.

"There is no backing away from all the challenges associated with expanding coverage," Shor said. "We are proud in Massachusetts that we overcame what had been years of policy paralysis."

France Fears Islamist Rise in Syria

France fears Islamist rise in Syria unless opposition helped

January 28, 2013

Reuters - France's foreign minister said on Monday Syria risks falling into the hands of Islamist militant groups if supporters of the Syrian opposition do not do more to help it in a 22-month-old revolt against President Bashar al-Assad.

Addressing the opening of a conference in Paris with senior members of the Syrian National Coalition, Laurent Fabius said the meeting must focus on making the opposition politically and militarily cohesive to encourage international assistance.

"Facing the collapse of a state and society, it is Islamist groups that risk gaining ground if we do not act as we should," he said. "We cannot let a revolution that started as a peaceful and democratic protest degenerate into a conflict of militias."

Western concern over the growing strength of jihadist militants fighting autonomously in the disorganized ranks of anti-Assad rebel forces is rising. This has hindered international aid to the moderate Syrian National Coalition opposition and may push it more into the arms of conservative Muslim backers, diplomatic sources say.

The meeting, which brought together Western and Arab nations and the three vice-presidents of the coalition, aims to tackle the lack of cohesion that has led to broken promises of aid.

Coalition vice-president Riad Seif said "time is not on our side" and that the opposition no longer wanted pledges of support that would not be followed through on.

"We need an interim or transitional government to provide assistance to millions of Syrians in liberated zones and to help bring the collapse of the (Assad) regime," he said.

"From the beginning we said we should be based in Syria, but so far we haven't received any money to run a government."

HALF A BILLION DOLLARS

Since its formation in November, the coalition has failed to gain traction on the ground in Syria and its credibility has been undermined by its inability to secure arms and cash.

Seif said the coalition lacked the financial or military means to set up within Syria and support civilians on the ground. "We are looking with our friends at how we can protect the liberated zones with defensive weapons and we are discussing how to get billions of dollars to create a budget," he said.

"But if we don't have this budget there is no point having a government. It makes no sense."
George Sabra, another coalition vice-president, said the coalition needed at least $500 million to launch a government.

But its disunity - it failed last week to form a transitional government [ID:nL6N0AQ0RX] - has deterred the West from boosting assistance, especially sophisticated arms and ammunition insurgents are crying out for.

"We also need weapons. We needed them from the first minute," Sabra said. "At the last meeting of Friends of Syria, they recognized our rights to defend ourselves. (But) what does that mean if we cannot provide help to victims?"

The insurgents have seized territory in the north and east of Syria, including several border crossings, and made some inroads into Assad's dominance in major cities. But Assad's air power and far superior weaponry have limited rebel advances.

France said last week there was no sign Assad was about to be overthrown, reversing previous statements that he could not hold out long, while Jordan's King Abdullah said the authoritarian Syrian leader would consolidate his grip for now.

Fabius said the Paris meeting had three objectives: to address the needs of the vulnerable Syrian population, pursue internal structuring, bring opposition fighting units of the Free Syrian Army under its political authority and prepare the post-Assad transition.

However, he sidestepped the question of arming the rebels, underlining the wariness of Western countries about spreading weapons to Islamists in Syria and across the volatile region.

The European Union is set to review its arms embargo on Syria at the end of February.

Obama is Straining to Maintain a Good Relationship with Egypt's Conservative Islamist President (Egypt is an Important U.S. Ally)

Egypt over the weekend left more than 50 people dead, deepening the malaise as the Islamist president struggles to get a grip on enormous social and economic problems and the increasingly dangerous fault lines that divide this nation of 85 million. In an ominous sign, a one-time jihadist group on Sunday blamed the secular opposition for the violence and threatened to set up vigilante militias to defend the government it supports... Islamists in November and December laid siege to the country's highest court in anticipation of a ruling against the legality of the Islamist-dominated upper house of parliament and a panel drafting a new constitution at the time. Before that, Islamists had repeatedly staged sit-ins outside courts and assaulted opposition lawyers when judges held hearings on political cases. - The Associated Press, Egypt's new eruption of violence deepens malaise, January 28, 2013

Washington casts wary eye at Muslim Brotherhood

January 28, 2013

AP - President Barack Obama begins his second term straining to maintain a good relationship with Egypt, an important U.S. ally whose president is a conservative Islamist walking a fine line between acting as a moderate peace broker and keeping his Muslim Brotherhood party happy with anti-American rhetoric.

The White House last summer had hoped to smooth over some of the traditional tensions between Washington and the Brotherhood, a party rooted in opposition to Israel and the U.S., when Egypt overthrew dictator Hosni Mubarak and picked Mohammed Morsi as its first democratically elected leader.

But a spate of recent steps — from Brotherhood-led attacks on protesters, to vague protestations of women's freedoms in the nation's new constitution, to revelations of old comments by Morsi referring to Jews as "bloodsuckers" and "pigs" — have raised alarm among senior U.S. officials and threatens $1 billion in American aid to Egypt.

Though the Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, its influence and affiliates have spread across the Mideast and into North Africa — where two recent terrorist attacks and a French assault on Islamist militants in Mali have presented Obama with a new front in the battle against extremism for his second term.

The White House has little interest in picking a fight with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has grown in size and stature across the region since the Arab Spring revolts. The Brotherhood and similar Islamist movements are regarded warily by monarchies in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Its members are part of the opposition coalition seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad. It has small followings in Qatar, Algeria, and a like-minded — although not officially affiliated — ally in Tunisia.

When Egyptians elected Morsi, he offered words of moderation, brokered a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza and bore down on terrorist dens in the Sinai Peninsula.

The Morsi-led government is "a new administration and they're obviously having growing pains," said a senior Obama administration official who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity so he could discuss the diplomatic relationship more candidly.

Since the Tahrir Square revolution two years ago, Washington has tried to help Egypt build a democratic state without appearing to tread on its sovereignty. Morsi won election last June with 51 percent of Egypt's vote.

A new eruption of political violence in Egypt over the weekend left about 50 people dead, deepening the malaise as the Morsi struggles to get a grip on enormous social and economic problems. He has declared a 30-day state of emergency and curfew in the three Suez Canal provinces hit hardest by the violence.

The White House is increasingly concerned about the direction the Brotherhood is taking Egypt: "It's not just about majority rule," the administration official said. "There are democratic principles that we continue to support."

Morsi's anti-Semitic comments, made in separate speeches in 2010 but which surfaced this month on Egyptian TV, also accused Obama of being a liar. They shocked U.S. officials who sprang to condemn them as counter-productive to American-supported peace efforts in the Mideast. But they surprised few people in Egypt, who have heard Brotherhood officials make similar statements for years.

Morsi initially struggled to respond to the U.S. backlash from the comments. His office issued a statement committing to uphold religious freedoms and tolerance, and condemning violence.

"The president strongly believes that we must respect and indeed celebrate our common humanity, and does not accept or condone derogatory statements regarding any religious or ethnic group," the statement said, without addressing the fact that Morsi himself made those comments.

The statement, however, did little to soothe U.S. lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans alike — who have balked at approving $1 billion in aid to Egypt that Obama promised in 2011 to help the new government settle an economic crisis that has drained the country's central bank and devalued the local currency in the revolution's aftermath.

"How would the American people feel about cutting money to education programs here and giving money to a government that is anti-Semitic?" Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding to foreign governments, said.

"I don't think the administration has any right to say they are going to grant this foreign aid because I think this Congress may very well condition it," Wolf said. "I think there are a lot of questions, and I don't think it's a given."

Part of the proposed $1 billion aid package depends on International Monetary Fund approval of its own $4.8 billion loan to Egypt. But that loan has stalled for months because of Egypt's instability.

Despite its misgivings about Morsi, the White House still is pushing Congress for the funding, acknowledging that Egypt's downfall all but certainly would roil the already turbulent Mideast and North Africa.

"It's not in our interest to have an economic collapse in Egypt," said the senior Obama administration official.

The Brotherhood describes itself as a non-violent social organization dedicated to instilling Islamic values in the society. In Egypt, where it formed, the group was repressed by former regimes for decades and has struggled with adjusting to its new role leading the government. Its members, fearing a coup, are widely blamed with attacking anti-Morsi protesters outside the presidential palace in Cairo last month in clashes that left at least 10 people dead.

"What they missed was the fact that they are a governing party now, and to be getting into street battles when you also have commanding presence in the Egyptian state shows inexperience and panic," said Nathan Brown, a professor at George Washington University who has been researching Islamic movements for nearly a decade. "This is the kind of group that will be a pain to deal with for the United States, but it's not al-Qaida; it's not a security threat."

"The biggest fear on the part of the (Obama) administration is a political breakdown in Egypt. They are worried that a collapse in the Egyptian state would be destabilizing on the region, and might allow the flow of arms and fighters among more radical movements in the region — especially in trouble spots like Sinai and Gaza."

Obama administration officials said Morsi's promises to abide by Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and continued security cooperation with Israel over the volatile Sinai Peninsula shows his willingness to be a reasonable partner. Morsi's work in November to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rules was "a good first step," the senior Obama administration official said.

But Washington remains wary of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, "who come from a very conservative viewpoint with issues that are very important to America," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

Gillibrand was part of a delegation of U.S. lawmakers who met with Morsi in Cairo this month shortly after his 2010 statements surfaced. She stopped short of saying Morsi appeared chastened but described him as mindful of "how important America is to the viability of his presidency and the economy."

She said lawmakers want to see what actions he takes, "and we want to see if his words match those deeds and actions," Gillibrand said.

On the Brink of Bankruptcy, Honduras Suspends Public Services

Honduras on brink of bankruptcy, suspends public services

January 25, 2013

stratrisks.com - Street surveillance cameras in one of the world’s most dangerous cities have been turned off because the government of Honduras has not paid millions of pounds it owes.

The operator which runs them in the capital Tegucigalpa is now threatening to suspend police radio services as well.

Teachers have been demonstrating almost every day as they have not been paid in six months, while doctors complain about the shortage of essential medicines, gauze, needles and latex gloves.

The Central American country has been on the brink of bankruptcy for months, as politicians put off passing a budget necessary to pay for basic government services. Honduras is also grappling with five billion dollars (£3.16 billion) in foreign debt, a figure equivalent to last year’s entire government budget.

“There are definitely patients who haven’t been able to get better because of this problem,” said Dr Lilian Discua, a paediatrician. “An epileptic who doesn’t take his medicine will have a crisis. This is happening.”

The financial problems add to a general sense that Honduras is a country in meltdown, as murders soar, drug trafficking overruns cities and coasts and the nation’s highest court has been embattled in a constitutional fight with the congress. Many streets are riddled with potholes, and cities are not replacing stolen manhole covers.

Soldiers are not receiving their regular salaries, while the education secretary says 96% of schools close several days every week or month because of teacher strikes. Experts say a mix of government corruption, election-year politics and a struggling economy has fuelled the crisis.

The local branch of the international watchdog group Transparency International issued a study last month that alleged some politicians had spent money on plane tickets to a tennis tournament in Spain, Mother’s Day gifts and other personal expenses. The study’s author, Ludin Ayala, said the country’s congress is the most expensive in Central America, although Honduras is the poorest country in the region.

Former presidential candidate Olban Valladares claimed that much of the public money has gone into campaigns ahead of November’s elections, in which the president, mayors and 128 congressional representatives will be elected. Mr Valladares said:

“Sadly, we have a great number of candidates who are state officials and their tendency is to abuse state resources that they control to fund their campaigns.”

Castro’s Take on Gun-Control Coincides With Our Rulers’

Not Surprisingly, Castro’s Take on Gun-Control Coincides With Our Rulers’

January 24, 2013

Lew Rockwell Blog - My Texan friend, Bill Martin, sent me this link to a speech Fidel “Commie” Castro made on January 9, 1959, the day after his “victorious post-revolution entry into Havana, Cuba.” Although the reasons Commie lists for stealing Cubans’ guns differ from those of American politicians (instead of hiding behind “the children” a la his northern colleagues, Commie indignantly pooh-poohs the idea of defending oneself from his benevolent “revolutionary government” ), the two firmly agree that only cops and soldiers, rather than their victims, enjoy the right to be armed:

All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?

Against the revolutionary government that has the support of all the people? Do we have a dictatorship here? Are we going to take up arms against a free government that respects the rights of the people? We have a free country here. … There is no tormenting of political prisoners [well, that puts Commie's Cuba one up on the US, doesn't it?], no murders, no terror. When all the rights of the citizens have been restored … why do we need arms? …

We are never going to use force, because we belong to the people. Moreover, the day that the people do not want us we shall leave. {Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!] As soon as possible I will take the rifles off the streets. There are no more enemies, there is no longer anything to fight against, and if some day any foreigner or any movement comes up against the revolution, all the people will fight. The weapons belong in the barracks. No one has the right to have private armies here.

As the blogger who posted the speech points out, “Castro’s regime began collecting guns and disarming the population”  mere hours after he delivered this harangue, and “within days of Castro’s promises of civility, a wave of executions was underway.”

Why Not Just Let Health Sinners Like Smokers and the Obese Die Prematurely from Their Unhealthy Habits?

Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?

January 26, 2013

AP - Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die prematurely from their unhealthy habits?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates.

And attempts to curb smoking and unhealthy eating frequently lead to backlash: Witness the current legal tussle over New York City's first-of-its-kind limits on the size of sugary beverages and the vicious fight last year in California over a ballot proposal to add a $1-per-pack cigarette tax, which was ultimately defeated.

"This is my life. I should be able to do what I want," said Sebastian Lopez, a college student from Queens, speaking last September when the New York City Board of Health approved the soda size rules.

Critics also contend that tobacco- and calorie-control measures place a disproportionately heavy burden on poor people. That's because they:

—Smoke more than the rich, and have higher obesity rates.
—Have less money so sales taxes hit them harder. One study last year found poor, nicotine-dependent smokers in New York — a state with very high cigarette taxes — spent as much as a quarter of their entire income on smokes.
—Are less likely to have a car to shop elsewhere if the corner bodega or convenience store stops stocking their vices.

Critics call these approaches unfair, and believe they have only a marginal effect.

"Ultimately these things are weak tea," said Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and fellow at the right-of-center think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

Gottlieb's view is debatable. There are plenty of public health researchers that can show smoking control measures have brought down smoking rates and who will argue that smoking taxes are not regressive so long as money is earmarked for programs that help poor people quit smoking.

And debate they will. There always seems to be a fight whenever this kind of public health legislation comes up. And it's a fight that can go in all sorts of directions. For example, some studies even suggest that because smokers and obese people die sooner, they may actually cost society less than healthy people who live much longer and develop chronic conditions like Alzheimer's disease.

So let's return to the original question: Why provoke a backlash? If 1 in 5 U.S. adults smoke, and 1 in 3 are obese, why not just get off their backs and let them go on with their (probably shortened) lives?
Because it's not just about them, say some health economists, bioethicists and public health researchers.

"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center.

Smoking has the most obvious impact. Studies have increasingly shown harm to nonsmokers who are unlucky enough to work or live around heavy smokers. And several studies have shown heart attacks and asthma attack rates fell in counties or cities that adopted big smoking bans.

"When you ban smoking in public places, you're protecting everyone's health, including and especially the nonsmoker," said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago's School of Public Health.

It can be harder to make the same argument about soda-size restrictions or other legislative attempts to discourage excessive calorie consumption, Olshansky added.

"When you eat yourself to death, you're pretty much just harming yourself," he said.

But that viewpoint doesn't factor in the burden to everyone else of paying for the diabetes care, heart surgeries and other medical expenses incurred by obese people, noted John Cawley, a health economist at Cornell University.

"If I'm obese, the health care costs are not totally borne by me. They're borne by other people in my health insurance plan and — when I'm older — by Medicare," Cawley said.

From an economist's perspective, there would be less reason to grouse about unhealthy behaviors by smokers, obese people, motorcycle riders who eschew helmets and other health sinners if they agreed to pay the financial price for their choices.

That's the rationale for a provision in the Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — that starting next year allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

The new law doesn't allow insurers to charge more for people who are overweight, however.

It's tricky to play the insurance game with overweight people, because science is still sorting things out. While obesity is clearly linked with serious health problems and early death, the evidence is not as clear about people who are just overweight.

That said, public health officials shouldn't shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers.

National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren't working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.

"Emotions are what really count in this world," he said.

Related:

Health Care Rationing

Consumer Prices are Now 30 Times Higher Than When the Fed was Created in 1913

The Single Chart That Should Force The Fed Out Of Business

January 26, 2013

Daily Bail - Inflation is the Fed’s 100 year legacy.

Behold the chart that, in a more just and sane world, would force Bernanke and Krugman to retire and drive the Fed out of business.

Consumer prices are now 30 times higher than when the Fed was created in 1913.

Milwaukee County Sheriff Says 911 Not Best Option, Urges Residents to Take Firearms Classes

Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes

January 25, 2013

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. set off alarm bells Friday with a radio spot some view as a call for citizens to arm themselves.

In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.

"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."

"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"

The spot aired at least once - during the last hour of the Mark Belling show on WISN-AM (1130) on Thursday. Clarke spokeswoman Fran McLaughlin posted it to the department website on Friday. She said she did not know where else or how often the spot would be broadcast, or how much the department spent to air it.

Clarke has served as lightning rod before, most recently when he called for schools to arm teachers after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school. News of the sheriff's gun ad quickly generated feedback.

Jodie Tabak, Mayor Tom Barrett's spokeswoman, released this statement:

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

"Dirty Harry" was one in a series of films in the 1970s and '80s starring actor Clint Eastwood as Detective Harry Callahan of the San Francisco Police Department.

The Greenfield Police Department issued advice on its Facebook page, saying none of its officers was laid off or furloughed, that violent crime is down and the department's response time to violent crime is less than two minutes.

"The decision to arm yourself with a firearm is a very personal and private decision that should not be driven by fear that our officers will not respond to your calls for help," the department said.

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said she hears "over and over" from most law enforcement officials that the community should work to "take more guns off the streets, not add more."

"What (Clarke's) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism," Bonavia said. "I don't know what his motivations are for doing this. But I do know what he's calling for is dangerous and irresponsible and he should be out there saying this is a mistake."

Asked about Clarke's assessment of 911, James Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro Gun Movement, said,

"It's never been a great option (calling 911). Unless you can take care of yourself, you're kind of SOL."

Fendry, a former police officer, said that he tells citizens,

"You're not armed to be law enforcement. You're armed to protect your own life and the lives of your family until law enforcement arrives. Do not go on search and destroy missions in your home."

County Executive Chris Abele said Clarke is sending the wrong message.

"I think it's irresponsible and it doesn't help public safety to tell the public there's some kind of imminent danger that they need to go buy guns," Abele said. "Essentially, you've got a (public service announcement) that's recommending people need to go buy guns because they can't rely on the response they'll get from 911. I'm here to tell you, we have phenomenal police departments."

Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, said the ad sounded to him like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound smart," Felber said. "That's why society has police officers."

Instead of promoting vigilantism, Felber said, money should be found to hire more police officers and deputies.

County Supervisor Mark Borkowski, chairman of the County Board panel on public safety, said Clarke was "preaching to the choir" on gun ownership. Most people who want guns already have them, Borkowski said.
McLaughlin, Clarke's spokeswoman, said the announcement does not encourage gun ownership.

"His message says to consider taking a certified course. His message says to fight back to protect yourself. People need to decide for themselves if they want to own a firearm," she wrote in an email.

She said the Department of Homeland Security advises that in an active shooter environment, victims should run, hide, or, if those options don't exist, they should fight - aggressively.

Clarke did not respond to an interview request.

Asked to comment on Clarke's remarks, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said that Van Hollen "believes strongly in both the 1st and 2nd amendments" to the Constitution on free speech and gun rights.

First Patriot Missiles to Defend Turkey Against Syria Go Active

First Patriot missiles to defend Turkey against Syria go active

January 26, 2013

Reuters - The first of six Patriot missile batteries being sent by NATO countries to defend Turkey from possible attack from Syria went operational on Saturday.

The United States, Germany and the Netherlands are each sending two batteries to Turkey and up to 400 soldiers to operate them after Ankara asked NATO for help. The Patriots are capable of shooting down hostile missiles in mid-air.

The frontier has become a flashpoint in the 22-month insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad, with Syrian government shells frequently landing inside Turkish territory, drawing a response in kind from Ankara's military.

"Behind us there is the first NATO Patriot battery in Turkey which is operational at the moment. That means that it is up and running. It is under NATO command and control," said Polish Army Lieutenant Colonel Dariusz Kacperczyk, NATO spokesman for the Patriot deployment.

A battery sent by the Netherlands, consisting of five missile launchers, has been deployed next to an airport on the edge of Adana, a city of around 1.6 million 120 km (75 miles) from the Syrian border. A second battery of seven launchers is at a U.S.-Turkish air base east of the city.

At Adana airport, the truck-mounted launchers were raised in the air, pointing at Syria.

"Think of it as a bullet being fired from one side and we have got a fierce bullet that shoots down the other bullet," said Lieutenant-Colonel Marcel Buis, commander of the Dutch Patriots.

The batteries are being stationed around three southeastern Turkish cities and NATO says they will protect 3.5 million Turks from missile attack. All are expected to be in place and operational by the end of January.

Tensions have increased in recent weeks after NATO said it had detected launches of short-range ballistic missiles inside Syria, several of which have landed close to the Turkish border. Turkey has scrambled warplanes along the frontier, fanning fears the war could spread and further destabilize the region.

Syria has called the deployment of the Patriot batteries "provocative" while Iran and Russia, which have supported Syria throughout the uprising, have criticized NATO's decision, saying the Patriot deployment would intensify the conflict.

Turkey and NATO have strongly denied the Patriot missiles are a precursor to a no-fly zone that Syrian rebels have been requesting to help them hold territory against a government with overwhelming firepower from the air.

All six Patriot batteries will be connected directly to allied air command in Ramstein, Germany.

The Ramstein command and control center receives intelligence on missile firings in Syria and will alert the Patriot batteries to any missile launch. The Patriot batteries will then watch the arcs of the missiles and react if they threaten a Turkish city.

Iran Imposes Own Oil, Gas Ban on 'Hostile' EU After Sanctions Stop Flow

Iran formally snubs EU after oil, gas bans

January 27, 2013

AP - Iran's oil ministry spokesman says all crude oil and gas exports have been banned to the 27-nation European Union, which has already imposed its own boycott on Iranian energy imports as part of sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program.

It is unclear what practical effect the Iranian decision would have. But Sunday's announcement by spokesman Ali Reza Nikzad Rahbar could be a symbolic act designed to reflect anger at Western unity over economic pressures on Iran.

The semiofficial Mehr news agency quotes Rahbar as saying the Iranian ban will remain as long as "hostile decisions" are made by the EU.

Before the EU bans last year, the bloc represented about 18 percent of Iran's oil sales.

The U.S. and allies fear Iran could seek a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran denies.

Israel Fears Danger from Both Syria and Iran and Vows to Strike at Any Sign of Syrian Chemical Weapons

Israel warns of attack on Syrian chemical weapons

January 28, 2013

AP - Israel could launch a pre-emptive strike to stop Syria's chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon's Hezbollah or al-Qaida inspired groups, officials said Sunday.

The warning came as the military moved a rocket defense system to a main northern city, and Israel's premier warned of dangers from both Syria and Iran.

Israel has long expressed concerns that Syrian President Bashar Assad, clinging to power during a 22-month civil war, could lose control over his chemical weapons.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday that Israel's top security officials held a special meeting last week to discuss Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The fact of the meeting, held the morning after a national election, had not been made public before.

Shalom told the Army Radio station that the transfer of weapons to violent groups, particularly the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah, would be a game changer.

"It would be crossing a line that would demand a different approach, including even action," he said. Asked whether this might mean a pre-emptive attack, he said: "We will have to make the decisions."

Israel has kept out of the civil war that has engulfed Syria and killed more than 60,000 people, but it is concerned that violence could spill over from its northern border into Israel.

Israel deployed its Iron Dome rocket defense system in the northern city of Haifa on Sunday. The city was battered by Hezbollah rocket fire during a war in the summer of 2006. The military called the deployment "routine."

Iron Dome, an Israel-developed system that shoots down incoming short-range rockets, was used to defend Israeli cities during a round of hostilities with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, on Israel's southern flank, last November.

Yisrael Hasson, a lawmaker and former deputy head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, said Israel was closely following developments in Syria to make sure chemical weapons don't "fall into the wrong hands."

"Syria has a massive amount of chemical weapons, and if they fall into hands even more extreme than Syria like Hezbollah or global jihad groups it would completely transform the map of threats," Hasson told Army Radio.

"Global jihad" is the term Israel uses for forces influenced by al-Qaida. Syria's rebels include al-Qaida-allied groups.

Syria has rarely acknowledged possessing chemical weapons.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to threats from Syria and Iran at a Cabinet meeting Sunday. Iran is Syria's main regional ally.

"We must look around us, at what is happening in Iran and its proxies and at what is happening in other areas, with the deadly weapons in Syria, which is increasingly coming apart," he said.

Israel views Iran as an existential threat because of its nuclear and missile programs and support for violent anti-Israeli groups in Lebanon and Gaza, as well as repeated references by Iranian leaders to Israel's destruction. Iran denies it is seeking to build atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

On Friday, Israeli Channel 2 TV broadcast an interview with a former Iranian diplomat who defected to the West in 2010. He warned that if Tehran gets nuclear weapons, it would use them against Israel. He did not provide evidence.

Part of Mohammad Reza Heydari's job was to draft foreign scientists to work on Tehran's nuclear program and he brought many from North Korea into Iran, the report said.

Heydari spoke from Oslo, where he has received political asylum.

Israel vows Syria strike at any sign of chemical arms transfer

January 28, 2013

Reuters - Any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons is slipping as it battles an armed uprising could trigger Israeli military strikes, Israel's vice premier said on Sunday.

Silvan Shalom confirmed a media report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had last week convened a meeting of security chiefs to discuss the civil war in Syria and the state of its suspected chemical arsenal.

Israel and NATO countries say Syria has stocks of chemical warfare agents at four sites. Syria is cagey about whether it has such arms but says if it had it would keep them secure and use them only to fend off foreign attack.

The Israeli meeting on Wednesday had not been publicly announced and was seen as unusual as it came while votes were being counted from Israel's parliamentary election the day before, which Netanyahu's party list won narrowly.

Should Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas or rebels battling forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad obtain Syria's chemical weapons, Shalom told Israel's Army Radio: "It would dramatically change the capabilities of those organizations."

Such a development would be "a crossing of all red lines that would require a different approach, including even preventive operations," he said, alluding to military intervention for which Israeli generals have said plans have been readied.

"The concept, in principle, is that this (chemical weapons transfer) must not happen," Shalom said. "The moment we begin to understand that such a thing is liable to happen, we will have to make decisions."

An Israeli television station, Channel 2, reported Syrian rebels appeared to be closing in on key chemical weapons sites in Al-Safir and Damascus, and showed photographs of an Israeli "Iron Dome" rocket interceptor battery deployed in northern Israel.

A military spokesman confirmed reports that two such batteries were moved to the Haifa area but insisted this was "not due to any specific security situation" but part of a routine of rotating these systems.

"COMING APART"

Addressing his cabinet on Sunday, Netanyahu said he intended to put together "the broadest and most stable government as possible in order, first of all, to meet the significant security threats that face the State of Israel".

Difficult coalition talks could be ahead for Netanyahu with factions representing widely different sectors of the Jewish state's population.

In his public remarks at the cabinet session, Netanyahu pointed to "what is happening in Iran and its proxies and at what is happening in other areas, with the deadly weapons in Syria, which is increasingly coming apart.

"In the east, north and south, everything is in ferment and we must be prepared, strong and determined in the face of all possible developments," Netanyahu said, in apparent reference to Iran, Syria and Egypt.

Raising the regional stakes, Iran, among Assad's few allies and itself long the subject of Israeli military threats over its nuclear program, said on Saturday it would deem any attack on Syria an attack on itself.

Interviewed on Army Radio, Civil Defense Minister Avi Dichter said Syria was on the verge of collapse. But asked whether Israel perceived an imminent threat, Dichter said: 

"No, not yet. I suppose that when things pose a danger to us, the State of Israel will know about it."

France, among the most vocal backers of Syria's rebels, said last week there were no signs Assad was about to be overthrown.

An Israeli government security adviser told Reuters on Sunday Syria had taken new prominence in strategic planning "because of the imminence of the threat. There the WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) are ready and could be turned against us at short notice."

Syria is widely believed to have built up the arsenal to offset Israel's reputed nuclear weapons, among other reasons.

Decoding North Korea’s Dire ‘War’ Rhetoric

What's the threat? North Korean rhetoric, reality

January 25, 2013

AP - According to its official statements, North Korea is ready to go to the brink. But how serious are Pyongyang's threats?

This week, new U.N. sanctions punishing the North's successful December rocket launch have elicited a furious response from Pyongyang: strong hints that a third nuclear test is coming, along with bigger and better long-range missiles; "all-out action" against its "sworn enemy," the United States; and on Friday, a threat of "strong physical countermeasures" against South Korea if Seoul participates in the sanctions.

"Sanctions mean war," said a statement carried by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency.

A U.S. research institute said Friday that recent satellite photos of the site where nuclear tests were conducted in 2006 and 2009 show North Korea could be almost ready to carry out its threat.

In the face of international condemnation, North Korea can usually be counted on for such flights of rhetorical pique. In recent years it threatened to turn South Korea into a "sea of fire," and to wage a "sacred war" against its enemies.

If the past is any indication, its threats of war are overblown. But the chances it will conduct another nuclear test are high. And it is gaining ground in its missile program, experts say, though still a long way from seriously threatening the U.S. mainland.

"It's not the first time they've made a similar threat of war," said Ryoo Kihl-jae, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. "What's more serious than the probability of an attack on South Korea is that of a nuclear test. I see very slim chances of North Korea following through with its threat of war."

Although North Korea's leadership is undeniably concerned that it might be attacked or bullied by outside powers, the tough talk is mainly an attempt to bolster its bargaining position in diplomatic negotiations.

The impoverished North is in need of international aid and is eager to sign a treaty bringing a formal end to the Korean War, which ended nearly 60 years ago in a truce. It uses its weapons program as a wedge in the ever-repeating diplomatic dance with the U.S.-led international community, and there is no reason to believe this time is different.

"I see this as their way of testing the water," said Narushige Michishita, a North Korea expert at Tokyo's Graduate Institute of Policy Studies. "North Korea will probably never be able to defeat the United States in a war. But they are getting stronger."

In 2006 and 2009, North Korea carried out underground nuclear tests just after receiving U.N. sanctions for launching long-range rockets. The latest barrage of rhetoric comes after the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to condemn the successful Dec. 12 rocket launch and further expand sanctions against Kim Jong Un's regime. Pyongyang replied with its threat of more launches and possibly another nuclear test.

"Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words," said Thursday's statement from the National Defense Commission, which promised "a new phase of the anti-U.S. struggle that has lasted century after century."

North Korea has long insisted that its rocket launches were peaceful attempts to put a satellite in orbit, while the U.S. and United Nations consider them illegal tests of missile technology. This week, however, Pyongyang, made it clear that one goal of its rocket program is to attack the United States.

But its ability to do so is limited, say experts who believe North Korea still has technological kinks to work out in its nuclear devices. It is thought to be unable to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be mounted on a missile, so it needs to test that technology as well.

Another big issue is money.

In his first speech to his people, the young leader, Kim, who is still believed to be in his 20s, said North Korea will continue its "military first" policy. But for a nation that chronically struggles to feed its own people, resources are limited. And because of trade restrictions, acquiring parts for its weapons from abroad is increasingly difficult.

Despite December's successful launch, North Korea's ability to get missiles off the launch pad is less than reliable. In April, a similar rocket splintered into pieces over the Yellow Sea. Days later, North Korea showed off what appeared to be an intercontinental ballistic missile, but many experts who reviewed footage of the rockets said they were clearly fakes.

The North does, however, appear to be making some progress.

Japan's Defense Ministry, in an assessment of the December launch presented to the prime minister on Friday, said the North's best designs probably give its missiles a range of more than 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles), according to Japan's Kyodo news service. That would be enough to reach the West Coast of the United States. A South Korean defense official said Friday that Seoul agrees with that assessment.

The Japanese report warned that Pyongyang's missile technology has "entered a new stage" that is of serious concern to the international community. Japan is particularly wary of North Korea's capabilities because all of its islands are well within striking distance. Japan also hosts about 50,000 U.S. troops, whose bases would be a tempting target if Pyongyang were to try to make good on its threats.

"There has been a tendency to underestimate what North Korea can do in the space and missile field, and possibly with technology in general," U.S. nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis wrote recently on his Arms Control Wonk blog. 

He noted that debris recovered from the wreckage of the December rocket's first stage indicates that most of it was made in North Korea.

North Korea claims the right to build nuclear weapons as a defense against the United States, which stations more than 28,000 troops in South Korea.

It is believed to have enough weapons-grade plutonium for about four to eight bombs, according to nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker, who visited North Korea's nuclear complex in 2010. And in 2009, Pyongyang also declared that it would begin enriching uranium, giving it a second way to make atomic weapons.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that he has seen no outward sign that North Korea will follow through soon on its plan to conduct a test, but added that doesn't mean preparations aren't under way.

A U.S. research institute said Friday that recent satellite photos of the Punggye-ri site where nuclear tests were conducted in 2006 and 2009 reveal that over the past month roads have been kept clear of snow and that North Koreans may have been sealing the tunnel into a mountainside where a nuclear device would be detonated.

The analysis was provided to The Associated Press by 38 North, the website of U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The latest image was taken Wednesday.

38 North concludes that the Punggye-ri site "appears to continue to be at a state of readiness that would allow the North to move forward with a test in a few weeks or less once the leadership in Pyongyang gives the order."

U.S. officials confirmed Friday that the U.S. has seen some trucks moving around the site. One official said the U.S. is not ruling out that the test could happen in the near future.

But the officials cautioned that, as in previous tests, because it would be done underground, the U.S. may not know much before it actually happens. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss intelligence matters publicly.

Related:

US: US, China oppose North Korea nuclear test

Health Care Loophole May Hit Millions Hard

Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul

A little-noted provision in the new law gives insurers a way to "discourage" a risky group from signing up.

January 25, 2013

AP - Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs, because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually.

Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore depend on the new federal health care law. Smoking increases the risk of developing heart disease, lung problems and cancer, contributing to nearly 450,000 deaths a year.

Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats — but they can charge more if a person smokes.

Starting next Jan. 1, the federal health care law will make it possible for people who can't get coverage now to buy private policies, providing tax credits to keep the premiums affordable. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases, keeping out potentially costly patients.

"We don't want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage," said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers' ability to charge smokers more. The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

"We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment," added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area.

Obama administration officials declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former consumer protection regulator for the government is raising questions.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options, said Pollitz, formerly deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the federal Health and Human Services Department.

First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.

Second, the law allows insurers to levy the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones.

And finally, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

Here's how the math would work:

Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172. That person would be eligible for a tax credit that brings the cost down to $3,325.

But the smoking penalty could add $5,086 to the cost. And since federal tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty, the smoker's total cost for health insurance would be $8,411, or 24 percent of income. That's considered unaffordable under the federal law. The numbers were estimated using the online Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

 "The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance," said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group that called attention to the issue with a study about the potential impact in California.

In today's world, insurers can simply turn down a smoker. Under Obama's overhaul, would they actually charge the full 50 percent? After all, workplace anti-smoking programs that use penalties usually charge far less, maybe $75 or $100 a month.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum.

"If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers," said Laszewski. "They are going to have to play defense."

Related: 

Michelle Obama's Campaign Against Obesity is a Campaign for Taxing 'Junk Food' and Rationing Healthcare for the Obese under Obamacare