How Swine Flu Started: Nationalised Medicine, Poor People, Democrats

Related Post: Swine Flu (and The Daily Show) Bringing You “The Last 100 Days”

Video: Who Brought Us Swine Flu? Illegal Alien Terrorist Mexicans

We are still interviewing for a Medical Correspondent at Enduring America, so we have to rely on other experts to explain this sudden phenomenon called Swine Flu.

Our findings: this crisis could have been averted if the world relied on private health systems and if the US had voted for John McCain in November 2008.

James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal nails the socialists for this wannabe-pandemic, suggesting that death rates in Mexico are higher in the US "because the government provides health care". Henry I. Miller, also in The Journal, goes for "unsanitary conditions, poverty and grossly inadequate public-health infrastructure of all kinds".

(Miller also cites "intensive animal husbandry procedures that place poultry and swine in close proximity to humans". He omits, however, this detail from the outbreak in Veracruz, Mexico, reported by The Daily Telegraph: "[Residents] claim they are suffering respiratory problems from contamination spread by pig waste at nearby breeding farms partly owned by a US company.)

Still, our preferred explanation for swine flu comes from Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, last heard warning that the Obama Administration was going to put children in "re-education" programmes:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFDyxO4FLZQ[/youtube]

Enduring America Minor Detail: Republican Gerald Ford, not Democrat Jimmy Carter, was US President in 1976

(hat tip to Father Michael for the Bachmann clip)

Saturday Special: Is Barack Obama Another JFK?

Our colleague Bevan Sewell of the University of Nottingham and Libertas is a leading young scholar on US foreign policy in the 1950s and 1960s. Taking some of the lessons from that research, he looks at the foreign policy prospects of the new American President:

The rapid rise of Barack Obama to the White House has been accompanied by desire among leading commentators to find an appropriate historical analogy. The number one comparison so far has been between Obama and John F. Kennedy, President from 1961 until his assassination in 1963, who also rose to prominence at a comparatively young age. As early as 2007, Ted Sorenson, Kennedy’s leading speechwriter and one of his closest advisors, anointed Obama as a successor. In February 2008, William Rees-Mogg of The Times wrote:

[Obama] has built up an excitement such as no candidate has created since President Kennedy in 1960. He is, in my view, a better speaker than Kennedy. Like Kennedy, he combines personal magnetism with a strong appeal to American idealism.

Yet, beyond the immediate imagery of youthful leaders, accomplished speakers, and forceful men regenerating America politically, what do these analogies actually mean? Can any worthwhile comparison be drawn, or is this just the search by contemporary commentators for populist appeal?

At least with respect to US foreign policy, any analogy has to avoid the temptation of predictions about how Obama’s policy might work. Labeling him as the "new" Kennedy is not as hopeful as many commentators have suggested. In fact, the potential (if tentative) lessons of the Kennedy era are that, in a time of international flux, presidents are likely to make mistakes. Those errors may undermine the US national interest even if, ultimately, this does not result in disaster.

One of the most powerful moments of Obama’s Inaugural Address came when he spoke of those nations that wished America ill:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

In the summer of 1961, President Kennedy adopted a similar tone in the midst of an ongoing crisis over Berlin which had seen the Soviet Union and the US come to diplomatic blows over the future of the city. In an address to the American people, Kennedy sought to reassure them of the US commitment to waging the Cold War and of his willingness to use force if required. But he also included a message of conciliation and an offer to communicate with the Soviets if they acted appropriately:

So long as the Communists insist that they are preparing to end by themselves unilaterally our rights in West Berlin and our commitments to its people, we must be prepared to defend those rights and those commitments. We will at all times be ready to talk, if talk will help. But we must also be ready to resist with force, if force is used upon us. Either alone would fail. Together, they can serve the cause of freedom and peace.

In both speeches, there was a clear link between the American will to use force if required and the US willingness to negotiate given a suitable opportunity. Of course, the contexts were very different, but these examples suggest there are certain themes that repeat themselves during different eras. While it is going too far to take these as the basis for predictions about Obama’s foreign policies and possible outcomes, they can be useful in terms of moderating grandiose expectations.

Indeed, Kennedy’s foreign policy travails in his first year in office show the wisdom not expecting too much from leaders that have been heralded enthusiastically. They are, after all, human: mistakes will be made, readjustments will be necessary, and it takes time for a President to get a grip on the internal dynamics of the US foreign policy bureaucracy.

Upon entering the White House in 1961, the Kennedy administration wanted to jettison an over-reliance upon the threatened use of nuclear weapons and a fiscal conservatism that had limited the policies of President Dwight Eisenhower. Instead, Kennedy and his advisors would pursue a strategy marked out by the military concept of flexible response and by economic and social development based on modernization theory.

Clear intentions did not, however, make for clear policy. In its first year, the Kennedy administration faced crises in Cuba, Berlin, Laos, and Vietnam. Kennedy was verbally humiliated by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna and had to confront internal problems with his national security team.

The decision to give the go-ahead to a CIA-backed invasion Cuba, just three months into his term, was disastrous for Kennedy; the Bay of Pigs fiasco brought widespread criticism for the new president and undermined the credibility of the so-called “best and the brightest” that made up his coterie of advisors. Further problems were encountered in Berlin, where a lack of presidential leadership, an absence of a clear foreign policy structure, and too many competing voices crippled US policy. So chaotic was the situation in these early days that, in a candid and forceful memo, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy felt compelled to lay out a strident critique of the new president’s management of the foreign policy sphere:

The National Security Council, for example, really cannot work for you unless you authorize work schedules that do not get upset from day to day. Calling three meetings in five days is foolish-and putting them off for six weeks at a time is just as bad….Truman and Eisenhower did their daily dozen in foreign affairs the first thing in the morning, and a couple of weeks ago you asked me to begin to meet you on this basis. I have succeeded in catching you on three mornings, for a total of about 8 minutes, and I conclude that this is not really how you like to begin the day. Moreover, 6 of the 8 minutes were given not to what I had for you but what you had for me.

Bundy’s depiction of an incoherent national security structure suggested obvious difficulties for an incoming administration. Adversaries abroad and the situation inherited from Eisenhower were the catalyst for many of the problems that the administration faced, but there were also internal difficulties that had to be addressed if the administration’s foreign policy was going to function effectively.

For President Obama, similar problems are all too obvious. The renewed US support for the war in Afghanistan, a deteriorating situation in Pakistan, ongoing crises in the Middle East, the debate over diplomatic openings to Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, and a state of flux in US-European affairs all provide ample evidence of an administration yet to establish a clear foreign policy identity. Reports of turf battles between Obama and his military advisors, echo the Kennedy era where factionalism and a lack of coherent command within the administration could strain the implementation of policy. And while Obama has been handed the poisoned chalice of the legacy of eight years of Bushian foreign policy, the struggle to learn how to ‘do’ foreign policy in his first months inevitably complicates matters for US officials.

Though Obama has a set of foreign policy priorities that he wants to pursue, his attempts to achieve these will be accompanied by ongoing difficulties. Shaking hands with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is an obvious example. The depth of enmity that existed between Bush and Chavez means that a rapprochement is welcome, but the wider connotations also need to be factored in. Chavez divides opinion in Latin America as much as among other nations of the world; therefore, the US relationship with him needs to be managed carefully lest it have an adverse impact on the already strained inter-American relationship.

Likewise, attempting to broker a diplomatic opening with Iran has multi-faceted elements that must be considered. For while Obama scores highly for trying to open constructive diplomatic links with Tehran, it is a gambit that can backfire if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to make inflammatory international statements like his recent pronouncement to the UN World Conference on Racism.

Yet it is the internal schisms in the Administration that are potentially most damaging. During the Kennedy era the debates that arose between new advisors like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and older hands like former Secretary of State Dean Acheson pointed not just to a lack of internal harmony but also to an absence of presidential leadership. The Berlin crisis was a clear examples with Kennedy prevaricating between policy alternatives while canny advisors like Acheson and General Lucius Clay used a bureaucratic vacuum to advance their own agendas. Obama’s disagreements with General David Petraeus and more broadly the Pentagon, vident in discussions over Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, are reminiscent of this.

Of course, the history of the Kennedy era does not suggest that there will be an episode as damaging as the Bay of Pigs or as climatic as the Berlin crisis during the Obama Presidency. But they do suggest that, however talented and however capable, Obama may struggle to develop a fully effective foreign policy until he can eradicate some of the difficulties that blighted the early hope of his Democratic predecessor almost fifty years ago.

Death and Deprivation for Sri Lanka's Tamils: Has Anyone Noticed?

There is a great deal to ponder in why, amidst headline crises elsewhere in the world, the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka has attracted little attention. There are estimates that up to 6500 Tamil civilians have died and ten of thousands have fled in recent weeks in a worsening civil war that has stretched out over decades.

Tom Fenton of Global Post reveals and considers the situation:

What the Tamils and Palestinians Have in Common

LONDON — For the past three weeks, dozens of flag-waving Tamils have been camping out in Parliament Square, trying to draw attention to the desperate plight of their ethnic minority in far-off Sri Lanka. Several are on a hunger strike. Busy Londoners seem to ignore them, except when the demonstrators hold up traffic. The Tamils are one of the world’s least popular causes.

An estimated 70,000 of them have been killed in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's decades-long struggle for independence against the Sri Lankan government. Civilians trapped between the Tamil Tigers and government troops are in particularly dire straits right now. But their suffering is largely unseen by the world.

The Sri Lankan government has barred independent news organizations and most aid agencies from the combat zone in the northeast, where a dwindling band of rebel militia members is making a last-ditch stand against the Sri Lankan army. Tens of thousands of Tamil civilians are trapped in the war zone and trying to flee. Almost 3,000 have been killed in the fighting in the past two months. The government is pushing hard to finish off the rebellion and believes that if the cameras are not there, the world won’t care what happens.

Read rest of article....

Durban II: The Conference Against Racism Gives Way to Israel Against Iran

At the end of the Second United Nations World Conference Against Racism, here is one near-certain outcome: there will be no third conference.

Racism may be a subject which demands sincere and strong steps from every country in the UN, but once again it has been used primarily for realpolitik. This conference has been hijacked both by Iran or Israel with their stubborn and boundary-producing discourses, shaped by  their policies of "security".

This conference again demonstrates that we still have not learned how to put the common humanitarian values of the UN Charter into practice. While mistreated millions have been looking for a solution against racism and discrimination, leaders of these people are merely bringing the effects of that racism to a climax.

Let’s start from the Israeli side. After the delegates of 23 Europeans walked out during Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s speech, Israel wasted no time in framing the threat from Tehran. The Jerusalem Post reported that German soldiers, for the first time, took part in the March of the Living on Tuesday at the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. So while Iranians have been 'sharpening their swords’, the West (of which a redeemed Germany is a part) has already showed "the main difference" between Western and Iranian mentalities by walking out of the conference hall. Iranians are the ones living on ‘the wrong side’ of the history.

The message was clear: even as German soldiers can walk with Israelis to show their sensitivity to the seriousness of the subject (Holocaust), it is certain that there are still some people (Iranians) who have not understood what Israelis feel and who are posing the greatest threat against Israel’s existence. Therefore, with the possibility of a new Holocaust, Israelis must do whatever is needed. After Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva proving how Tehran is full of hatred against Israel, it is Iran and not Israel constructing the ‘legitimacy’ of an Israeli pre-emptive strike against the source of the danger. ‘

Speaking at the March of the Living, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom framed the response of Israeli security, “Sadly, today we are again facing an existential threat just like that of sixty-four years ago, and I wonder if we have learned anything since then?” The Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Reuven Rivlin sent an impassioned letter to parliamentary counterparts abroad on Tuesday: "This time, Hitler has a beard and speaks Persian."

Indeed, for Vice President Shalom, Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler:

Can there be anything more terrible than the methodical annihilation of a whole nation, burning their holy books, stealing their dignity as human beings, their hair and even their teeth, turning them into numbers, into soap, into ashes and dust at Treblinka and at Dachau? The answer is yes! There is something more terrible. It is even worse to do all those terrible things and then to deny them. Denial of the Holocaust not only desecrates the memory of the victims and wounds the survivors, it also denies the world the opportunity to learn the lesson of those events - a lesson we must learn again today, just as we had to sixty four years ago.

Shalom continued, “Iran represents a threat to the very existence of Israel, but not only of Israel! Iran represents a threat to the existence of the entire free world, and it is vitally important that we realize this soon.”

Thus, Tel Aviv is standing up for all "free" peoples against the greatest menace in modern history, “Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - all these have become Iranian agents. Today, it is still Israel that is fighting the war against terrorism for the whole world, but today more than ever, the world must understand that these agents of Iran can reach them too.”

Here is the most subtly-designed paragraph of Shalom's speech:

The March of the Living is not only about the importance of paying our respect to the millions who were murdered and to show all those who seek to destroy us that we are stronger than any evil - it is also about lighting a beacon of warning for every person wherever he or she lives. This beacon of warning will ensure that the memory of what happened here will remain alive and that through that memory, the words 'Never Again' will truly be realized.

That "beacon of light” was an important symbol for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption of imminent threats. As George W. Bush put it,   “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” Moreover, the statement has deep roots in Jewish culture with the belief that the Jew would become a “light unto the nations” (la’goyim) or a beacon to the world.

Thus the UN conference is merely the backdrop for Israel to link both the hope of the "beacon of light" and the prospective doom in the "beacon of warning" to past horrors which are now imminent. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people. This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister."

Beyond this construction of the Iranian threat, however, there was an equally important --- if destructive --- process coming out of the UN conference. Put bluntly, President Ahmedinejad was setting out the exact same "security" framework as his Israeli counterparts.

Ahmadinejad succeeding in giving the "necessary" message to his countrymen. Iranians stood up against the European and American supporters of Israel in Geneva. Iranians have no fear of criticizing the ‘occupying’ Israel, ‘the real threat’ to the world. Thus, they are on ‘the correct side of the history’ and they must continue to be ‘the proud side of humanity’ against ‘ignorants.’

The Iranian President first set out the background of the Israeli threat:

Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through great sufferings and pains. In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Then Ahmadinejad brought this background into the post-1945 tragedy of Palestine:

Following World War II, they (Western powers) resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

And the Iranian President Ahmadinejad then took the short step to the present day:

It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

So, "racist" Israel, which has been "backed up" by Western countries, is the "threat’"against freedom and innocence. Israel is the country that has been "committing genocide". Ahmadinejad argued, “World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face.”

Who is going to act against this ‘racist regime’? Ahmadinejad continued:

Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

For Ahmadinejad, Iran is not the threat to the international community but its prospective leader, standing up against racism: "It is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.”

In coming days and weeks, there will be much more in the international press on the prospect of Israel vs. Iran. Each side has stoked up the "threat" of the other, and each is vying for support in its just and right cause.

Yet, even if this confrontation does not end in military action, there is an even greater political cost that is emerging. The collapse of the UN Conference is only symptomatic of a wider collapse that leaves a vacuum. Tel Aviv and Tehran step up to "lead" because other countries and leaders, caught up in their political calculations, fail to do so. At Geneva and beyond, no one stepped up to restore the common cause for humanitarian values and against racism to the top of the agenda.

The criticism, in the end, is not that Israel and Iran have seized the "beacon of light" to control the "beacon of warning". It is that we let them.

Text: Hillary Clinton Remarks to House Foreign Affairs Committee (22 April 2009)

Related Post: Video - Hillary Clinton Says “Existential Threat” in Pakistan (22 April 2009)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Greetings to many friends and former colleagues. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. This Committee has been the source of many advances in our nation’s foreign policy and I look forward to working with you to continue that tradition.

When I appeared before the Senate – that’s that other body on the other side of the Capitol – I spoke during my confirmation hearing of a commitment to pursue a policy that would enhance our nation’s security, advance our interests, and uphold our values. Today, nearly 100 days later, I am pleased to report that we have begun making progress toward achieving that goal.
I want to begin by recognizing and thanking the men and women of the State Department and USAID, who are serving our country around the clock and around the world. I’m extremely proud of their work. With their talents, and under President Obama’s leadership, we have put forward a new diplomacy powered by partnership, pragmatism, and principle.

Our priorities are clear. We are deploying the tools of diplomacy and development along with military power. We are securing historic alliances, working with emerging regional powers, and seeking new avenues of engagement. We’re addressing the existing and emerging challenges that will define our century: climate change, weak states, rogue regimes, criminal cartels, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, poverty, and disease. We’re advancing our values and our interests by promoting human rights and fostering conditions that allow every individual to live up to their God-given potential.

Now, I know that many of your questions today will deal with longstanding concerns: Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, certainly the Middle East, the fallout from the global financial crisis. I will speak briefly to those, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

As you know, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the President has outlined a strategy centered on a core goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida, and to prevent their safe return to havens in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We combined our strategic review with intensive diplomacy, and nations from around the world are joining our efforts. More than 80 countries and organizations participated in the international conference in The Hague, and a donors’ conference just concluded in Tokyo raised over $5 billion.

In Iraq, we’re working toward the responsible redeployment of our troops and the transition to a partnership based on diplomatic and economic cooperation. We’re deploying new approaches to the threat posed by Iran, and we’re doing so with our eyes wide open and with no illusions. We know the imperative of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. After years during which the United States basically sat on the sidelines, we are now a full partner in the P-5+1 talks.

In the Middle East, we engaged immediately to help bring the parties together to once again discuss what could be done to reach a two-state solution. We’re maintaining our bedrock core commitment to Israel’s security, providing economic support, security assistance, and we are also doing what we can to bolster the Palestinian Authority, and to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

More broadly, we’re working to contain the fallout from the global financial crisis. Our efforts at the G-20 focused in large measures on the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We need to provide support for the International Monetary Fund. We need to provide direct assistance to countries such as Haiti, where I traveled last week. These resources will help democratic, responsible governments regain their economic footing and avert political instability with wider repercussions.
Now, these challenges demand our urgent attention, but they cannot distract us from equally important, but sometimes less compelling or obvious threats, ranging from climate change to disease to criminal cartels to nonproliferation.

In today’s world, we face challenges that have no respect for borders. Not one of them can be dealt with by the United States alone. None, however, can be solved without us leading. All will have a profound impact on the future of our children. As daunting as these challenges are, they also offer us new arenas for global cooperation. And we’re taking steps to seize these opportunities.

First, we are pursuing a wide-ranging diplomatic agenda premised on strengthening our alliances with democratic partners in Europe, Asia, Africa and our own hemisphere. We are cultivating partnerships with key regional powers. We’re building constructive relationships with major nations that will have a lot to say about what happens in the world to come – China, Russia, India.

We’re working with longtime allies like Japan and South Korea to address not just regional concerns, but a host of global issues as well. I want to say a special word about Asia. You know, advancing our relationship with India – which I know the Chairman and the Ranking Member and others mentioned – is essential. It’s the world’s largest democracy. It’s an important ally in so many efforts. I made my first overseas trip as Secretary of State to Asia, a signal that we are not just a transatlantic power, but also a transpacific power, and that Asia will be an indispensable partner in years to come.

But we haven’t forgotten our traditional allies. We have worked hard with the European Union and with NATO, and then just a few days ago, we did go to Latin America to meet with nations who share a common home, a hemisphere, a heritage, and a common future. We discussed a new energy partnership, fighting drug trafficking and the drug cartels, consolidating democratic gains, and so much more.

We’re also building closer ties with regional anchors, including Brazil, Indonesia, and Turkey. These are not only partners, but they can be leaders on issues ranging from deforestation to democracy. We will work with China and Russia wherever we can, and we’ll be candid about our areas of disagreement. We will be starting a strategic and economic dialogue with China very shortly. We’ll be working with them to develop technologies to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. And we have committed ourselves to working with Russia on finding a successor agreement to the START arms control agreement.
But we also understand that redefining diplomatic engagement is not just between governments. Policies and political leaders change over time. But ties between citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, universities, NGOs, all of those endure. And these are very effective tools of diplomacy, and we’re committed to engaging these groups.

And so finally, we will work to expand opportunity and protect human rights, strengthen civil society, live up to the ideals that define our nation, work to advance education and healthcare, the rule of law and good governance, fight against corruption, expand opportunities for women and girls, and those on the margins of society.

As we promote responsible governance abroad, we have to invest more in our tools here at home. As the Chairman said, I’m working hard to create a more agile, effective Department with the right staffing and resources to fulfill the President’s agenda. That’s why I have filled, for the first time, the position of Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
I’ve also challenged the Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars. We’re turning our ambassadors into in-country chief executives with authority and responsibility for the programs on the ground. We’re consolidating IT support services that will yield savings of tens of millions of dollars. We’re deploying new media technologies to carry our message more effectively.

And I am determined to see that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service get the resources they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. Even Secretary Gates has pointed out our country has underinvested in diplomacy. That must end. Just as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into battle, we cannot send our diplomats into the field in today’s world with all of the threats they face, 24/7, without the tools they need. We don’t invest in diplomacy and development; we end up paying a lot more for conflict and all that follows.

So Mr. Chairman, we’re pursuing these policies because they’re the right thing to do. We believe that no country benefits more than the United States when there is greater security, democracy, and opportunity in the world. Our economy grows when our allies are strengthened and people thrive. And no country carries a heavier burden when things go badly. Every year, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars dealing with the consequences of war, disease, violent ideologies, and vile dictatorships.

So let’s invest in the type of world that we want. We have no shortage of challenges or opportunities. The world is looking for leadership and looking to see how this new Administration meets this moment. I believe if we follow our plans and our principles, we will succeed. We can lead the world in creating a century that we and our children will be proud to own, a century of progress and prosperity for the whole world, but especially for our beloved country.

But to achieve these goals, we need your help, we need your advice, and we need your support. And I look forward not only to the formal hearing today, but to the informal, ongoing dialogue that I’ve started with some of you and look forward to having with all of you. We’re in this together. We have to row in the same direction for the benefit of our country and our children.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.