Filed under: Domestic Policy, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: "Rules for Radicals", Demagoguery, Let a Crisis Go To Waste
A Memorial Service was held yesterday for the victims of the Navy Yard shooting. The president gave an emotional speech, sharing the sorrow of the victims families, friends and co-workers. He is good at that, and his words are usually well-received.
Mindful of his training in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, and Lenin’s rules, however, the president is loath to allow any crisis to go to waste. When emotions are high, it’s the best time to push people to get involved in banning guns. And it’s true. An emotional event can get people to want to — do something.
The midst of a crisis is the worst possible time to attempt to decide what to do to stop the next one. Laws made in the throes of emotion usually turn out to be bad laws. Aaron Alexis, the shooter, was apparently emotionally disturbed. People instantly want to make laws to put crazy people somewhere were they can’t hurt anyone. Well, of course. But mental health is not a cut-and-dried situation. We don’t know very much about how to fix people.
The Left always assumes that the answer to any problem is another government program or a new law. And the government seldom does anything well, except for increasing the power of the administrative state. Aaron Alexis passed a background check for purchasing a gun with no problem. Washington D.C. has draconian gun laws. Alexis passed through the special security arrangements at the Navy Yard. The Navy Yard is, as are all Military bases and facilities — a gun free zone. In 1993, one of Bill Clinton’s first actions on taking office was to ban guns at all military installations.
Aaron Alexis had a special secret security clearance that allowed him access to the Navy Yard. He had lied on his enlistment form about prior arrests, and nobody checked. He had quite a number of run-ins with police, but received an honorable discharge and was hired as a defense contractor in 2012. A D.C. Rapid Response team was told to stand down. Is there a pattern of governmental success here?
When an American ambassador and his technology chief were being killed in Benghazi, the workers at the consulate under fire, and the two former SEALS trying to rescue them, another Rapid Response Team was told to stand down. And the rescued workers have been ordered to speak to no one about what happened.
President Obama wants to fix all this by banning guns for everyone — except the government, of course. He could immediately lift the order banning guns at all military bases. That would remedy the situation at the Navy Yard, and at Fort Hood. Oddly enough, gun-free zones seem to create an incentive for shooters. They are inclined to avoid places where people are armed. I am not suggesting that nothing should be done, and clearly when people are a danger to society, they should be removed from society — but did anyone beg that the recent shooters be locked up before they did their shooting? Did anyone know that they were dangerous? Does anyone have sensible suggestions on what to do and how it could be accomplished?
Bureaucrats and demagogues are always ready to do something, but they have way more faith in government’s abilities than I do.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, Russia, The United States | Tags: Defending the Indefensible., It's a Tough Job!, There Are Limits
This one’s going to go in the record books of inane comments by a Press Secretary:
“When it comes to being a commander in chief, the American people, at least in my estimation, appreciate a commander in chief who takes in new information and doesn’t celebrate decisiveness for the sake of decisiveness.”
Lets not have any decisiveness around here. Sheesh.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Islam, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Al Qaeda And Affiliates, The Battle for Syria, Weapons of Mass Destruction
Thomas Jocelyn testified yesterday to the House Committee on Homeland Security, about al Qaeda in Syria and the threat that poses to the United States. Al Qaeda affiliates and allied jihadist groups dominate the insurgency in the heart of the Middle East. The Long War Journal published his testimony.
“The situation inside Syria is grim, with a despicable tyrant on one side and a rebellion compromised by al Qaeda and like-minded extremists on the other. In between these two poles are the people who originally rose up against tyranny in search of a better life. As we’ve seen time and again in this long war, Muslims embroiled in violence in faraway lands are often the first line of defense against an ideology and an organization that pose a direct threat to the West.”
We should have no illusions about the nature of the Syrian war. What we are witnessing right now is a conflict that will have ramifications for our security in the West. The fighting in Syria and the terrorist campaign in Iraq are deeply linked, feeding off of one another in a way that increases the violence in both countries and potentially throughout the region. American interests outside of Syria have already been threatened by the war. We saw this late last year when al Qaeda repurposed a cell of Jordanian citizens who had fought in Syria for an attack inside their home country. They reportedly had the U.S. Embassy in their crosshairs and were planning a complex assault involving other targets as well. …
Al Qaeda and its extremist allies have grown much stronger since late 2011. Al Qaeda does not control the entire rebellion, which is made up of a complex set of actors and alliances. However, al Qaeda and its allies dominate a large portion of northern Syria and play a key role in the fighting throughout the rest of the country. These same al Qaeda-affiliated forces have fought alongside Free Syrian Army brigades. There is no clear geographic dividing line between the most extreme fighters and other rebels. For example, al Qaeda’s affiliates played a key role in the fighting in Latakia, an Assad stronghold on the coast, in early August. And within the past week we saw al Qaeda-affiliated fighters lead an attack in Malula, a Christian village not far from Damascus. These are just two examples chosen from many.
Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s emir has made the fight for Syria a strategic priority. They are political revolutionaries who are looking to establish an Islamic Emirate in the heart of the Levant. They want a state of their own — as a start. Other al Qaeda groups have joined the fight — the Taliban from Pakistan, Chechens , fighters from South Asia and North Africa, are fighting alongside each other. There is a Syrian Islamic Front that fights alongside al Qaeda. There is a direct connection between the terrorists over there and terrorists over here. Some are being repurposed for operations against the West. And al Qaeda is recruiting Westerners who can be used against their home countries. They are looking for chemical and biological weapons in Syria, and an al Nusrah Front cell has been arrested and found to be in possession of about 2 kilos of sarin gas. Iraqi officials claim to have broken up an al Qaeda cell that was seeking to launch sarin gas attacks in Iraq, Europe and possibly North America.
Do read the whole thing. These people do understand that we are in — a long war — and have been since 9/11. It is civilizational and serious and real, and we must take it seriously.
NOTE: A piece I posted on September 3 was based on an article from the Institute for the Study of War, and based on information from Elizabeth O’Bagy, who was an adviser to John Kerry and supposedly an expert on the situation in Syria. The Institute has discharged her for misrepresenting her credentials, and she is apparently involved as a lobbyist for the Free Syrian Army. So I don’t know if any of what I wrote is true, nor if the map is correct.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Islam, Middle East, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: 9/11 Observance, President Barack Obama, The Syria Speech
It is 9/11. and the mind goes back twelve years to that terrible day, and to Benghazi on 9/11. The President and Vice President and their wives and the entire White House staff were photographed on the White House Lawn where they observed a moment of silence, and then the president went off to pass out food to the needy — in his continuing push to make 9/11 a “Day of Service.”
I don’t get it. I see no relation between mourning those we lost and doing some volunteer work. But then I’m not much on “moments of silence,” which I guess are to be seen as a one-minute collective observance of sorrow. If we do it collectively it is more meaningful? I’ll just go on mourning all day, the images don’t stop replaying in my head. I guess if you are a collectivist, you think collectively.
It is another day in the War on Terror. Yes, terror is a tactic, not the producer of terror, but that is simply semantics. What do you want to call it — a war on jihadists?
Americans are confused by World War II, when we had clear enemies — Germany, Japan and Italy. They expanded into conquered territory and we had to drive them out. The War was a total effort. Civilians did war work, bought war bonds, raised victory gardens and did without a wealth of things to which we were accustomed. The war lasted a neat four years, the victory was clear and surrender abject and total, followed by occupation.
Now there remains for Americans an expectation that a proper war will have those characteristics. In World War II people were thoroughly weary of war, but they knew that it had to be won and the enemy defeated utterly. There was no talk of “war weariness.” You even heard people during the War in Iraq or in Afghanistan complain that civilians weren’t asked to buy bonds or accept rationing. They weren’t proper wars because the home front just went on with ordinary life, undisturbed.
Richard Cohen, liberal columnist for the Washington Post, asked plaintively “Where’s the moral outrage?”
The civil war in Syria has cost more than 110,000 lives. It has produced a humanitarian calamity — well over 2 million refugees.
Bashar Assad has massacred his own people by conventional means and is accused of using poison gas several times, most recently on Aug. 21, when his military murdered 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. …
I pick on the American left because it is liberal and because that suggests empathy, concern and internationalism.
The American right is now going through one of its periodic bouts of lunacy, reverting to a comfy isolationism-cum-selfishness that has often characterized it. (I should note, though, that back in the late 1930s, Norman Thomas, the six-time socialist presidential candidate, supported the isolationist America First movement.)
My point is that the more military action departs from the example of World War II as it exists in memory, and movies, the more reluctant the people. You need the Draft, War Songs, Bond Drives, and some kind of deprivation for the people so they feel involved. Americans want to support their president, but when offered only an “extraordinarily small” reprimand, the people sense that there is no clear strategy there at all.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Learning from Other's Success, No Interest in Foreign Relations, Show of Force in Syria
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has narrowly agreed to Obama’s request for approval of his show of force against Syria, and it will go on to the full Senate. The President, in Stockholm, said that he didn’t draw a red line against the use of nerve gas — the world did, or our nation did — just don’t blame him. It is not his credibility that is at stake, it is America’s and Congress’s credibility, and the international community’s credibility. Besides he has the authority to act on his own anyway.
It seems to be the case that Mr. Obama was trying to set a trap for Republicans. If they said no, which he was sure they would, then they could be blamed for everything. He has never really been interested in foreign policy, and wanted only to diminish Americas posture in the world, because he thought we were something of an international bully. On the other hand, he takes great pleasure in reminding everyone that he is the leader of the free world, the commander-in chief of all he surveys, he just doesn’t want to do anything about it that could be blamed on him.
Secretary Kerry insists that it is Assad who used poison gas, but Secretary Kerry has untruthfully testified before and his credibility is at stake. It is a real conundrum for members of Congress, right and left. Obama has dithered and waffled, refused to make decisions, and insisted that it doesn’t make any difference when he chooses to act because the military told him it didn’t matter. The military, on the other had said simply that they would be ready to act.
So we have to do something, but just what the something is — is not defined. We were supposedly giving weapons to the Free Syrian Army, but that never happened. Is the Foreign Relation Committee getting better answers?
If the President is not serious, Republicans are. Some are deeply concerned that he is making a major mistake and want to discourage him. Others will support him because they do not want to diminish America’s authority when their president has made such public demands. It is not in the country’s best interest, or the world’s, to have an irreparably damaged U.S. President only a little more than eight months into his second term. Making the president look bad may be appealing to those who oppose his policies, but is it wise to do so on the world stage?
Republicans oppose ObamaCare, not because it is Obama’s initiative, but because it will collapse of its own error, doing irreparable damage to the country as it does. They oppose his demand for more spending, and increasing the national debt not to oppose his initiatives, but to keep him from further damaging the country.
On his brief visit to Sweden, it would be wise if Mr. Obama were to take notice of the Swedish economy. Sweden has long been a shining goal for the left as a typical European welfare state. In the past two decades, however, the country has transformed itself from a stagnant welfare state into a vibrant modern economy that has significantly advanced economic freedom — in contrast to Mr. Obama’s America where economic freedom has been declining at an alarming rate. (click to enlarge)
Sweden has cut their spending as a portion of gross domestic product by about 20%, while America’s has increased by about 10%. Their corporate tax rate was 60 percent, and they have cut that to 26.3 percent. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has reduced the corporate rate further to 22 percent, and pointed out that corporate income tax is probably the most damaging of all. Sweden has survived the global downturn quite nicely. The U.S. would do well to follow their example. Don’t hold your breath.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Election 2014, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Islam, Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: A Moral Imperative, Leading From Behind., Restoring Credibiity
What a mess the whole Syrian situation is. President Obama, in a desperate attempt to appear strong, yet avoid any military entanglements in Syria before the election, made the mistake of threatening Bashar al Assad with a “red line,” warning him of any use of chemical-weapons. That was a statement of sorts that anything short of chemical weapons would be receive no pushback. and Obama was portraying himself as weak and ineffective unless he did something. Assad is now publicly chortling about how weak Obama is.
So now Mr. Obama is relying on his usual strategy of placing responsibility in the lap of Congress. If Republicans don’t go along, he can blame them for America’s failure, and avoid any responsibility himself. Those who do go along can face stronger primary challenges using that vote against them. With Mr. Obama, it is always is about him, and he is above all — a political person.
There are no good answers, or even acceptable answers. Congress is asked to choose between a weak response that does nothing to end Syria’s civil war or depose Assad, or a “no” vote that harms American interests by making it clear that Obama has no support at home.
According to today’s news, apparently the weapons that were to be supplied to the Syrian dissidents have never reached them. There is much confusion about the rebels, and separating the various factions into the good guys and the bad guys. Some suggest that there are no good guys, but that is apparently not the case.
The Institute for the Study of War shows a map of the Divided Syria: (click to enlarge)
The dark grey areas are held by extremist groups like al Qaeda in Iraq, Jabhat al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate, and are less interested in defeating Assad than they are in holding their Islamic emirate in the north of the country. The light grey areas are a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army that are fighting the regime.
John Kerry elaborated what the administration has in mind, but it doesn’t tell us much.
It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. The president has been clear: Any action that he might decide to take will be [a] limited and tailored response to ensure that a despot’s brutal and flagrant use of chemical weapons is held accountable.
Apparently chemical weapons are easily made, and some of our European friends have been selling them such materials. There are other players too, of course: Iran, Israel, Russia, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East. The idea that the above description of our action would hold Assad “accountable” and deter any future actions on his part seems a bit fatuous.
Obama is not claiming that military action will have an important effect of Syria, but rather that maintaining the international taboo against the use of chemical weapons is a moral imperative. So it is posturing, but without any real teeth. Foreign Policy says the U.S. had intelligence on the chemical strike before it was launched. But we took no action, so its not all that much of a moral imperative.
Joseph Curl, writing in the Washington Times, says it is simply a political calculation:
The first rule for President Obama: It’s all about 2014. The second rule for President Obama: See Rule No. 1.
Make no mistake: The president couldn’t care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death — including nearly 500 children. It’s all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.
Victor Davis Hanson summarizes the situation with his usual efficiency. “What are the president’s strategic objectives in the present mess? Does he know”
There are four general strategic options — predicated on the political fact that either the Congress will approve the operation or that the Obama administration will ignore it if it doesn’t, and that Obama is not worried about either the present absence of both public support and any militarily credible allies, and that he need not explain our primary objectives that will be made up as we go along.
Dr. Hanson also reminds us of the similar effort to restore credibility when Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory after the attacks on the East African embassies.
CORRECTION: Elizabeth O’Bagy who was the official at the Institute for the Study of War on whose work this piece was based has been discharged from the Institute for misrepresenting her academic qualifications. She was also, apparently, an adviser to John Kerry, but she represents the Free Syrian Army in Washington DC, and is not an unbiased source. So I don’t know if the map is correct or if the information is correct.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Israel, Middle East, National Security, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Changing Values, Foreign Policy Confusion, The United States of America
Back in 2007, when Barack Obama was a mere senator, he was asked when Presidents have the authority to launch a military strike without congressional authorization. He had a precise answer at the ready. He told The Boston Globe:
The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
The interview goes on, but of course it is hard to be consistent over time, and particularly when you are commenting on a situation and when you are embroiled in the situation yourself. Yet, it is useful to understand the changing views of an official. This is difficult territory. Still the interview is interesting, and Senator Obama is quick to grasp the opportunity to attack Bush with all the usual leftist talking points. Do not the comment on “warrantless surveillance of American citizens,” I think that’s something like hoist with your own petard.
The president, in an imprudent moment, announced that “Assad must go,” but did nothing at all to salvage his pronouncement, lessen the conflict, nor encouraged others to keep the rebellion from getting worse. Then he announced that he was drawing a”red line” in regard to chemical weapons, but did nothing about that either. People all over the Middle East seem to be killing their own people without any serious reaction from the rest of the world.
If we have a clear policy in regard to the Middle East, no one seems to know just what it is. One day Bashar al Assad is a “reformer”, then he is a perpetrator of crimes against humanity. Poison gas seems somehow worse than just shooting people, but for all of Obama’s declarations of red lines and crimes against humanity — we seem to have no policy except the delusion that all problems in the Middle East are because of the “conflict” between Israel and Palestine, and if the Israelis will just stop “building settlements” than all will be well. No mention of Palestinians rockets, of course.
It just doesn’t add up to a policy.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Islam, Law, Middle East, Military, National Security, The United States | Tags: An Accidental Threat, Drawing "Red Lines", Making Good on Threats
Syria. The U.S. goal is “not to get mocked?” We are going to attack sooner or later, but time is not of the essence, we can do it any time. We’re not going to attack Assad, nor his chemical weapons supplies, and we don’t want to hurt anyone.
A U.S. official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site.
What the hell is this? Don Rumsfeld remarked that “De-mystifying what you’re going to do to the enemy is — mindless. …There hasn’t been any indication from the administration in respect to what our national interest is.”
Mark Steyn thoughtfully added:
So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror. …
Meanwhile, the hyperpower is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility, anyway.
Everybody is commenting. Vladimir Putin said he is sure that the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international— and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al Assad, he said, would have no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.
U.S. Intelligence agencies had indications three days beforehand that the Syrian regime was poised to launch a lethal chemical attack that killed more than a thousand people.
This kind of thing promotes endless speculation, which is of course useless, since you can’t get into another person’s mind, but you speculate anyway. Obama has been quoted some time back saying he didn’t believe anyone should be able to have a gun. I wonder if he has ever been to a war movie, or read any military history? He came of age when it was fashionable among lefties to protest all wars, in mindless ignorance of what they were actually about.
I spent a good part of last Sunday at Seattle’s Museum of Flight touring a B-17, admiring what was at the time, the brand new Navy Corsair, and the astonishingly huge X-15 Blackbird. I have always read military books. I cannot imagine being so unfamiliar with things military that I would confuse corps and corpse. But if you identify something as bad or evil, you’re not apt to pursue information about that subject, and you turn for information to the writers and historians who agree with you. Trouble is, your ignorance usually catches up with you, especially when you’re trying to sound in charge.
No rush. Obama will consult with Congress, though he says, he is perfectly entitled to act on his own. Here’s the actual quote from the Los Angeles Times:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
Filed under: Entertainment, Freedom, Humor, Intelligence, Politics | Tags: Always Interesting, Distinctly Different, The Case For Cats
I’ve had a lot of cats over the years, but never one this interesting!
Filed under: Intelligence, Israel, Middle East, National Security, Politics | Tags: Animal Spies, Middle East Suspicions, The Mossad's Own Kestrel?
When you hear that the Americans are killing people with drones, and you live in a village in Elazig province of Turkey, and you find a strange bird wearing a metallic ring stamped with the words “24311 Tel Avivunia Israel,” well you just might suspect that the bird has been on a spying mission for the Jewish state.
Villagers turned the bird over to local authorities. So great was the level of concern for medical personnel at Elazig’s Firat University, that they initially identified the kestrel as “Israeli Spy” in their registration documents. Intensive medical examinations — including x-rays —determined that the bird was indeed, just a bird. There were no signs of a microchip that might transmit information back to Israel. The bird was allowed to fly off after authorities determined there was no need to press charges.
The incident does, however, demonstrate the degree of paranoia and xenophobia regarding Israel that exists among large segments of Turkish society. It comes at a time when talks between Turkey and Israel over compensation for families of those killed in the 2012 Mavi Marmara incident have stalled.
Eight Turks and one Turkish -American were killed on May 31,2010 when Israeli commandos stormed the Turkish vessel carrying “aid” to the embargoed Gaza Strip. The vessel was suspected of carrying weapons.
Saudi Arabia detained a vulture on spying charges. Homing pigeons ware accused in 2008 after being caught near the Nantaz nuclear facility. When our miniaturization technology appears on You Tube, and our Media filled with talk of surveillance techniques, it is likely we will be suspected of the worst. Americans are usually unaware of the extent to which other countries follow American news.
I’m glad they released the accused Kestrel. Looks like a nice bird.
Filed under: Energy, Environment, Intelligence, Military, National Security | Tags: No Warming in The 21st Century, Obama's Climate Plan, Still Chasing Old Ideas
The White House has posted a large graphic on Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan to address — extreme weather. Lots of dramatic claims, no documentation, no evidence.
“President Obama has announced a series of executive actions to reduce pollution, prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change. “
That “executive actions” should be a little troubling. The president seems to believe that “carbon pollution” is something that needs his direct attention. He is apparently unaware that we are carbon life forms, that carbon is one of the building blocks of life, and if we eliminated carbon, we would eliminate life. And “climate change” is so 20th Century— there hasn’t been any warming so far in this century.
Well, nevermind. Here are his ideas as the White House had presented them. I’m still not sure what he has in mind as “carbon pollution.” Do we need to stop exhaling now? All of the food we consume exists because of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and increased CO² means more luxuriant plant growth and plants that are more resistant to water shortage. The planet is greening because we have a little more CO², a natural fertilizer, in the atmosphere.
John Brignell at Number Watch has written an explanation “In Praise of Carbon” which is useful when trying to understand our current problem.
We have the CIA (see below) sponsoring a search for a geoengineering solution to excessive solar radiation, apparently based on the idea that global warming is a threat to national security.
Now we learn that the U.S. Army is switching to a “green” version of the M80A1 7.62 mm bullet which are supposed to start being issued to troops in 2014. The Army has been looking to “green” small-caliber ammo for some time now. In 2010, the Army switched to the greener 5.56 mm M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round. The EPR replaces the lead slug with a copper slug,” said Lt. Col Phil Clark, product manager for small-caliber ammunition in the Executive Officer Ammunition program. “This makes the projectile environmentally-friendly, while still giving soldiers the performance capabilities they need on the battlefield. So far we have eliminated 1.994 metric tons of lead from 5.56 ammunition production.
Fox News reported that Army officials conceded that the M855A1 “has not been providing the ‘stopping power’ the user would like at engagement ranges of less than 150 yards.
So the bullets won’t kill the enemy, but they are environmentally friendly. And the Navy is running their warships on an unavailable biofuel mixture of chicken fat and algae. They are testing flying jets on some kind of “green fuel.”
The president is still hyping “renewable fuel” which necessarily remains only a miniscule portion of our energy picture, and a way-too-expensive one at that. He still is concerned about our “addiction to foreign oil” in spite of a changed world in which we have plenty of our own. And he intends to “eliminate carbon pollution” through regulation by the EPA, which is not authorized to do any such thing. Their assigned tasks are clean air and clean water, and they have stretched that assignment far beyond recognizable borders. And they really need to stop lying and making up facts to support their power grab.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Humor, Intelligence, Law, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Homeland Security, Investigation, Surveillance
(h/t: Maggie’s Farm)