Filed under: Afghanistan, Democrat Corruption, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Russia, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Middle East Afire, Russia & NATO, The Iran Deal
To Briefly Sum Up:
On Monday, the Obama White House dismissed the Ayatollah Khamenei’s “Of course Death to America” rhetoric, telling CNN that it was just something “intended for a domestic political audience,” and thus can reasonably be ignored. Josh Earnest had just explained that such rhetoric provided even more reason for negotiating a deal with Iran.
How does that work? Iran has been proclaiming themselves an implacable enemy of America ever since 1979 and the Iranian revolution. If you think that although they are a major oil-producing state, they just want nuclear energy to keep the lights on, ask yourself why they also have been developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Obama has a bucket list of accomplishments that he expects will prove to the world that he did too deserve that Nobel Peace Prize, and go down in history as one of the greatest presidents. It’s not going too well. Getting the troops out of Iraq was a big one, and that has gone sour. Closing Guantanamo has not gone well, but he’s still determined. He’s just given in a little on getting the troops out of Afghanistan, but only till the end of the year — politely letting the Taliban know just how long they have to wait, with his usual lack of understanding of basic strategy.
He was determined to be the American president who made peace between Israel and Palestine with a two-state solution, forcing Israel to give up their borders, their safety, and their future to a bunch of terrorists supported by the peaceful state of Iran.
And now he’s determined to make a completely worthless deal with Iran, and will obviously give up anything and everything to get a deal, any deal. Iran has no intention of accepting any restraint on their activities. They have refused surprise inspections, or any inspections for which they cannot easily prepare. Since Obama reduced the sanctions, they have no reason to agree to anything. They don’t need to.
We’re told in the meantime that they could probably have a nuclear bomb within 45 days, but the UN nuclear inspectors have said that there is not much that they are actually sure of.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening the Baltic states with Russian submarine activity and a rising cruise-missile threat, Obama has been unable to find the time to meet with NATO’s new Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The new idea is that he only has time for our enemies, but not for our allies.
Stoltenberg was twice prime minister of Norway, and is well aware of increasing Russian bomber patrols that include mock attack runs on NATO members’ warships. Our nation is pledged, as a NATO member to defend other NATO members. A meeting with the prime minister might be in order, but then Obama has dumped the eastern Europe missile defense and refused to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. And Stoltenberg might remind him of America’s binding NATO pledge.
Yemen has melted down. We got our people out, but apparently left $500 million worth of advanced weapons for al Qaeda, along with secret files about U.S. counter-terrorism operations. Saudi Arabia has launched military operations against the Iran-backed Houthi Rebels in Yemen. The Royal Saudi Air Force has bombed the positions of Yemen’s Houthi militia and destroyed most of their air defenses. In a joint statement Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait will repel Houthi militias, al Qaeda and ISIS as the coup in Yemen represents a major threat to the region’s stability.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Freedom, History, National Security, News of the Weird, Politics, Statism, The United States | Tags: American History, Political Correctness, The Job of The Schools
April 19, 1775, some 700 British troops arrived in Lexington and came upon 77 militiamen gathered on the town green. A British major yelled “Throw down your arms! Ye villains,ye rebels!” The vastly outnumbered militiamen had been ordered by their commander to disperse when a shot rang out. No one knows which side fired first, but several British volleys were unleashed before order could be restored. When the smoke cleared, eight militiamen lay dead and nine were wounded, while only one Redcoat was injured. The British troops marched on to Concord to search for rebel arms.
The “shot heard round the world” was fired at Concord Bridge, and nearly 2,000 militiamen harassed the British from behind trees, walls and houses as they returned to Boston, 18 miles away.
Students at Lexington High School are presumably conscious of local history, so the dance committee picked “American Pride” as the theme for their upcoming dance.
Students said the administration canceled an “American Pride” dance because it excluded other nationalities, despite the theme getting the most votes from the dance committee.
School officials defended their decision and added they are willing to tweak the theme in order for everyone to be included.
Well, there you go. Is anyone surprised that a public school would feel that “national pride” would be “more inclusive.” Blah, blah, diverse demography of our community. The idea of America is that people from many nations and many different origins can come to America and become Americans. Supposedly, that is why they are here — to become Americans.
The results were predictable, a little publicity and the school caved, the “National Pride” Dance was rescheduled for late April and students can even wear red, white and blue if they so choose.
This needs more than a sigh, and a “there they go again” response. It is ubiquitous in our school systems. “Diversity” and “social justice” and “inclusiveness” are just a few of the words that indicate a mindset that inflicts the establishment that is supposed to be teaching our children reading with understanding, writing with clarity, mastering mathematics, understanding the basic sciences of biology, chemistry and physics, learning about history and government.
We know from international comparisons that our schools are doing a lousy job of that, and graduating kids who cannot master the basics, but they’re well up on the Left’s touchy-feely pap. We are losing our country, and losing the future because we are not alarmed enough. Most of us can’t yank our kids out of school and afford a private school, or quit our jobs and homeschool. Are you ready to attend some school board meetings and raise hell? Did you actually know anything about the school board members you voted for? Do you read your kids’ textbooks and talk to them about their assignments?
You will notice the little militiaman on the school sign. The kids get it, but the staff doesn’t.
“People consider America to be a melting pot, so the fact that it was even considered offensive is what people are a little surprised about,” said student Sneha Rao.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Science/Technology | Tags: Predicting the Future, The Attack On Skeptics, The Climate Models
Fear of catastrophic climate change exists only in computer models which are used to predict the future on the basis of not very much real knowledge. That we don’t really know very much about earthly climate should be obvious from all the controversy.
The earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, well before we discovered the use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age was the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, and it was warmer than today. That was a period when humanity thrived. Before that were the Dark Ages, and before than the Roman Warming. Humanity has been pretty successful at adapting to change. Why is it only now that we fear change as a portent of disaster? Too many end if the world scenarios in the movies?
The idea that it would be catastrophic if carbon-dioxide were to increase and average global temperatures were to rise a few degrees is just silly. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the climate will become drastically warmer, or that the sea will rise by feet rather than millimeters. None.
A new scientific study by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany published in the American Meteorological Society Journal—finds the effect of aerosols on climate are much smaller that those in almost all of the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.”
A NASA expert in 2009 said:
Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth.
There was a lack of global warming, a cooling period, between 1940 and 1970 (ice age?) when there was increased industrialization and extra man-made CO². Aerosols have been used to explain the lack of warming.
The new Stevens paper has been called a “game changer” by one expert in the field — Nic Lewis.
According to the IPCC’s models, the effect of aerosols on the climate could be as much as 4.5 degrees. The Stevens paper says this is a big overestimate and the reduction they effect on temperature cannot be more than 1.8 degrees C. If the cooling effects of aerosols is much smaller than the IPCC thinks, then the rise in global temperatures that can be attributed to man-made CO² is much smaller than the alarmist computer models acknowledge.
The terrestrial temperature measuring stations have been shown to vastly overestimate warming as well, for many are improperly sited next to air-conditioner exhausts, walls that reflect heat, trash burners, next to asphalt parking lots — all locations that artificially raise the heat measurement on the thermometers.
Satellite measurement began about 1980, I think. The climate models are unable to predict the present climate when we know what it is. Mankind has always wanted to predict the future, but I don’t know that it’s any better now than when they were tossing bones, or reading tea leaves. Lord knows they’ve tried, especially with financial markets. The models devised for predicting the future of the stock market were, I believe I read, the original source for the climate models. Any successful predictions are apt to be just lucky guesses, otherwise we wouldn’t have Las Vegas, nor a Lottery, nor losses on the stock market. We are not meant to know the future,but to be wise enough to prepare for what might be.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Freedom, History, Humor, Liberalism, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Bill Whittle, How To Deal With Collectivists, Liberals and Progressives
This is a post saved from 2013. Bill Whittle addresses the Western Conservative Summit in Colorado, with some instructions on how to deal with progressives. A lesson in which we all need a refresher.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Iran, Military, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Nuclear Iran, The Nuclear Talks, Understanding the Dangers
Here’s your chilling paragraph for today:
Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country’s power system.
American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran’s recent nuclear talks with the administration.
In the article was a link to the website of Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) with the headline “Franks Launches Caucus to Address EMP Threat, Introduces “SHIELD Act,” which seemed a positive step, but then I noticed the date was February 16, 2011 — 5 years ago!
So I went to the congressman’s website, and apparently he has just introduced another bill, “encouraged by last year’s unanimous House vote.” So was this one of those bills that Harry Reid tabled to be sure no one had a chance to vote for it? As with all congressional offices, they don’t want to hear from you if you don’t live in their district.
A further search turned up an article written by Dr. Peter Vincent Fry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both Congressional Advisory Boards. Senior advisers to President Reagan warned that Iran has nuclear capability already:
“Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies.”
“Iran has orbited four satellites, some weighing over one ton, demonstrating it can deliver a nuclear weapon anywhere. Iran has been secretly working on nuclear weapons for over twenty (20) years.
…The IAEA has also repeatedly warned that it has only partial access to Iran’s nuclear program and does not know what is going on in several underground facilities suspected of nuclear weapons development. …
Thus, Iran with a small number of nuclear missiles can by EMP attack threaten the existence of modernity and be the death knell for Western principles of international law, humanism and freedom. For the first time in history, a failed state like Iran could destroy the most successful societies on Earth and convert an evolving benign world order into world chaos.”
Barbarism, he says, can triumph over civilization without war. The capability to make an EMP attack, means Iran can inflict Assured Destruction on the United States using a single warhead, cancels all the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. Iran with nuclear missiles is a world crisis comparable to Islamic conquests during the Dark Ages, the rise of Nazi Germany, or the Soviet threat during the Cold War.
It’s a long article, but you should read the whole thing. And you might do what you can to get your congressional representatives moving on this. Iran does not need an agreement. Why are they stringing the president along?
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Iran, Law, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Nuclear Deal, Presidential Powers, Restraining Iran
Alan M. Dershowitz wrote this week that “Politicians should stop referring to the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief. And Barack Obama frequently refers to himself in those terms. Mr. Dershowitz has tried to clarify the situation:
But the president is not the Commander-in-Chief for purposes of diplomatic negotiations. This characterization mistakenly implies that President Obama — or any president — is our Commander, and that his decisions should receive special deference. This is a misreading of our constitution, which creates a presidency that is subject to the checks and balances of co-equal branches of the government. The president is only the commander in chief of “the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.” This provision was intended to assure civilian control over the military and to serve as a check on military power.
The only people he is empowered to command are soldiers, sailors and members of the militia — not ordinary citizens.
This important limitation on the president’s power is highly relevant to the current debate about Congress having the authority to check the president’s decision to make the deal that is currently being negotiated with Iran. The Constitution is clear about this. The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s foreign policy. When he is involved in “high-stakes international diplomacy,” his involvement is not as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but rather as negotiator-in-chief, whose negotiations are subject to the checks and balances of the other branches.
As President, he cannot even declare war, though he can decide how a war should be fought after Congress declares it. He cannot make a treaty without the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. He cannot appoint Ambassadors without the consent of the Senate. And he cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress, without Congress changing the law. Were he the “Commander-in-Chief” of our country — as Putin is of Russia or as Ali Khamenei is of Iran — he could simply command that all of these things be done. But our Constitution separates the powers of government — the power to command — into three co-equal branches. The armed forces are different: power is vested in one commander-in-chief.
A president is the head of the executive branch, one of three co-equal branches. As head of the executive branch, he can negotiate treaties, agreements and other bilateral deals, but Congress has a say in whether to approve what the president has negotiated. If the deal constitutes a “treaty” within the meaning of the constitution, then it requires a formal ratification by congress. Executive agreements can be undone. Any impression that the president alone can make an enforceable and enduring deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is incorrect.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a Professor of Law emeritus from Harvard Law, and a frequent commenter on matters legal and constitutional.