 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Monday, June 15, 2015
Leading from way behind on ISIS
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Friday, June 5, 2015
ISIS planning nuke weapons in the U.S.
From the files of Colonel Allen B. West
The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), in the latest edition of its propaganda magazine, indicated that it could purchase a nuclear weapon in Pakistan, take it to Nigeria, and then smuggle it into the U.S. through Mexico by using existing trafficking networks in Latin America.
BREITBART REPORTS:
In an op-ed article published in the ninth edition of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine released in late May, the jihadist group claims it could transport a nuclear device in the same way illicit drugs are smuggled into Europe through West Africa, adding that Boko Haram’s presence in Nigeria could facilitate the transaction.
The Nigeria-based Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged allegiance to ISIS in March.
In March, Gen. John Kelly, then-commander of U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), warned that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS could exploit the capabilities and knowledge of Latin American smuggling networks to infiltrate the U.S. through Mexico and possibly bring in weapons of mass destruction.
The general, in October 2014, acknowledged that illegal drugs from South America move “through West Africa, up the Maghreb and into Western Europe,” adding that ISIS enemy al Qaeda and its affiliates take “a lot of money to allow it to flow.”
According to the alleged author of the Dabiq op-ed article, kidnapped British photojournalist John Cantlie, ISIS could smuggle a nuke into the U.S. by using the same route and reversing the flow— moving the nuke from West Africa into South America, from where it could be transported into the United States through Mexico.
“Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table,” Cantlie wrote in the article entitled “The Perfect Storm.”
“The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilāyah [province] in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region.” He addded . . .
The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), in the latest edition of its propaganda magazine, indicated that it could purchase a nuclear weapon in Pakistan, take it to Nigeria, and then smuggle it into the U.S. through Mexico by using existing trafficking networks in Latin America.
BREITBART REPORTS:
In an op-ed article published in the ninth edition of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine released in late May, the jihadist group claims it could transport a nuclear device in the same way illicit drugs are smuggled into Europe through West Africa, adding that Boko Haram’s presence in Nigeria could facilitate the transaction.
The Nigeria-based Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged allegiance to ISIS in March.
In March, Gen. John Kelly, then-commander of U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), warned that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS could exploit the capabilities and knowledge of Latin American smuggling networks to infiltrate the U.S. through Mexico and possibly bring in weapons of mass destruction.
The general, in October 2014, acknowledged that illegal drugs from South America move “through West Africa, up the Maghreb and into Western Europe,” adding that ISIS enemy al Qaeda and its affiliates take “a lot of money to allow it to flow.”
According to the alleged author of the Dabiq op-ed article, kidnapped British photojournalist John Cantlie, ISIS could smuggle a nuke into the U.S. by using the same route and reversing the flow— moving the nuke from West Africa into South America, from where it could be transported into the United States through Mexico.
“Let me throw a hypothetical operation onto the table,” Cantlie wrote in the article entitled “The Perfect Storm.”
“The Islamic State has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilāyah [province] in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region.” He addded . . .
More on ISIS - Dabiq:
Obama casualty count - another fabrication?
From the Susan Crabtree files at the Washington Examiner
A new claim that American-led airstrikes have killed 10,000 Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria in nine months is backfiring on the administration, as officials had said months earlier that body counts are not the way to gauge success, and because officials had few other details to back up the claim.
The lack of any additional information is also making it hard for skeptics of President Obama's war against the terrorist group to square the body count claim with the news they see every day about the Islamic State seizing control of new cities in Iraq and Syria.
Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken cited the figure Wednesday at a Paris conference that focused on how to stop the Islamic State advances, which ended without any announcements about a change in strategy.
The new figure, an increase of 4,000 deaths since U.S. officials said they had killed 6,000 fighters back in January, was released on the same day that a poll showed flagging support for the Obama administration's handling of the Islamic State threat.
A CNN poll released Wednesday shows that just 32 percent of Americans support Obama's strategy against the Islamic State, down eight points from the last poll in February.
Pressed Wednesday about the plummeting poll numbers, White House press secretary Josh Earnest brushed aside the findings.
"The president is not designing our strategy around this military conflict based on monthly poll numbers, but he's doing it based on the national security interests of the United States," he said. "…That's why the president continues to believe it's not in our best interests to essentially re-invade Iraq to try to solve this problem."
Instead, Earnest said, Obama is sticking to the plan to depend on a U.S.-led international coalition to help support the Iraqi security forces in taking the fight to the Islamic State in their own country.
"That's the strategy that we're going to continue to pursue, and it's a strategy that has shown some success but obviously there's a lot more work to be done," he added.
Still, the 10,000 body count announcement appeared aimed at pushing back against the widespread criticism of Obama's record amid new reports that the Islamic State is positioning itself to take Aleppo, Syria's largest city, aided by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, after successfully retaking the Iraqi city of Ramadi just two weeks ago.
The figure, however, prompted more questions than it answered. The administration faced a barrage of questions on Wednesday about the methodology behind the 10,000 figure and offered very few details about the metrics behind it.
More at the Washington Examiner
A new claim that American-led airstrikes have killed 10,000 Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria in nine months is backfiring on the administration, as officials had said months earlier that body counts are not the way to gauge success, and because officials had few other details to back up the claim.
The lack of any additional information is also making it hard for skeptics of President Obama's war against the terrorist group to square the body count claim with the news they see every day about the Islamic State seizing control of new cities in Iraq and Syria.
Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken cited the figure Wednesday at a Paris conference that focused on how to stop the Islamic State advances, which ended without any announcements about a change in strategy.
The new figure, an increase of 4,000 deaths since U.S. officials said they had killed 6,000 fighters back in January, was released on the same day that a poll showed flagging support for the Obama administration's handling of the Islamic State threat.
A CNN poll released Wednesday shows that just 32 percent of Americans support Obama's strategy against the Islamic State, down eight points from the last poll in February.
Pressed Wednesday about the plummeting poll numbers, White House press secretary Josh Earnest brushed aside the findings.
"The president is not designing our strategy around this military conflict based on monthly poll numbers, but he's doing it based on the national security interests of the United States," he said. "…That's why the president continues to believe it's not in our best interests to essentially re-invade Iraq to try to solve this problem."
Instead, Earnest said, Obama is sticking to the plan to depend on a U.S.-led international coalition to help support the Iraqi security forces in taking the fight to the Islamic State in their own country.
"That's the strategy that we're going to continue to pursue, and it's a strategy that has shown some success but obviously there's a lot more work to be done," he added.
Still, the 10,000 body count announcement appeared aimed at pushing back against the widespread criticism of Obama's record amid new reports that the Islamic State is positioning itself to take Aleppo, Syria's largest city, aided by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, after successfully retaking the Iraqi city of Ramadi just two weeks ago.
The figure, however, prompted more questions than it answered. The administration faced a barrage of questions on Wednesday about the methodology behind the 10,000 figure and offered very few details about the metrics behind it.
More at the Washington Examiner
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Hostages freedom should trump nuclear deal
From the files of Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe
In his remarks to the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April, President Obama pledged that his administration would work tirelessly for the freedom of Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter who has been held hostage by Iran since last summer on spurious espionage charges.
"Jason has been in prison for nothing more than writing about the hopes and fears of the Iranian people," Obama said. "We will not rest until we bring him home to his family, safe and sound."
Yet just four days later, the president warned Congress that he would veto any bill making approval of a nuclear deal with Iran contingent on the release of Americans in Iranian captivity. Obama may want the mullahs to set their US hostages free. But he wants that nuclear deal more.
On Monday, Obama boasted to a gathering of young Southeast Asian leaders that as a result of his policies, "today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth." Could anyone swallow such a risible claim without, as Hillary Clinton might put it, the willing suspension of disbelief?
It's hard to think of any nation on the planet that holds America in higher esteem because of the Obama presidency. Iran surely doesn't. Time and again, the White House has bent over backward to "engage" the Islamist regime in Tehran. At every step its overtures have been greeted with scorn.
The seizure of innocent Americans like Rezaian — whose trial, in a closed courtroom, began last week — fits a pattern of hostility that seven years of outreach and indulgence by the Obama administration has failed to soften.
"We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist," entreated the president in his first inaugural address. But Iran's theocratic leaders have not unclenched their fists, not even when it would appear to be in their interest to do so.
The nuclear accord being pushed so fervently by Obama and John Kerry would be a dream come true for the Islamic Republic's rulers — generating tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, legitimizing their eventual path to the bomb, and entrenching Iran's malignant regional hegemony.
Yet hungry as they are for this deal, they know that Obama is hungrier still. No provocation, no act of aggression, no insult by Iran has been enough to make the White House walk away from the negotiations.
Rezaian isn't the only US hostage in Iranian hands. Saeed Abedini, 35, is a Christian pastor from Idaho who was arrested in 2012 while on a humanitarian trip to Iran to help establish an orphanage. He was convicted in 2013 "undermining the national security of Iran" and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Amir Hekmati, a decorated U.S. Marine, was born in Arizona and raised in Michigan. He was seized in 2011 while visiting his grandmother in Iran, accused of spying, and sentenced to death (a sentence later commuted pending a retrial). Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent, vanished during a trip to Iran in 2007. Iran's state-run media reported at the time that he was in the hands of the security services, making him one of the longest-held US hostages ever.
The brazen detention of American citizens is an outrage. The refusal of the White House to call a halt to negotiations until the men are released is a humiliation. Iran has an odious history of abducting guiltless Americans, then using them as bargaining chips to trade for some concession from Washington.
You'd think Washington would have learned by now that ransoming hostages only reinforces the incentive to seize more hostages in the future.
It is mind-boggling that the president would threaten to veto a measure making the freedom of the four US citizens the price of any more nuclear talks. Can Obama truly believe that this is the way to make America "the most respected country on earth"?
 |
| The Washington Post's Tehran bureau chief, Jason Rezaian, is being tried in Iran on bogus espionage charges. |
In his remarks to the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April, President Obama pledged that his administration would work tirelessly for the freedom of Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter who has been held hostage by Iran since last summer on spurious espionage charges.
"Jason has been in prison for nothing more than writing about the hopes and fears of the Iranian people," Obama said. "We will not rest until we bring him home to his family, safe and sound."
Yet just four days later, the president warned Congress that he would veto any bill making approval of a nuclear deal with Iran contingent on the release of Americans in Iranian captivity. Obama may want the mullahs to set their US hostages free. But he wants that nuclear deal more.
On Monday, Obama boasted to a gathering of young Southeast Asian leaders that as a result of his policies, "today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth." Could anyone swallow such a risible claim without, as Hillary Clinton might put it, the willing suspension of disbelief?
It's hard to think of any nation on the planet that holds America in higher esteem because of the Obama presidency. Iran surely doesn't. Time and again, the White House has bent over backward to "engage" the Islamist regime in Tehran. At every step its overtures have been greeted with scorn.
The seizure of innocent Americans like Rezaian — whose trial, in a closed courtroom, began last week — fits a pattern of hostility that seven years of outreach and indulgence by the Obama administration has failed to soften.
"We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist," entreated the president in his first inaugural address. But Iran's theocratic leaders have not unclenched their fists, not even when it would appear to be in their interest to do so.
The nuclear accord being pushed so fervently by Obama and John Kerry would be a dream come true for the Islamic Republic's rulers — generating tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, legitimizing their eventual path to the bomb, and entrenching Iran's malignant regional hegemony.
Yet hungry as they are for this deal, they know that Obama is hungrier still. No provocation, no act of aggression, no insult by Iran has been enough to make the White House walk away from the negotiations.
Rezaian isn't the only US hostage in Iranian hands. Saeed Abedini, 35, is a Christian pastor from Idaho who was arrested in 2012 while on a humanitarian trip to Iran to help establish an orphanage. He was convicted in 2013 "undermining the national security of Iran" and sentenced to eight years in prison.
 |
| American pastor Saeed Abedini, seen here with his two young children, has been held in Iran since 2012. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on charges of undermining national security through worship gatherings held in private Christian homes. |
Amir Hekmati, a decorated U.S. Marine, was born in Arizona and raised in Michigan. He was seized in 2011 while visiting his grandmother in Iran, accused of spying, and sentenced to death (a sentence later commuted pending a retrial). Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent, vanished during a trip to Iran in 2007. Iran's state-run media reported at the time that he was in the hands of the security services, making him one of the longest-held US hostages ever.
The brazen detention of American citizens is an outrage. The refusal of the White House to call a halt to negotiations until the men are released is a humiliation. Iran has an odious history of abducting guiltless Americans, then using them as bargaining chips to trade for some concession from Washington.
You'd think Washington would have learned by now that ransoming hostages only reinforces the incentive to seize more hostages in the future.
It is mind-boggling that the president would threaten to veto a measure making the freedom of the four US citizens the price of any more nuclear talks. Can Obama truly believe that this is the way to make America "the most respected country on earth"?
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
U.S. Air Force: Joint exercises with Morocco?
From the files of Gary Franchi at The Next News Network
For the first time the Air Force participated in Exercise African Lion in Morocco.
Live Broadcasts: NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Subscribe to our Youtube channel: NNN.is/the_new_media
For the first time the Air Force participated in Exercise African Lion in Morocco.
Live Broadcasts: NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Subscribe to our Youtube channel: NNN.is/the_new_media
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Marines invade a New Jersey grammar school
From the files of the Next News Network with Gary Franchi
In a scene that could have been pulled from the movie Red Dawn, the Marines of Special-Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-New York landed on the baseball diamond of the Orange Avenue School in New Jersey.
And with parents and teachers in tow smiling students adorned military hardware and toured the weapons of war.
Clearly conditioning the public to accept a military presence when the collapse occurs, this public school landing was only one part of a larger annual East Coast domestic military exercise consisting of 1800 Marines, sailors and Coast Guardsmen.
This exercise is currently underway adding New York and New Jersey to the list of active drills while Jade Helm 15 is still months away.
Live: NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Subscribe to our Youtube channel: NNN.is/the_new_media
In a scene that could have been pulled from the movie Red Dawn, the Marines of Special-Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-New York landed on the baseball diamond of the Orange Avenue School in New Jersey.
And with parents and teachers in tow smiling students adorned military hardware and toured the weapons of war.
Clearly conditioning the public to accept a military presence when the collapse occurs, this public school landing was only one part of a larger annual East Coast domestic military exercise consisting of 1800 Marines, sailors and Coast Guardsmen.
This exercise is currently underway adding New York and New Jersey to the list of active drills while Jade Helm 15 is still months away.
Live: NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Subscribe to our Youtube channel: NNN.is/the_new_media
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Reason the Saudi King snubbed Obama
President Barack Obama’s summit with Arab leaders didn't go as planned from the files of Colonel Allen B. West
First, King Salman of Saudi Arabia embarrassed the Obama administration when he backed out of the summit after the White House announced he was going to attend.
The last-minute move was widely perceived as a deliberate snub, and the Saudis offered only a vague excuse for King Salman’s absence.
Interior Minister Mohammed bin Nayef and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman attended the talks in Salman’s place.
Obama then incorrectly introduced the deputy crown prince and misnamed the founder of the kingdom.
And while the summit kicked off in the US, King Salman met with princes and religious officials at his palace, including some of the most extreme clerics in the region.
Then came today’s big news: The New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries intend to match Iran’s nuclear capacity if the US reaches a deal that allows some aspects of the country’s nuclear program, including uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles research, to continue.
One unnamed Arab leader who is participating in the talks told the Times that Sunni Arab countries “can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran [a Shiite regime] is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research.”
David Rothkopf, CEO and editor of the group that publishes Foreign Policy magazine, weighed in on the implications of this, saying that Saudi Arabia’s expression of intent to match Iran’s nuclear development is a bigger blow to Obama’s summit than King Salman’s absence.
While the nuclear deal would allow international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities, many worry that Iran intends to eventually construct a nuclear weapon and would not hold up its end of the agreement.
 |
| King Salman - Saudi Arabia |
The last-minute move was widely perceived as a deliberate snub, and the Saudis offered only a vague excuse for King Salman’s absence.
Interior Minister Mohammed bin Nayef and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman attended the talks in Salman’s place.
Obama then incorrectly introduced the deputy crown prince and misnamed the founder of the kingdom.
And while the summit kicked off in the US, King Salman met with princes and religious officials at his palace, including some of the most extreme clerics in the region.
Then came today’s big news: The New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries intend to match Iran’s nuclear capacity if the US reaches a deal that allows some aspects of the country’s nuclear program, including uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles research, to continue.
One unnamed Arab leader who is participating in the talks told the Times that Sunni Arab countries “can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran [a Shiite regime] is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research.”
David Rothkopf, CEO and editor of the group that publishes Foreign Policy magazine, weighed in on the implications of this, saying that Saudi Arabia’s expression of intent to match Iran’s nuclear development is a bigger blow to Obama’s summit than King Salman’s absence.
While the nuclear deal would allow international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities, many worry that Iran intends to eventually construct a nuclear weapon and would not hold up its end of the agreement.
READ THE ENTIRE STORY HERE:
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Israel will attack Iran soon
From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy
The Israelis will destroy several Iranian nuclear facilities and my educated guess is that they will do so before the end of this year.
Israel has no margin of error when it comes to nuclear reactors in nations that threaten its existence. While President Obama does everything in his power to enable Iran to create its own nuclear weapons, it is a good idea to recall that in June 1981 the Israelis destroyed a reactor in Iraq. It was the first air strike against such a facility. In September 2007, the Israelis destroyed a Syrian reactor. There was no reprisal in either case.
From Wednesday, April 22 to Friday April 24 the Israelis struck Hizbollah and Syrian military targets in the Walamoun Mountains on the Syrian-Lebanese border. The calculations were that the location, a site for long-range missiles, would be safer from the Israelis. They were wrong.
In September 2014, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly warning “don’t be fooled by Iran’s manipulative charm offensive. It’s designed for one purpose and for one purpose only. To lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to Iran’s path to the bomb.”
“Once Iran produces atomic bombs, all the charm and all the smiles will suddenly disappear. They’ll just vanish. It’s then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world.” He offered a comparable message to a joint meeting of Congress in March of this year.
Is anyone listening? Not President Obama. On April 25, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Mortimer Zuckerman, the chairman and editor in chief of the U.S. News and World Report, said “President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”
It’s bad enough when you can’t trust your nation’s enemies, but when you cannot trust your own President you have a very big problem because Iran is not just a threat to America and Israel, but to the entire world.
Obama’s anti-Semitism is obvious to anyone paying the least attention. He particularly loathes Israel. In early April the White House let its unhappiness be known that Netanyahu had, in its words, failed to tone down “hostile and aggressive language” of the Passover religious service. What were those words? “Next year in Jerusalem.”
This is an ancient Jewish prayer that sustained generations of Jews over the course of two millennia, expressing their hope to return to their homeland. To the White House, however, it was “affront to the Palestinians, not to mention a slap in the face to President Obama himself who has worked tirelessly for peace despite Israeli intransigence.” The Jews returned to Israel, declared its independence in 1948, and have had the support of every President since until Obama.
The Israelis know this. Since their independence the Israelis have fought seven recognized wars, two Palestinian intifadas, and a series of armed conflicts in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. Most recently they put down Hamas in the Gaza once again for its repeated rocketing.
Despite or because of this, the Israelis have sought to demonstrate good will toward their Arab neighbors. There is an untold story of the December 2014 meeting of six Gulf Cooperation Council rulers in the Qatari capital of Doha to discuss steps to respond to challenges that include Iranian aggression and clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sources close to event report that Netanyahu has achieved close coordination with the most important Arab leaders that include Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Other members of the Council include Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
The Israelis have no choice, nor do I anticipate that Iran will do much, if anything, to respond in the wake of the ashes of those facilities. No other nation will come to their aid.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Israel has no margin of error when it comes to nuclear reactors in nations that threaten its existence. While President Obama does everything in his power to enable Iran to create its own nuclear weapons, it is a good idea to recall that in June 1981 the Israelis destroyed a reactor in Iraq. It was the first air strike against such a facility. In September 2007, the Israelis destroyed a Syrian reactor. There was no reprisal in either case.
From Wednesday, April 22 to Friday April 24 the Israelis struck Hizbollah and Syrian military targets in the Walamoun Mountains on the Syrian-Lebanese border. The calculations were that the location, a site for long-range missiles, would be safer from the Israelis. They were wrong.
In September 2014, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly warning “don’t be fooled by Iran’s manipulative charm offensive. It’s designed for one purpose and for one purpose only. To lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to Iran’s path to the bomb.”
“Once Iran produces atomic bombs, all the charm and all the smiles will suddenly disappear. They’ll just vanish. It’s then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world.” He offered a comparable message to a joint meeting of Congress in March of this year.
Is anyone listening? Not President Obama. On April 25, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Mortimer Zuckerman, the chairman and editor in chief of the U.S. News and World Report, said “President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”
It’s bad enough when you can’t trust your nation’s enemies, but when you cannot trust your own President you have a very big problem because Iran is not just a threat to America and Israel, but to the entire world.
Obama’s anti-Semitism is obvious to anyone paying the least attention. He particularly loathes Israel. In early April the White House let its unhappiness be known that Netanyahu had, in its words, failed to tone down “hostile and aggressive language” of the Passover religious service. What were those words? “Next year in Jerusalem.”
This is an ancient Jewish prayer that sustained generations of Jews over the course of two millennia, expressing their hope to return to their homeland. To the White House, however, it was “affront to the Palestinians, not to mention a slap in the face to President Obama himself who has worked tirelessly for peace despite Israeli intransigence.” The Jews returned to Israel, declared its independence in 1948, and have had the support of every President since until Obama.
Despite or because of this, the Israelis have sought to demonstrate good will toward their Arab neighbors. There is an untold story of the December 2014 meeting of six Gulf Cooperation Council rulers in the Qatari capital of Doha to discuss steps to respond to challenges that include Iranian aggression and clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sources close to event report that Netanyahu has achieved close coordination with the most important Arab leaders that include Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Other members of the Council include Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
The Israelis have no choice, nor do I anticipate that Iran will do much, if anything, to respond in the wake of the ashes of those facilities. No other nation will come to their aid.
______________________________________________
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Iranian roulette: The ricochet effect
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________
Only fools trust Obama on the Iranians
From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy
Only fools express any trust in Obama these days or the Iranians who have made him look the fool when no one in their neighborhood or the world trusts a thing they say or do.
After more than six years of listening to President Obama’s unremitting lies, when he says of the latest “accord” with Iran, “It’s a good deal” and standing in the Rose Garden declares that the U.S. and Iran have reached “an historic understanding” the only history being made his own ignominy and idiocy.
It would be historic if anyone could extend either President Obama or the Iranians any trust. Indeed, since the U.S. created its first atomic bombs to end World War II, one nation after another has secured their own nuclear weapons, starting with the then-Soviet Union who built theirs with plans stolen from us!
We have been down this road before. On April 1st Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger offered an abridged look at the quarter-century of negotiations with North Korea which agreed to all manner of terms, signed all kinds of agreements, and joined various international organizations to assure everyone of their peaceful intent. He warned that “No agreement is going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North Korea.”
“Iran,” said Henninger, “knows it has nuclear negotiators’ immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request—what else?—more talks. Iran’s nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs will go forward as North Korea’s obviously did, no matter what.”
All the back-and-forth between the White House and Congress about the “accord” is essentially meaningless. It is mostly a debate about the treaty-making powers the Constitution extends to the executive branch and, at the same time, limits with legislative “advice and consent” of the Senate.
For now the Senate can only wait for whatever is decided by June 30, but it is unlikely Obama will send it the text of the agreement.
To influence the outcome, Congress talks of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran and says it will impose again, but Obama has no legal authority to lift those sanctions, only Congress does.
The same day the President made the announcement, Javad Zarif, the Iranian counterpart to Secretary of State John Kerry made his own announcement.
The U.S. and Iran, he said, had agreed in principle to let Iran continue running major portions of its nuclear program. “None of those measures”, intended to slow Iran’s progress, “include closing any of our facilities. We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
This is the result of 18 months of “negotiations” with Iran. In the same way the U.S. caved to North Korea since the 1990s, it has caved to Iran and it has done so with the blessing of the European Union and the other members of the P-5+1, France, Great Britain, Russia, China, and Germany.
For good measure, to show how wonderfully warm the relations between Iran and the U.S. are, within hours after Obama’s announcement, Foreign Minister Zarif accused the U.S. of lying about the details of the tentative framework—“the historic understanding”—saying that the U.S. had promised the immediate termination of sanctions.
The notion that we would know if Iran was continuing its nuclear program because the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be inspecting its facilities is about as credible as similar inspections in North Korea when, in 2002, it cut the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories and withdrew from the non-Proliferation treaty, starting a nuclear reactor. It has pursued its nuclear weapons and missile programs ever since.
In the same fashion as the Soviet Union, China, and Israel, we didn’t know that either Pakistan or India had acquired nuclear capability until after they tested theirs. That’s how we will know when Iran has nuclear weapons. It already has intercontinental missiles with which to deliver them.
As quoted in an April 3 article by Mark Dubowitz, executive director, and Annie Fixler, policy analyst, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, they cite an unnamed “senior State Department official” as saying “The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what everyone agrees is the biggest threat to the region.”
Unless one believes in unicorns and other fantasies, this latest “accord” and what we are being told about it by the President and the State Department is not a great achievement. It is doomed to failure because Iran has had no intention of doing anything other than getting economic and other sanctions removed. Time is on their side as they work to develop their own nuclear weapons.
When Iran tests its first nuclear weapon, Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Know the Warning Signs from Alan Caruba |
Only fools express any trust in Obama these days or the Iranians who have made him look the fool when no one in their neighborhood or the world trusts a thing they say or do.
After more than six years of listening to President Obama’s unremitting lies, when he says of the latest “accord” with Iran, “It’s a good deal” and standing in the Rose Garden declares that the U.S. and Iran have reached “an historic understanding” the only history being made his own ignominy and idiocy.
It would be historic if anyone could extend either President Obama or the Iranians any trust. Indeed, since the U.S. created its first atomic bombs to end World War II, one nation after another has secured their own nuclear weapons, starting with the then-Soviet Union who built theirs with plans stolen from us!
We have been down this road before. On April 1st Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger offered an abridged look at the quarter-century of negotiations with North Korea which agreed to all manner of terms, signed all kinds of agreements, and joined various international organizations to assure everyone of their peaceful intent. He warned that “No agreement is going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North Korea.”
“Iran,” said Henninger, “knows it has nuclear negotiators’ immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request—what else?—more talks. Iran’s nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs will go forward as North Korea’s obviously did, no matter what.”
All the back-and-forth between the White House and Congress about the “accord” is essentially meaningless. It is mostly a debate about the treaty-making powers the Constitution extends to the executive branch and, at the same time, limits with legislative “advice and consent” of the Senate.
For now the Senate can only wait for whatever is decided by June 30, but it is unlikely Obama will send it the text of the agreement.
To influence the outcome, Congress talks of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran and says it will impose again, but Obama has no legal authority to lift those sanctions, only Congress does.
 |
| Facts-not-Fantasy |
The U.S. and Iran, he said, had agreed in principle to let Iran continue running major portions of its nuclear program. “None of those measures”, intended to slow Iran’s progress, “include closing any of our facilities. We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
This is the result of 18 months of “negotiations” with Iran. In the same way the U.S. caved to North Korea since the 1990s, it has caved to Iran and it has done so with the blessing of the European Union and the other members of the P-5+1, France, Great Britain, Russia, China, and Germany.
For good measure, to show how wonderfully warm the relations between Iran and the U.S. are, within hours after Obama’s announcement, Foreign Minister Zarif accused the U.S. of lying about the details of the tentative framework—“the historic understanding”—saying that the U.S. had promised the immediate termination of sanctions.
The notion that we would know if Iran was continuing its nuclear program because the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be inspecting its facilities is about as credible as similar inspections in North Korea when, in 2002, it cut the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories and withdrew from the non-Proliferation treaty, starting a nuclear reactor. It has pursued its nuclear weapons and missile programs ever since.
In the same fashion as the Soviet Union, China, and Israel, we didn’t know that either Pakistan or India had acquired nuclear capability until after they tested theirs. That’s how we will know when Iran has nuclear weapons. It already has intercontinental missiles with which to deliver them.
As quoted in an April 3 article by Mark Dubowitz, executive director, and Annie Fixler, policy analyst, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, they cite an unnamed “senior State Department official” as saying “The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what everyone agrees is the biggest threat to the region.”
Unless one believes in unicorns and other fantasies, this latest “accord” and what we are being told about it by the President and the State Department is not a great achievement. It is doomed to failure because Iran has had no intention of doing anything other than getting economic and other sanctions removed. Time is on their side as they work to develop their own nuclear weapons.
When Iran tests its first nuclear weapon, Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.
______________________________________________
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Unusually rare sightings - one anyway
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Use your voice says Michelle
As long as it agrees with Barack by Jeannie DeAngelis at Clash Daily.com
Michelle “Mixed Message” Obama traveled to Cambodia to encourage young girls to speak up. While there, the U.S. first lady told a Cambodian audience that educating girls allows them “to participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable,” an idea that should float nicely in a country run by a dictator.
Meanwhile, here in America, with the approval, funding, and hearty endorsement by the Obama administration, by way of feticide, every day 3,000-4,000 babies are denied the right to ever use their voices, half of them girls. So in essence Michelle’s message about girls using their voice only applies if Cambodian mothers choose not to use their voice to say “I’m here to have an abortion.”
While we’re on the subject of abortion, participating in political life, and holding leaders accountable, Mrs. Obama’s husband Barack has been delving into a similar realm, politically speaking. Seems that despite Michelle encouraging “voice usage”, her husband apparently believes that Israeli voters speaking out at the polls is something they shouldn’t be permitted to do.
Melding the quashing of voices and abortive tactics the same way he uses the tax dollars of pro-lifers to pay for abortion procedures they disagree with, it has been revealed that Barack Obama moved U.S. taxpayer monies through non-profit organizations to interfere in the Israel election.
Evidently Obama was exercising his right to choose who should be Prime Minister of Israel and sent a team of government-funded abortionists to Israel to abort Bibi Netanyahu. The only thing missing from this scenario was a bereted band of New Black Panthers stationed outside Israeli polling stations beating back Likud voters with billysticks.
Unfortunately, despite Barack’s best efforts, Bibi was “Born Alive”, so to speak.
Now the only hope Barack Obama has to fulfill his dream of political abortion is to find another way to undermine Bibi’s survival. From the looks of things, the president is counting on Iran to bring to fruition what appears to be his original intent to terminate the Jewish state.
Here’s the problem with all of this: How can Michelle Obama travel to a country ruled by an authoritarian strongman leader, large numbers of school dropouts, and endemic poverty to speak against the very conditions Barack Obama is intentionally cultivating here in America? Worse yet, in Cambodia she encouraged schoolgirls to do what her husband absolutely forbids here at home, which is to allow citizens “participation in political life” by holding him accountable.
Moreover, how can a representative of a government that is restricting First Amendment rights more and more every day be taken seriously when she encourages girls to “use” their voices?
After all, under the Obama regime those who express views that disagree with the president’s are retaliated against by government entities such as the IRS. Fox News and Tea Party activists are publicly mocked and derided for expressing an adversarial opinion, and conservative commentators vilified endlessly by the husband of the woman inspiring others to speak up.
Not only that, but when Bibi came to the United States to verbally express the dangers he believes will ensue if Obama assists Tehran in acquiring a nuclear bomb, Obama did what Michelle suggested schoolgirls in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap do to those who discourage voicing one’s opinion – he ignored Bibi.
Nevertheless, in an effort to undermine an entire sovereign nation from expressing their preference at the polls, if Obama does what he usually does it’s highly likely he’ll attempt to quell the voice of the Israeli people because a democratic election delivered a result opposite to what Barack Obama had hoped.
The truth is that much to Barack Obama’s chagrin, like a woman who visits an abortion clinic late-term only to give birth to a living baby destined to be aborted, Bibi survived.
Now, without an available laundry room to toss the prime minister into in hopes he’ll fade away without oxygen, warmth, and hydration, not to burden the original intent of getting rid of Bibi, Barack Obama must find an alternate route to rid the world, once and for all, of Bibi Netanyahu’s voice.
And so the Obama hypocrisy continues.
We have Mrs. Obama circumnavigating the globe promoting education, political activism, the benefit of holding politicians accountable, as well as free expression for girls. Meanwhile here at home, both girls and boys are being deprived of a voice because, with Michelle’s hearty approval, they’re being denied the right to life. Not to mention Michelle’s husband sic’ing the federal government on any political adversary that demands he become accountable to the nation.
Couple those double standards with President Obama opposing both nationally and internationally the right of individuals and nations to exercise their voice if what is voiced differs from his planetary vision for a progressive Islamic panacea.
Compounding that glaring dichotomy is Obama orchestrating a Chicago-style effort to abort the Israeli Prime Minister by sending a taxpayer-funded goon squad to pulverize the fearless leader whose voice advocates dealing with Iran in ways contrary to what Barack Obama demands.
Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.
Michelle “Mixed Message” Obama traveled to Cambodia to encourage young girls to speak up. While there, the U.S. first lady told a Cambodian audience that educating girls allows them “to participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable,” an idea that should float nicely in a country run by a dictator.
Meanwhile, here in America, with the approval, funding, and hearty endorsement by the Obama administration, by way of feticide, every day 3,000-4,000 babies are denied the right to ever use their voices, half of them girls. So in essence Michelle’s message about girls using their voice only applies if Cambodian mothers choose not to use their voice to say “I’m here to have an abortion.”
While we’re on the subject of abortion, participating in political life, and holding leaders accountable, Mrs. Obama’s husband Barack has been delving into a similar realm, politically speaking. Seems that despite Michelle encouraging “voice usage”, her husband apparently believes that Israeli voters speaking out at the polls is something they shouldn’t be permitted to do.
Melding the quashing of voices and abortive tactics the same way he uses the tax dollars of pro-lifers to pay for abortion procedures they disagree with, it has been revealed that Barack Obama moved U.S. taxpayer monies through non-profit organizations to interfere in the Israel election.
Evidently Obama was exercising his right to choose who should be Prime Minister of Israel and sent a team of government-funded abortionists to Israel to abort Bibi Netanyahu. The only thing missing from this scenario was a bereted band of New Black Panthers stationed outside Israeli polling stations beating back Likud voters with billysticks.
Unfortunately, despite Barack’s best efforts, Bibi was “Born Alive”, so to speak.
Now the only hope Barack Obama has to fulfill his dream of political abortion is to find another way to undermine Bibi’s survival. From the looks of things, the president is counting on Iran to bring to fruition what appears to be his original intent to terminate the Jewish state.
Here’s the problem with all of this: How can Michelle Obama travel to a country ruled by an authoritarian strongman leader, large numbers of school dropouts, and endemic poverty to speak against the very conditions Barack Obama is intentionally cultivating here in America? Worse yet, in Cambodia she encouraged schoolgirls to do what her husband absolutely forbids here at home, which is to allow citizens “participation in political life” by holding him accountable.
Moreover, how can a representative of a government that is restricting First Amendment rights more and more every day be taken seriously when she encourages girls to “use” their voices?
After all, under the Obama regime those who express views that disagree with the president’s are retaliated against by government entities such as the IRS. Fox News and Tea Party activists are publicly mocked and derided for expressing an adversarial opinion, and conservative commentators vilified endlessly by the husband of the woman inspiring others to speak up.
Not only that, but when Bibi came to the United States to verbally express the dangers he believes will ensue if Obama assists Tehran in acquiring a nuclear bomb, Obama did what Michelle suggested schoolgirls in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap do to those who discourage voicing one’s opinion – he ignored Bibi.
Nevertheless, in an effort to undermine an entire sovereign nation from expressing their preference at the polls, if Obama does what he usually does it’s highly likely he’ll attempt to quell the voice of the Israeli people because a democratic election delivered a result opposite to what Barack Obama had hoped.
The truth is that much to Barack Obama’s chagrin, like a woman who visits an abortion clinic late-term only to give birth to a living baby destined to be aborted, Bibi survived.
Now, without an available laundry room to toss the prime minister into in hopes he’ll fade away without oxygen, warmth, and hydration, not to burden the original intent of getting rid of Bibi, Barack Obama must find an alternate route to rid the world, once and for all, of Bibi Netanyahu’s voice.
And so the Obama hypocrisy continues.
We have Mrs. Obama circumnavigating the globe promoting education, political activism, the benefit of holding politicians accountable, as well as free expression for girls. Meanwhile here at home, both girls and boys are being deprived of a voice because, with Michelle’s hearty approval, they’re being denied the right to life. Not to mention Michelle’s husband sic’ing the federal government on any political adversary that demands he become accountable to the nation.
Couple those double standards with President Obama opposing both nationally and internationally the right of individuals and nations to exercise their voice if what is voiced differs from his planetary vision for a progressive Islamic panacea.
Compounding that glaring dichotomy is Obama orchestrating a Chicago-style effort to abort the Israeli Prime Minister by sending a taxpayer-funded goon squad to pulverize the fearless leader whose voice advocates dealing with Iran in ways contrary to what Barack Obama demands.
Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Should ISIS receive a Nobel Prize?
A quote from the New York Times leaves a question
The U.N. human rights chief told the Security Council on Friday that in a “most terrible irony,” the Islamic State group may be more accepting of the ethnic diversity of its members than some states are about ethnic differences among their own citizens.
Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the first human rights chief from the Muslim and Arab worlds, spoke as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius chaired a special meeting on the abuses in the Middle East on ethnic and religious grounds.
Both said the Security Council should refer the situations in Iraq and Syria to the International Criminal Court, and Zeid said the council should take unanimous action to end both conflicts.
Appearing at The NYT and other media.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
The U.N. human rights chief told the Security Council on Friday that in a “most terrible irony,” the Islamic State group may be more accepting of the ethnic diversity of its members than some states are about ethnic differences among their own citizens.
Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the first human rights chief from the Muslim and Arab worlds, spoke as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius chaired a special meeting on the abuses in the Middle East on ethnic and religious grounds.
Both said the Security Council should refer the situations in Iraq and Syria to the International Criminal Court, and Zeid said the council should take unanimous action to end both conflicts.
Appearing at The NYT and other media.
______________________________________________
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Did the President go AWOL?
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco |
______________________________________________
But What Does the Supreme Leader Say?
From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy
What Americans have a hard time understanding is that, for all the Iranian negotiators, the outcome of the nuclear arms deal that the United States is leading all comes down to just one man, Sayyed Ali-Khamenei, otherwise known as the Supreme Leader of Iran.
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military.
Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there.
Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch.
He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Iran's Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali-Khamenei |
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military.
Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there.
Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch.
He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
 |
| Know Alan Caruba's Warning Signs from Facts-not-Fantasy |
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
______________________________________________
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Obama promotes Islam with your tax dollars
From the files of Audrey Russo at Clash Daily.com
A story hit some news outlets a couple of years ago that few Americans took note of…according to Channel 2 Action News (Washington, D.C.) the State Department sent millions of dollars to save mosques overseas.
The State Department was quite proud of its work, displaying before and after photos of the refurbished Mosques.
As of late, there’s been no proof that this program has ended…
Apparently, the President didn’t need Valentine’s Day to passionately blow kisses to his favorite creed, Islam.
And, he didn’t show his love from his own wallet. He did it with YOUR tax dollars.
This was Obama’s attempt to make nice in a feckless attempt to fight Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders. The mistake here is: The Middle East mindset views compromise/appeasement (helping rebuild Mosques) as weakness to be subjugated.
Past guest on my radio show, and former Egyptian Muslim, human rights activist and author, Nonie Darwish confirms this conclusion;
Now, since Obama is all about “fairness” and “fair shares”, surely his compassion doesn’t end with Muslims and their Mosques, right?
Let’s take a look:
I believe it was Sun Tzu who once recommended equipping your enemy to kill you - or was that Quisling?
Funding Mosque renovation is a suicidal endeavor. Mosques contain hate because they contain the Quran. If we are in any way making the spread of the contents of that book possible, we are complicit in the acts committed out of that venue.
And that’s not fighting Islamic terrorism - that’s making it more possible.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Your Tax Dollars at Work in Foreign Countries |
The State Department was quite proud of its work, displaying before and after photos of the refurbished Mosques.
As of late, there’s been no proof that this program has ended…
Apparently, the President didn’t need Valentine’s Day to passionately blow kisses to his favorite creed, Islam.
And, he didn’t show his love from his own wallet. He did it with YOUR tax dollars.
This was Obama’s attempt to make nice in a feckless attempt to fight Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders. The mistake here is: The Middle East mindset views compromise/appeasement (helping rebuild Mosques) as weakness to be subjugated.
Past guest on my radio show, and former Egyptian Muslim, human rights activist and author, Nonie Darwish confirms this conclusion;
This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank…We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue Fatwas of death against people like me.As I quoted Gavin Boby in my latest article:
A mosque is not merely a place of worship. Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within its geographical reach…Islamic law claims supremacy over the conduct of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It mandates violence against those who resist it.And as Turkey’s PM Erdogan has stated unequivocally: “Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.”
Now, since Obama is all about “fairness” and “fair shares”, surely his compassion doesn’t end with Muslims and their Mosques, right?
Let’s take a look:
- To aid the Christian Militia fighting ISIS’ genocide against them? Monies allotted by this President: Zero.
- Arms to the Kurds fighting ISIS, as they protect their families and Iraqi Christians seeking refuge from ISIS in Northern Iraq? Monies allotted by this President: Zero.
I believe it was Sun Tzu who once recommended equipping your enemy to kill you - or was that Quisling?
Funding Mosque renovation is a suicidal endeavor. Mosques contain hate because they contain the Quran. If we are in any way making the spread of the contents of that book possible, we are complicit in the acts committed out of that venue.
And that’s not fighting Islamic terrorism - that’s making it more possible.
______________________________________________
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Petraeus puts icing on Bibi's Iran cake
Former general splits with Obama; says Iran not ISIS is the real enemy from the files of Larry Kudlow and Kudlow and Company
Don’t just rely on Benjamin Netanyahu’s passionate advice to Congress on his way to reelection that Iran is our arch enemy. Now we have the counsel of retired general David Petraeus, who gave a remarkable interview this week to the Washington Post. Petraeus agrees with Netanhayhu: Iran, not ISIS, is the real enemy.
His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by and some guided by Iran.”
The general adds, 'Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.'
Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq.
Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran’s top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He’s the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.
In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: 'General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanaon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.' Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to “pound sand.”
Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime “is not our ally in the Middle East,” is part of the problem, not the solution, and is “deeply hostile to us and our friends.” Without ever mentioning Obama’s name, it’s clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy.
And isn’t all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn’t he say Iran’s goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?
So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?
And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran -- our enemy.
According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It’s hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it’s a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran.
So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We’ve got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions?
Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East.
Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we’re hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won’t the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran?
Why do we even have to ask this question?
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Visit the Kudlow and Company Website |
 |
| General David Petraeus (retired) |
His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by and some guided by Iran.”
The general adds, 'Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.'
Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq.
Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran’s top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He’s the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.
In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: 'General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanaon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.' Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to “pound sand.”
Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime “is not our ally in the Middle East,” is part of the problem, not the solution, and is “deeply hostile to us and our friends.” Without ever mentioning Obama’s name, it’s clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy.
And isn’t all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn’t he say Iran’s goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?
So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?
And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran -- our enemy.
According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It’s hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it’s a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran.
So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We’ve got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions?
Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East.
Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we’re hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won’t the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran?
Why do we even have to ask this question?
______________________________________________
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Obama negotiating strategy is far reaching
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at Comically Incorrect
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
______________________________________________
Mid-Atlantic energy advances long-term security
From the files of Marita K. Noon at Energy Makes America Great, Inc.
At the end of January, the Obama administration announced the next step in a long process that could result in the exploration and ultimate extraction of oil-and-gas resources of the U.S. mid-Atlantic—something the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Governors Coalition supports. On March 30, the 60-day comment period ends. If everything goes well, we could see new American resources on the market in twenty years.
With the current oil oversupply, it may seem like an odd time to be going after more. However, the legal wheels that could allow limited access to the vast, untapped oil resources move very slowly. Today’s market conditions will fluctuate up and down many times between now and 2035 when the global demand for energy is expected to spike.
Not to mention the increasingly volatile situation taking place right now in the Middle East, where new coalitions are already being formed: Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—just to name two. If one more beheading takes place or a bomb hits the right (or wrong) target, the region could erupt, and the entire energy dynamic would change. Considering the variables, American energy security is always something worth pursuing.
The planning for the 2017-2022 OCS leasing program began June 2014, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a request for information and comments. Then, in January, it published the Draft Proposed Plan; the Final Proposed Plan is anticipated in Q4 2016 or Q1 2017, with it probably taking effect in Q2/Q3 2017. The 2017-2022 plan proposes just one mid-Atlantic lease sale six years from now—and even its future is precarious. The mid-Atlantic currently has no leases in federal waters.
Explaining the process, Offshore magazine writes: “The OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a five-year program that includes a schedule of potential oil and gas lease sales and indicates the size, timing and location of proposed leasing activity as determined to best meet national energy needs, while addressing a range of economic, environmental and social considerations.”
BOEM estimates that the entire U.S. OCS holds approximately 90 billion barrels of oil and more than 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which are technically recoverable. Based on 30 to 40 year old data, it estimates that the mid-Atlantic OCS may contain approximately 8-9 billion barrels of oil equivalent—which at current consumption rates would be enough to meet South Carolina’s needs for 67 years.
New seismic and other geological and geophysical surveys are needed. Modern practices and technologies will provide a more comprehensive view that will help make informed decisions on using the resources.
While the proposal for possible mid-Atlantic development faces opposition from environmental lobbyists, who call it a gift to oil-and-gas interests and an anchor to the “dirty fossil fuels of the past,” it enjoys a favorable political climate in the affected coastal states, where polls show citizens support offshore drilling.
When the January announcement came out, North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCory, chairman of the OCS Governors Coalition, applauded the proposal: “Responsible exploration and development of oil and gas reserves off our coast would create thousands of good paying jobs, spur activity in a host of associated industries, generate billions of dollars in tax revenue and move America closer to energy independence.”
Even Virginia’s Democrat Senators say the proposal is a “significant step … that should result in safe, responsible development of energy resources off the Virginia and mid-Atlantic coasts.”
Both the senators and governors want to see legislation passed that would provide for the same type of revenue-sharing system currently applied to the Gulf States to compensate local communities for additional infrastructure, environmental protection, and other coastal management needs generated by the new economic activity.
If Congress allows revenue sharing, Brydon Ross, Southeast director of the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), predicts: it “could generate more than $10 billion in revenue combined for critical public budget infusions without taxpayer dollars.”
Unfortunately, even though it is included in the draft proposal and is supported by lawmakers in the impacted states, future mid-Atlantic resource development is not a sure thing. The Washington Post (WP) calls the plan: “politically fraught.”
Jeremy Kennedy, an attorney who focuses on domestic- and international-energy transactions, says: “The planning, review and adoption of the 2017-2022 leasing program is, at its core, a political process.”
“This is a political plan,” Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, stated: “not a plan based on science and resource data”—though he acknowledged it “is a small step in the right direction.” Luthi added: “Our members are encouraged by the decision to further analyze the mid- and south-Atlantic areas, which have not been included in a leasing program for over two generations.”
The 2017-2022 five-year plan is still in the early stages. Addressing the ongoing process, Kennedy explains: “Each of the steps … will winnow the scope of the 2017-2022 leasing program.” The WP reports: BOEM “could decide to narrow—but not expand—the proposed leasing area before it is finalized.”
Kennedy sees that “little is certain at this time.” After all, the Obama administration has killed previous potential lease sales. “Once published,” he states, “planned lease sales can always be cancelled or delayed by the Interior Department, president or Congress.”
Will the U.S. pursue development of our own offshore oil-and-natural gas resources in the Atlantic, as Canada, Cuba, the Bahamas, and South American Atlantic-coast countries are doing? No one really knows—but we should. Supporters of American energy security need to get involved in the “political process” by making our voices heard.
Add your public comment before the March 30 deadline. Tell BOEM: “America can balance energy production with environmental protection.” Let Interior Secretary Sally Jewell know that you support “Greater access to our bountiful energy resources and advancing long-term energy security, while growing our coastal communities.”
The CEA has a customizable letter to make it easy for you to “act now!”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Marita Noon at Energy Makes America Great |
With the current oil oversupply, it may seem like an odd time to be going after more. However, the legal wheels that could allow limited access to the vast, untapped oil resources move very slowly. Today’s market conditions will fluctuate up and down many times between now and 2035 when the global demand for energy is expected to spike.
Not to mention the increasingly volatile situation taking place right now in the Middle East, where new coalitions are already being formed: Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—just to name two. If one more beheading takes place or a bomb hits the right (or wrong) target, the region could erupt, and the entire energy dynamic would change. Considering the variables, American energy security is always something worth pursuing.
The planning for the 2017-2022 OCS leasing program began June 2014, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a request for information and comments. Then, in January, it published the Draft Proposed Plan; the Final Proposed Plan is anticipated in Q4 2016 or Q1 2017, with it probably taking effect in Q2/Q3 2017. The 2017-2022 plan proposes just one mid-Atlantic lease sale six years from now—and even its future is precarious. The mid-Atlantic currently has no leases in federal waters.
Explaining the process, Offshore magazine writes: “The OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a five-year program that includes a schedule of potential oil and gas lease sales and indicates the size, timing and location of proposed leasing activity as determined to best meet national energy needs, while addressing a range of economic, environmental and social considerations.”
BOEM estimates that the entire U.S. OCS holds approximately 90 billion barrels of oil and more than 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which are technically recoverable. Based on 30 to 40 year old data, it estimates that the mid-Atlantic OCS may contain approximately 8-9 billion barrels of oil equivalent—which at current consumption rates would be enough to meet South Carolina’s needs for 67 years.
New seismic and other geological and geophysical surveys are needed. Modern practices and technologies will provide a more comprehensive view that will help make informed decisions on using the resources.
While the proposal for possible mid-Atlantic development faces opposition from environmental lobbyists, who call it a gift to oil-and-gas interests and an anchor to the “dirty fossil fuels of the past,” it enjoys a favorable political climate in the affected coastal states, where polls show citizens support offshore drilling.
When the January announcement came out, North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCory, chairman of the OCS Governors Coalition, applauded the proposal: “Responsible exploration and development of oil and gas reserves off our coast would create thousands of good paying jobs, spur activity in a host of associated industries, generate billions of dollars in tax revenue and move America closer to energy independence.”
Even Virginia’s Democrat Senators say the proposal is a “significant step … that should result in safe, responsible development of energy resources off the Virginia and mid-Atlantic coasts.”
Both the senators and governors want to see legislation passed that would provide for the same type of revenue-sharing system currently applied to the Gulf States to compensate local communities for additional infrastructure, environmental protection, and other coastal management needs generated by the new economic activity.
If Congress allows revenue sharing, Brydon Ross, Southeast director of the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), predicts: it “could generate more than $10 billion in revenue combined for critical public budget infusions without taxpayer dollars.”
Unfortunately, even though it is included in the draft proposal and is supported by lawmakers in the impacted states, future mid-Atlantic resource development is not a sure thing. The Washington Post (WP) calls the plan: “politically fraught.”
Jeremy Kennedy, an attorney who focuses on domestic- and international-energy transactions, says: “The planning, review and adoption of the 2017-2022 leasing program is, at its core, a political process.”
“This is a political plan,” Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, stated: “not a plan based on science and resource data”—though he acknowledged it “is a small step in the right direction.” Luthi added: “Our members are encouraged by the decision to further analyze the mid- and south-Atlantic areas, which have not been included in a leasing program for over two generations.”
The 2017-2022 five-year plan is still in the early stages. Addressing the ongoing process, Kennedy explains: “Each of the steps … will winnow the scope of the 2017-2022 leasing program.” The WP reports: BOEM “could decide to narrow—but not expand—the proposed leasing area before it is finalized.”
Kennedy sees that “little is certain at this time.” After all, the Obama administration has killed previous potential lease sales. “Once published,” he states, “planned lease sales can always be cancelled or delayed by the Interior Department, president or Congress.”
Will the U.S. pursue development of our own offshore oil-and-natural gas resources in the Atlantic, as Canada, Cuba, the Bahamas, and South American Atlantic-coast countries are doing? No one really knows—but we should. Supporters of American energy security need to get involved in the “political process” by making our voices heard.
Add your public comment before the March 30 deadline. Tell BOEM: “America can balance energy production with environmental protection.” Let Interior Secretary Sally Jewell know that you support “Greater access to our bountiful energy resources and advancing long-term energy security, while growing our coastal communities.”
The CEA has a customizable letter to make it easy for you to “act now!”
_____________________________________________
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.
______________________________________________
Thursday, February 26, 2015
A Maria Harf photo message to ISIS
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Check out some of the websites listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Political Humor or Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
Check out some of the websites listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.
______________________________________________