How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?


They are wrong because they are world leaders, its seldom that any are really right in much of anything they do.

PA Pundits - International's avatarPA Pundits International

caruba_alan20080111By Alan Caruba ~

In a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

Cartoon - Man-Made Weather

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—“crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer…

View original post 777 more words

On Dealing with Obama?


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Let us assume, to begin with, that Islam influences Obama’s behavior.  For some observers of Islam, this assumption does not flatter Mr. Obama.

For example, Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan has said, in a derogatory sense, that Islam is not a civilization.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders agrees. He denied the existence of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West because Islam, he says, is not a civilization but a form of barbarism.

Now ponder this. That Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there is no clash of civilization in the Middle East suggests the possibility that he may harbor a fallacious hence precarious understanding of Islam, one that has induced him to engage in peace negotiations with the Islamic Palestinian Authority for more than two decades, despite the absence of any positive results, to say nothing of the terrible loss of Jewish life.

That Wafa Sultan and Geert Wilders have a more candid – I do not say clearer – understanding of Islam, is confirmed by this report of Dr. Arieh Eldad, an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel.

I was instrumental in establishing the “Israeli National Skin Bank,” which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict.

Dr. Eldad concluded his report by asking everyone to forward it onwards so that as many as possible will understand radical Islam, that this not merely a territorial conflict. [As Geert Wilders put it, “this is a  war between civilization & barbarism.”]

Now, returning to Obama, the question arises: how does one deal with an individual who has been described as an “empty suit”? Such an individual can hardly be called a real person, since he has no solid identity. He may speak like a human being, but he is just as likely to speak honestly as dishonestly, sensibly as well as foolishly – as when Obama said he was a Muslim and that America was founded by Muslims!

What such an individual says should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. One can’t safely rely on what he says as a basis for policy.  Any conversation with Obama should be as brief and as casual as possible. Also, anything he says should not only be recorded, but also witnessed, if possible, by a third party.  One must never assume that Obama means what he says and says what he means, or that even understands what he says or means – from one day to the next. This is the dilemma in dealing with an “empty suit.”

It follows that Israel must reduce to a minimum her dealings with American officials insofar as such dealings may be intersected by whatever Obama, by chance or by design, may say or do. This means that Israel should regard Obama as a punctuated or virtual enemy.

 

Ankit Panda: What Really Happened in the Persian Gulf on April 28, 2015?


There is much going on here that have consequences that are not good associated with them.

Pundit Planet's avatarpundit from another planet

USS_Farragut;99_Turn_BurnAnkit Panda writes: A 65,000 ton, Danish-owned, Singapore-chartered, container ship, en route to the United Arab Emirates from Saudi Arabia, manned mostly by Eastern European and Asian sailors, is intercepted, boarded, and confiscated by the Iranian navy, prompting a U.S. destroyer to investigate.*

“Iran’s reasons for seizing the ship were at first unclear. Speculation abounded that the incident was a show of force intended to strike back at the United States after it sent the USS Theodore Roosevelt to intercept an Iranian arms shipment to Yemen’s Houthis last week.” 

That wasn’t an anecdote from Tom Friedman’s next book on globalization–it’s a rough description of what took place on Tuesday, April 28, in the strategically important sea lanes of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Additionally, others suggested that the seizure could have been a move by hardliners opposing Iran’s negotiations with the West over its nuclear program  –  an attempt to spark a broader crisis…

View original post 579 more words

A Perilous Situation


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Thanks primarily to President Barack Obama, Iran is on a short path to becoming a nuclear power. Iran will then become the rulers of the Middle East. The Mullocracy in Tehran will then control the oil resources on which the economy of Europe depends. Since Europe is America’s greatest trading partner, a nuclear Iran would be in a position to undermine the survival of the United States.

The Mullocracy of Iran, formerly Persia, is animated by uncompromising religious and imperial objectives. When Iran’s former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, brazenly screamed “Death to America,” and also vowed to wipe Israel off the map, he was not engaging in grandiloquent rhetoric to inflate Iranian pride. His maledictions simply expressed Islam’s 1,400-year ambition to rule the world, an ambition more realistic than that expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

This being the case, the critics of Obama’s flimsy nuke agreement with Iran were quite right in comparing Obama to Chamberlain. However, if Obama is animated by the “Munich syndrome,” or if he harbors Islam’s desire to eradicate the “small Satan, Israel does not have to become a “one bomb state” or passively wait for dooms day.

Even if Obama is not a closet Jew-hater, he is clearly a hater of Western Civilization, symbolized by his return of a bust of Winston Churchill to London.  Such was Churchill’s greatness as a scholar-statesman that he was made an honorary citizen of the United States by President John F. Kennedy. Churchill was far more American than the current occupant of the White House!

Perhaps Obama’s animus toward Churchill may be attributed to British imperialism. Alternatively, perhaps Obama was aware of Churchill’s’ contempt for Islam. Indeed, Churchill once said that Islam “paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

In contrast, Churchill greatly admired the Jews. “Some people like the Jews,” he said, “and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and most remarkable race which has appeared in the world.”

It thus appears that Obama, who speaks glowingly of the Qur’an, and who genuflected to Saudi King Abdullah, had all the more reason to abhor a bust of Churchill on the one hand, and to support the Islamic Palestinian Authority’s war against Israel on the other! Nor is this all.

Obama, a radical left-wing Democrat, may also be cultivating a personal vendetta vis-à-vis Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As is well known, Netanyahu was invited by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress, surely to warn the Americans of Obama’s appeasement of Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program.

There is good reason to liken Obama’s appeasement of that tyranny with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Whereas Hitler was rearming Germany in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Iran was acquiring more and more centrifuges for launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in violation of an international treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

After more than a decade of failed diplomacy exploited by Iran, there was no solid reason to believe that the U.S. could succeed in curtailing Iran’s nuclear ambition. Indeed, Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons is consistent with Teheran’s malediction of “death to America” and its vow to wipe Israel off the map.

Since Iran is also the epicenter of international terrorism, it’s only a matter of prudence to regard Iran as the spearhead of Islam, whose world-historical mission is to eradicate Christianity and Judaism.  Therefore, it should be the objective of Israel to heed the advice of John Bolton, America’s sagacious former ambassador to United Nations.

Ponder this. Just before the presidency of George Bush Jr. came to an end, hence just before Obama’s first presidential inauguration, Bolton, who was experienced in arms control, wisely advised Israel to attack Iran, hopefully with help from the United States! However, Bolton understood that with Obama in the White House, no such attack would take place, and that Iran would have a free pass to becoming a nuclear power.

Indeed, it was to prevent this eventuality that House Speaker Boehner invited Prime Minster Netanyahu to address Congress. Boehner surely knew that at stake with an Obama Presidency was nothing less than the survival of Western civilization. This is probably what prompted him to take the unprecedented step of inviting a foreign statesman to address the U.S. Congress: he wanted Netanyahu to hamstring the President of the United States!

Therefore, given this assessment of the concerns and motives set forth in the previous paragraph, I venture to say that to save Western civilization from the scourge of Islam, Israel will have to destroy, in one way or another, Iran’s command and control centers along with its ballistic missile facilities – a daunting but utterly necessary task.

An EMP attack on America seems likely


This is a very real threat not to be taken lightly!

danmillerinpanama's avatardanmillerinpanama

Some consider North Korea to be the rogue nation most likely to use an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to attack America; Iran is also seen as quite likely to do it. It matters little which succeeds.

Here is a lengthy 2013 video about an EMP attack, what would happen and why:

The possibilities and consequences of an EMP attack on America are too horrific to contemplate; the “legitimate news media” generally ignore them. We therefore tend to relegate them to the realm of remote “tin foil hat conspiracy theories” and to focus instead on more congenial stuff — the latest sex scandal, Hillary Clinton’s campaign van parking in a disabled-only space and other matters unlikely to impact America to an extent even approaching that of an EMP attack. Meanwhile, most of “our” Congress Critters, who should know better, focus on opinion polls, filling their campaign coffers and getting richer personally while neglecting our atrophying missile defense systems and…

View original post 1,124 more words

Sustainability: A Fable For Our Time


This movement has it roots back even further with Thomas Malthus and his Malthusian catastrophe and his ‎Essay on Principle of Population which have been taken up by bill Gates and others as Gates recently presented at a TED conference. Malthus and Gates are wrong Malthus for reasonable reasons and gates because it is a drive for personal power. The sustainability concept itself is unsustainable since it’s principles are at cross purposes and can lead only to global disaster.

Michael D. Shaw's avatarJunkScience.com

We must journey back to March, 1987, and the United Nations document entitled Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, to discover what is probably the only universally agreed upon—if nebulous and contradictory—definition of “sustainable development,” the precursor of “sustainability,” viz.

View original post 861 more words

Arab TV Commentators Claim Obama Supports Iran Because His Father Was a Shiite


Commentators on two different Arabic television programs claimed that President Barack Obama is pushing a nuclear deal with Iran because his father, Barack Obama Sr.,  was a Shiite Muslim, and President Obama apparently wants the Shia-run government of Iran to be victorious in the region.http://www.mrctv.org/embed/134980The commentators made their remarks on the UK channel Al-Hiwar TV on March 25 and on 4Shbab TV in Saudi Arabia on April 10; the segments were recorded and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project (MEMRI).

“There is one thing we must not forget,” said Syrian writer Muhydin Lazikani on Hiwar TV.  “I am not peddling some theory, and I am not being racist. But Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite Kenyan father.”

“He spent much of his childhood in Mombasa, south Kenya,” said Lazikani. “I visited this very area, and I can tell you that it is mostly Shiite. All the childhood memories of the man who rules the White House are Shiite memories.”

“This is why the Iranian issue is so important to him and why he is so anxious for Iran to emerge victorious, and for Syria and all the countries of the Arab Gulf to be shattered,” said Lazikani.

President Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (1936-1982), was born in Nyang’oma Kogelo, which is in the southwest region of Kenya.  His own father, Hussein Onyango Obama (1895-1979), had converted from Christianity to Islam. Barack Obama Sr. was raised a Muslim but his son, President Obama, said at the February 2009 National Prayer Breakfast, “I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist.”

rouhani

Hassan Rouhani, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and U.S. President Barack Obama. (AP)

On 4ShbabTV, April 10, Abu Muntasir Al-Baloushi, a London-based Iranian Opposition activist, said,   “Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite father.”

He then said, “There is no doubt that he is Iran’s lifesaver. Some people call him the Iranian lobby in America. He suffers from a peculiar complex. He believes that ‘wherever we go, the Sunnis are fighting us.’”

“So what is the historical solution?” said Al-Baloushi. “Shiite expansion is ready. So he imposed this Shiite expansion on Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan. Any wise enemy of Islam realizes that Shiite expansion is the best method to destroy Islam from within. Even America did not do what the Shiites have done in Iraq. Even the Zionist Jews did not do such things to the Palestinians.”

Al-Baloushi continued, “The Americans believe that they can fight the Sunnis – they call it terrorism. But this is not what they care about. They want to destroy the entire ideology. Shiite expansion is the best method to achieve this, and the Shiites are ready, because they have an ideology to that effect, they have the scholars, they have got it all.”

“So America has used them,” he said. “If I were in America’s place, I would use them too.”

Stanley Ann Dunham married Barack Hussein Obama Sr. on Feb. 2, 1961; their son, Barack Hussein Obama, was born on Aug. 4, 1961.  His parents divorced in 1964. Ann Dunham then married, in 1965, Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim from Indonesia. President Obama’s biological father died in a car accident in Kenya on Nov. 24, 1982. His step-father, Soetoro, died from liver failure in 1987.

Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama, the similarities run deep


Sen. Tom Cotton recently told Jeffrey Goldberg that it is unfair to Neville Chamberlain to compare his appeasement of Hitler to Barack Obama’s appeasement of Iran. Chamberlain, Tom reminded us, had been told that the British military was unprepared to fight Germany. Thus, he was in a position of weakness. President Obama, by contrast, is in a position of military strength.

The Senator is right insofar as the issue is negotiating posture, which is what he and Goldberg were discussing. But we shouldn’t forget that a major reason why Britain found itself so unprepared to deal was because Chamberlain had allowed its military strength to diminish dramatically.

Herein lies another similarity between Obama and Chamberlain. Obama doesn’t want to spend the money required to maintain full U.S. military preparedness, and the U.S. military is less prepared now than when Obama took office.

There’s yet another similarity — one that hadn’t occurred to me until I recently studied the Chamberlain years. I had always considered Chamberlain a thoroughgoing mediocrity — “not a bad Lord Mayor of Birmingham in a bad year,” as Lloyd George described him.

In fact, though, Neville Chamberlain was a brilliant machine politician. In contrast to his predecessor, the relatively easygoing Stanley Baldwin, Chamberlain leveraged his position to dominate British politics in almost dictatorial fashion.

Most of the English press was in his pocket. Not only would leading publications generally refuse to print opinion pieces critical of the government, it tended not to report developments adverse to it.

In the House of Commons, Chamberlain, through his enforcer David Margesson, imposed iron discipline on Tory members. The few who spoke out against appeasement were punished, often ruthlessly, as Lynne Olson showed in her book Troublesome Young Men.

Thanks in large part to these efforts, Chamberlain was able to remain Prime Minister even after the failure of appeasement became clear, as Hitler’s forces stormed through Europe while England continued to dither. Indeed, Chamberlain, on the strength of Tory backing, continued to hold a position in Churchill’s government. And he was able to undermine the “troublesome young Tories” by persuading Churchill that they were plotting to install Lloyd George as Prime Minister, according to Olson.

Only Chamberlain’s intestinal cancer (which killed him within a few months of being diagnosed) ended his government career.

We see with Chamberlain the same curious dynamic present in the Obama presidency. At home, a tough-as-nails administration/political machine that takes no prisoners and rarely compromises; abroad, a feckless operation with a pattern of caving to belligerent adversaries.

How should we explain this disconnect? Is it simply the familiar phenomenon of a bully backing down when confronted by a true tough guy? Or is some esoteric personality disorder at work?

I don’t know. But it seems likely that, as militarily unprepared as England was, if Chamberlain had behaved towards Hitler the way he did towards Harold McMillan, Europe would have been spared plenty of bloodshed. And if Obama behaved towards Ayatollah Khamenei and Vladimir Putin the way he behaves towards John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, Iran and Russia wouldn’t be stealing America’s pants to the detriment of world and national security.

Obama invites Mideast leaders MINUS ISRAEL to discuss Iran


What more can you say!

Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War


We will be at war before November 2016 20 months from now.