Obama Weekly Address: Targeted Strikes, Humanitarian Relief In Iraq

By William Teach August 9, 2014 – 6:53 am

This week, with Iraq in full meltdown, Mr. Obama addresses the issues, to a small degree

(White House) This week, I authorized two operations in Iraq.  First, I directed our military to take action to protect our American diplomats and military advisors serving in the city of Erbil.  In recent days, terrorist forces neared the city.  Thursday night, I made it clear that if they attempted to advance further, our military would respond with targeted strikes.  That’s what we’ve done.  And, if necessary, that’s what we will continue to do.  We have Americans serving across Iraq, including our embassy in Baghdad, and we’ll do whatever is needed to protect our people.

Second, we’ve begun a humanitarian effort to help those Iraqi civilians trapped on that mountain. The terrorists that have taken over parts of Iraq have been especially brutal to religious minorities—rounding up families, executing men, enslaving women, and threatening the systematic destruction of an entire religious community, which would be genocide.

The thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of Iraqi men, women and children who fled to that mountain were starving and dying of thirst.  The food and water we airdropped will help them survive.  I’ve also approved targeted American airstrikes to help Iraqi forces break the siege and rescue these families.  Earlier this week, one anguished Iraqi in this area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.”  Today, America is helping.

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with his actions, though I might have recommended less use of “I”, more use of language about “we”. But, that’s Obama. While it’s tragic that Iraq is being lost after all the blood spilled by Americans since 2003, do we really want to re-engage in a ground war? Sadly, though, Obama doesn’t mention that a good chunk of the people who fled to the mountains are Christians looking to escape the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS. He just says “religious minorities”.

The United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world.  But when there’s a situation like the one on this mountain—when countless innocent people are facing a massacre, and when we have the ability to help prevent it—the United States can’t just look away. That’s not who we are. We’re Americans.  We act.  We lead.  And that’s what we’re going to do on that mountain.  As one American who wrote to me yesterday said, “it is the right thing to do.”

He’s right, and this is something Conservatives have been saying for 20 years. We can’t do something about everything.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.  American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis there.

Again, I don’t want to slam him, as he is attempting to do something, but one has to wonder what ISIS will think we they hear that there is no way ground troops will be used. The proper solution is that the Iraqi military fight hard to defeat ISIS. That’s not happening. One thing Mr. Obama has to consider is what losing Iraq and seeing it turn into a hardcore Islamic state will do to the region.

What we will do is continue our broader strategy in Iraq.  We will protect our citizens.  We will work with the international community to address this humanitarian crisis.  We’ll help prevent these terrorists from having a permanent safe haven from which to attack America.  And we’ll continue to urge Iraqi communities to reconcile, come together and fight back against these terrorists so the people of Iraq have the opportunity for a better future—the opportunity for which so many Americans gave their lives in Iraq in a long and hard war.

Can we prevent ISIS from having a permanent safe haven with just air strikes? The way they are going, they will soon control a huge chunk of Iraq.  Will Obama sit back and watch this happen? How’s Libya doing? What’s going on with Syria? Mary Katherine Hamm asks whether Obama will finally lead on this issue. I do not think that will be necessary, because Obama is not going to fully engage on the issue, and will not use troops on the ground. There will be no plan.

That said, the Washington Post editorial board is not impressed

PRESIDENT OBAMA was right to order military action to prevent a potential genocide in northern Iraq and to stop forces of the al-Qaeda-derived Islamic State from advancing on Baghdad or the Kurdish capital of Irbil. However, the steps the president authorized on Thursday amount to more of his administration’s half-measures, narrowly tailored to this week’s emergency and unconnected to any coherent strategy to address the conflagration spreading across the Middle East.

While U.S. airstrikes and drops of supplies may prevent the terrorist forces from massacring the Yazidi sect or toppling the pro-Western regime in Kurdistan, Mr. Obama lacks a plausible plan for addressing the larger threat posed by the Islamic State. In recent weeks, senior U.S. officials have described the danger in hair-curling terms: The Islamic State forces, which have captured large numbers of U.S.-supplied heavy weapons, threaten not only the Iraqi and Kurdish governments, but also Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. With hundreds of Western recruits, they have the ambition and capability to launch attacks against targets in Europe and the United States.

Interestingly, they are calling for broader military support. They also note, in different words, that Obama really doesn’t seem to have policies, just half-assed responses to Things That Occur.

More: Powerline’s John Hinderaker makes an interesting point

Characteristically, Obama elevates liberal dogma–”there’s no American military solution”–over reality. The fact is that American military force overthrew Saddam Hussein, put down the Sunni insurrection and turned Iraq into the stable, increasingly prosperous country that Obama once claimed as one of the great accomplishments of his administration. It may become apparent, at some future date, that only American military force can stop ISIS from terrorizing the country. Whether our military should be deployed in that scenario will of course be debatable. But if history is a guide, Obama’s judgment will be ruled by dogma, not the facts on the ground.

Let’s consider that the American military led to solutions for the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. When it was restricted, we ended up with the 50+ year stalemate in Korea and the loss in Vietnam. And, quite often, it’s the threat of an American military solution that keeps other nations and actors in check. Not now.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Weekly Address: Targeted Strikes, Humanitarian Relief In Iraq »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on Obama Weekly Address: Targeted Strikes, Humanitarian Relief In Iraq | Trackback URL

We’re Saved: Emma Thompson Takes Fossil Fueled Trip To Arctic To Protest “Climate Change”

By William Teach August 8, 2014 – 3:38 pm

At some point, you have to wonder if Warmists will ever wise up to the hypocrisy

(Guardian) British actor Emma Thompson has staged a solo protest against Tony Abbott’s stance on climate change during a trip to the icy wilderness of the Arctic.

Thompson singled out the Australian prime minister for criticism while on a visit to the remote island of Spitsbergen. She is pictured holding a sign that reads: “Tony Abbott climate change is real, I’m standing on it!” (snip)

Thompson visited the Smeerenburg glacier in the north-west of Spitsbergen, which is part of the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean.

The double Oscar-winning actor is travelling in the region, along with her 14-year-old daughter, on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza to highlight the threat posed by climate change. (snip)

Thompson said: “We’re told that it is all our fault, global warming – we want the fuel, we want our cars, and that the oil industry is merely responding to the needs of a greedy public.

Oh, that marine diesel using ship?

Yes, three engines. Two enormous large displacement marine diesel engines and one APU engine to provide the ship with power when it’s not underway. Marine deisel engines are a lot like the land-based ones, except they burn marine diesel. Marine diesel is consumed in enormous volumes because the engines are constantly at work, unlike a land vehicle where there’s a lot of coasting, a ship needs to have constant power to the props to keep it moving against the the fluid friction it encounters. This combined with less regulation makes marine diesel a lot cheaper than the land-based kind. Cheaper, heavier and dirtier.

Greenpeace has said that it has a “special fuel system” to make it cleaner but they don’t give many details. On the other hand there are plenty of other things they could do to make it cleaner that they seem to have elected not to do. For one thing, they could run it on a cleaner fuel. A marine diesel engine will happily burn something like Jet-A fuel, which is available pretty easily. It’s much more refined and lower in sulfur, resulting in less smoggy emissions and generally cleaner burning. It’s also a lot more expensive, so they might not be able to have as many luxuries on the ship. Even better would be they could use something like LPG, which has proven to work decently as a marine fuel. They’d need new engines, it might slow the ship down and it would be more expensive. But then, aren’t these the guys who say “shame on you” to everyone who flies or drives an SUV?

Read on at the link for much more on the hypocrisy of Greenpeace, which matches up quite well with that of Emma Thompson, who would be standing on, according to her beliefs, the climate change she is causing. Well, except for the Arctic doing very well this year.

Read: We’re Saved: Emma Thompson Takes Fossil Fueled Trip To Arctic To Protest “Climate Change” »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 8, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a sun being blocked by storm clouds because of all the water used on evil golf courses, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post noting that Americans have had enough.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Warmist Proclaims Hotcoldwetdry Causing Fewer, But Stronger, Tornadoes

By William Teach August 8, 2014 – 10:54 am

This is reminiscent of the hurricanes debate. First we were told that there would be more hurricanes because of “climate change”. The massive 2005 season would be the “new normal”. When hurricane activity, particularly for landfalling systems, immediately started drying up the following season, we were told that there wouldn’t be as many, but that they would be stronger. When that failed to come to fruition, Warmists started blaming nature for ruining their prognostications, before finally deeming that the lack of hurricane activity is due to man-caused climate change

(Daily Caller) A geography professor at Florida State University has co-authored a new study claiming to show that climate change is likely causing more severe tornadoes in the United States even though there are far fewer actual tornadoes.

The professor, James Elsner, published his findings earlier this week in the journal Climate Dynamics.

“The risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise,” explains the abstract of the findings.

Elsner admits that his research shows that tornadoes have formed on fewer days in recent years across America’s tornado-prone plain, according to Insurance Journal.

In 1971, for example, data shows that tornadoes occurred on 187 different days. In 2013, only 79 days saw tornadoes in the United States.

Nevertheless, the Florida State professor insists that when the violently rotating columns of air do form, they are now forming with greater intensity and density. In the days before the calamity of climate change two tornadoes would form, Elsner says. Now three and perhaps even four are materializing.

“We may be less threatened by tornadoes on a day-to-day basis, but when they do come, they come like there’s no tomorrow,” Elsner told Insurance Journal.

Uh huh. Next up, the climate preachers will inform us that nature is interfering with the damage mankind is doing to tornado formation, inevitability followed by the climate deacons blaming Mankind for causing tornado activity of all levels to go down drastically.

This kind of “study” is needed by the Warmists because tornado activity is down sharply over the past few years. And, of course, tornadoes used to be blamed on global cooling. This study is all about keeping the Church Of Climatology going, along with the money train.

Read: Warmist Proclaims Hotcoldwetdry Causing Fewer, But Stronger, Tornadoes »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Warmist Proclaims Hotcoldwetdry Causing Fewer, But Stronger, Tornadoes | Trackback URL

Obama Doesn’t Want You To Be Cynical

By William Teach August 8, 2014 – 9:37 am

Seriously, is there anything to be cynical about? Isn’t everything all lollipops and unicorns?

(The Hill) President Obama’s message in 2008 was hope and change. In 2012, it was change takes time.

In 2014, it’s don’t be so cynical.

As Obama struggles with the lowest approval ratings in his presidency and the real chance his party could lose the Senate in the midterm elections later this year, the one constant in his speeches — from weighty economic addresses to small fundraisers — is now: “Hope is a better choice than cynicism.”
It’s a recent shift—which began with commencement addresses meant to inspire young graduates, and the White House’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative to help under-privileged young people.

But now the sentiment is seeping into nearly every single speech Obama delivers, highlighting how the White House is trying to use the message to win over voters and play off Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

The IRS targeting Conservative groups, a stagnant economy, real wages down tremendously, historic numbers of citizens dropping out of the workforce in despair, savings in the toilet, foreign policy a mess….the list continues on and on. It’s hard to consider what should be on that list without writing a book. But, hey, don’t be cynical!

In recent speeches in Austin and Kansas City, the words cynical or cynicism have appeared as many as a dozen times in the president’s text as Obama plays the role of a motivational speaker and psychologist for voters.

“You can’t afford to be cynical,” Obama told a packed crowd in Kansas City last week. “Cynicism is fashionable sometimes. You see it all over our culture, all over TV, everybody likes putting stuff down and being cynical and being negative, and that shows somehow that you’re sophisticated and you’re cool.

“You know what—cynicism didn’t put a man on the moon,” he continued, before ticking off a list of other non-cynical monumental events.

Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that anytime soon, since NASA has moved its focus from space to manufacturing “climate change” data along with massaging the self esteem of Muslims.

“He doesn’t see ‘hope’ as blind optimism or happy talk but as a belief that forces us to keep trying in the face of adversity and fear and doubt,” said Jon Favreau, who served as Obama’s chief speechwriter at the White House and during his two presidential campaigns. “Cynicism is the idea that the game is rigged, everyone’s in it for himself or herself, and there’s no point in trying to make a difference.

Which is hilarious, when you really think about it, because Obama is in it only for himself.

Read: Obama Doesn’t Want You To Be Cynical »

Posted in Barry Obama | Comments Off on Obama Doesn’t Want You To Be Cynical | Trackback URL

Ceasfire Ends, Rockets Fired From Gaza – To Apply Pressure Or Something

By William Teach August 8, 2014 – 9:21 am

There are quite a few idiotic stories on some group in Gaza firing rockets at Israel as the ceasefire ended, and the NY Times has the most idiotic. Here’s what it looks like on the mobile edition (both web and their app) front page

Hey, I do that all the time on the golf course when someone is playing slow, wildly fire a few shots from my .22 to apply pressure. I understand that business folks fire bottle rockets across town during negotiations all the time, and throw Brown Recluse spiders across the negotiation table during lulls. Just to apply pressure

(NY Times) As a 72-hour truce in Gaza expired at 8 a.m. Friday, Palestinian militants fired barrages of rockets into Israel and the Israeli military responded with airstrikes, one of which killed a 10-year-old boy, according to relatives.

The renewed hostilities interrupted the indirect talks in Cairo, brokered by Egypt and backed by the United States, for a more durable cease-fire agreement. While the rocket fire signaled Hamas’s refusal to extend the temporary lull and its desire to apply pressure for its demands to be met at the talks, the Israeli government said in a statement that “Israel will not hold negotiations under fire.”

Huh. So a “militant” group is firing missiles (and also lobbing mortars) to put pressure on Israel. Interesting that they are not called “terrorists”. Let’s switch to the Washington Post article

Palestinian militants began to fire rockets at Israel again Friday morning after a three-day truce ended and talks in Cairo to extend it sputtered.

More than 20 rockets were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip, according to an Israeli military spokesman. Two were intercepted over the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, and several fell short and landed in Gaza, the spokesman said.

Militants. Israeli president Netanyahu directed the IDF to respond, and

Moments later, the Israeli military announced it was striking targets in Gaza, and journalists in the coastal enclave began to tweet photos of smoke plumes and news of explosions.

Interestingly, both of the two cited articles were relying on the IDF stating that rockets and mortars had been launched. Add CBS News, and many others, to that list. It’s almost like the major news outlets aren’t bothering to really have anyone on the ground in Israel, and are focusing all their assets within Gaza, a place controlled by terrorists.

In a separate statement, the militant group Islamic Jihad and another Palestinian faction claimed responsibility for the rocket fire.

Hmm, so two other “militant” groups claimed responsibility. Militant group Hamas stated they did not do it. Why is it so hard for news outlets to call them terrorists? Oh, right, they sympathize, and would label Israel as the terrorist group if they could get away with it.

Hamas officials, in their first public rally since the truce with Israel, vowed Thursday to never give up arms and to reignite war if Israel does not accept their demands for the lifting of the blockade.

The defiant rhetoric, delivered as supporters chanted, “Blow up, blow up Tel Aviv,” came on the final day of a three-day truce that brought a rare calm to the region after a month of violent conflict.

“The war is not over yet,” Mushir al-Masri, a top Hamas official, told the gathering. “Our fighters are still in the field, in their frontline positions. Our tunnels still exist, and they reach into Israeli territory. If Israel doesn’t agree to our demands, we will come there.”

Hmm, peaceful. Militants.

I actually have an idea: Israel and Egypt should stack tons of troops, fighting vehicles, and tanks on the border to Gaza, have lots of bombers ready to go, and then fully lift the blockade, stating that a) if Hamas and the rest of the Gazans use the inflow of goods for military purposes, and launch any strikes against Israel, it is on the head of the Obama, Kerry, and the other terrorist supporters, and b) say if anything is launched, Israel and Egypt will go in with massive force, and truly occupy Gaza, and it is on the heads of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the Gazan supporters.

Of course, even if Israel was forced to respond, the Liberal media and leftists around the world would simply blame Israel. They sympathize with Hamas in wanting to “blow up, blow up Tel Aviv”. And see the end of the Jewish state.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Ceasfire Ends, Rockets Fired From Gaza – To Apply Pressure Or Something »

Posted in Israel, RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmist: Things Are So Bad We’re F*cked By The Climate Dragon Or Something

By William Teach August 7, 2014 – 3:54 pm

Another day, another unhinged Warmist

When a Climate Scientist Publicly States “We’re F**ked” Things Are Bad It’s one thing to note the unusually hot weather we’ve been having and then slather on some suncream. But when a climate expert unceremoniously concedes that the planet is “f**ked”, it’s probably time to get seriously worried.

Scientists at the Stockholm University recently discovered that vast methane plumes were escaping the Arctic Ocean seafloor. And that’s got noted climatologist Dr. Jason Box very worried.

“If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d,” he tweeted. “Methane is more than 20 times more potent than CO2 [carbon dioxide] in trapping infrared as part of the natural greenhouse effect,” he later told Motherboard. “Methane getting to the surface—that’s potent stuff.”

“We’re on a trajectory to an unmanageable heating scenario, and we need to get off it. We’re f**ked at a certain point, right? It just becomes unmanageable. The climate dragon is being poked, and eventually the dragon becomes pissed off enough to trash the place.”

Here’s how bad that unmanageable trajectory is

Read: Warmist: Things Are So Bad We’re F*cked By The Climate Dragon Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 7, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a carbon intensive golf course which would be a great place for a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on silly Brits thinking gardening is racist.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Ocare Looking To Bring Breast-feeding To A Company Near You

By William Teach August 7, 2014 – 10:03 am

Now, now, don’t misunderstand: there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding. There are tons of studies showing that breastfeeding and/or using breast milk is the best thing for babies. But, this is not really about breastfeeding: it’s about federal government interference in the economy, yet again

(Reuters) Under the Affordable Care Act, employers must provide time and space for new mothers to express milk for their babies until the child turns one year old.

“This is a terrific opportunity to show businesses that lactation is important and that women should be accorded the right to provide milk for their babies,” said Dr. Richard J. Schanler, director of neonatal services at Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York in New Hyde Park.

This requirement has been “sort of on the books for a while,” Schanler told Reuters Health, but the ACA provision makes the rule concrete.

One has to wonder, why are women bringing young babies to the workplace in the first place? Here’s where it gets dicey

The law allows women to pump for a “reasonable amount of time,” as often as necessary, and requires employers to provide a clean, private space other than a bathroom for them to do so.

“It should be a room, a separate quiet place, not a bathroom, and let the mother express her milk and have a place to store it,” Schanler said.

There will certainly be companies that have the space to create this new lactation room. And many can certainly afford to spend a small amount to make it pleasant. Many already do provide a space. But, there are many which cannot. As an example, back in my days of working for AT&T wireless, there was really no extra space to have some sort of extra room in most retail stores, unless a section of the sales floor was taken away. This would apply to quite a few businesses.

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees may be exempt from the break time law if it would be an “undue hardship,” causing difficulty or expense for the employer.

But the spirit of the law is to make this available for all working women, Schanler said, and it’s hard to imagine what difficulty or expense an employer would face.

Consider, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and tons of other corporations would not be allowed any exemption. What are they supposed to do? Every bit of the store is optimized. There are no places to build a separate room. And they get no waivers. Companies that may, and I stress “may”, get an exemption, are in the same boat. They have no space. It’s easy for Schanler to be unable to imagine difficulty and expense that would be incurred, but, then, he works in a giant hospital, which probably has a space already set aside. Will businesses have to do away with much of their floor space they currently have and when they look to build new locations?

A couple comments from the Yahoo article

  • I guess things like this is why most jobs created are part time or temp jobs.
  • “This is a terrific opportunity to show businesses that lactation is important and that women should be accorded the right to provide milk for their babies,” = One more cost for US companies and a reason to outsource more jobs to more company friendly locations
  • I wonder how many women wont be hired now.
  • This is going to be a huge boon to trial lawyers. Just wait and see!
  • Single males should have their own room and paid time to ejaculate. It is proven to lower the chances of prostate cancer and also provides positive psychological properties. It would also likely reduce violence on the jobsite.
  • How many more rules and hidden regulations are in this you have to pass  it in order to find out what it is in it bill?

This ACA rule is most likely simply more patronization of women by Democrats, much like how breast pumps are now required to be free under Ocare insurance. Strange, considering how hostile the Democrat party is to babies in the first place. In the Real World, legislation has unintended consequences, and they are not always the good kind. See the third comment.

Read: Ocare Looking To Bring Breast-feeding To A Company Near You »

Posted in Economy, Government, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

When It Comes To Illegal Immigration, Obama’s Like Lincoln Or Something

By William Teach August 7, 2014 – 7:43 am

Trolling the opinion pages of the major news outlets is an easy way to find bat guano insane, or, heck, just plain stupid opinion pieces, by far left ideologues. There’s always plenty of La La Land material, especially if one visits the NY Times and Washington Post. Today is like every other day, and here’s a doozy by Charles Lane. One the Washington Post web front page the article is referred to as “Obama the emancipator: On immigration, the president may be similar to Lincoln”. Inside, we get

With immigration reform, President Obama takes cue from Lincoln

Not since Abraham Lincoln pondered his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 has a president considered ordering a more sweeping adjustment to membership in the American community than the mass relief for illegal immigrants that President Obama is said to be contemplating.

There is obviously no analogy between slavery and the disadvantages the undocumented face today.

But, Lane is still going to find a way

Among many other differences, the undocumented arrived voluntarily, searching, often successfully, for a better life. Also, they established residence unlawfully, for which there must be some reckoning.

But

Still, the essentially permanent presence of some 11 million people whose labor and cultural contributions benefit the United States — yet who must exist on the margins of society — creates dilemmas both practical and moral.

And the issue has this in common with slavery: It’s a long-standing debate over fundamental rights that the nation’s democratic institutions have proven incapable of resolving, leading to increasingly bitter partisan conflict.

The ideological concept behind Obama’s grand slicing of the Gordian knot of immigration, if he attempts it, would be akin to that which drove Lincoln’s action: the president as liberator.

There’s so much wrong with that, I’m not even sure where to start and end. Let’s just note that the slaves were brought involuntarily, while illegals come voluntarily, both those who come illegally to start and those who overstay their visas.

And if Obama does it

Still, its impact would be dramatic, and might define Obama’s legacy as powerfully as the Emancipation Proclamation defined Lincoln’s.

In short, the broadest measure Obama is considering would be constitutionally dubious, politically explosive and flatly contradictory to his own recently expressed views.

It would also bring many hard-working people out of the shadows, make generations of Latinos into Democrats and secure a place in history for its author.

Got that? Doing this would be lawless, but, hey, he should do it anyhow! Liberal World.

Read: When It Comes To Illegal Immigration, Obama’s Like Lincoln Or Something »

Posted in Barry Obama, Beyond Moonbat, Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove