Say, Was Biden Right About Sectarian Conflict In Iraq?

By William Teach June 14, 2014 – 6:55 am

He might very well have been. It only took 8 years and a different President

(Politico) The advance of Islamic militants across Iraq has brought fresh criticism for the Obama administration — but may also deliver a grim measure of vindication to one very prominent White House official: Vice President Joe Biden.

In recent months, former officials and pundits questioned and even ridiculed Biden’s foreign policy acumen.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates wrote in his memoir that Biden “was wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of the past four decades.” (snip)

This week paints Biden’s judgment in a far different light.

Recent events in Iraq call attention to his prediction nearly a decade ago that the war-torn nation was heading towards a break-up along sectarian lines — and to a prescription he offered to try to manage that reality by granting Sunnis, Shia and Kurds greater autonomy over various parts of the country.

In other words: while Biden may have taken a beating repeatedly in recent years for some foreign policy calls he’s made, his judgment on Iraq’s capacity to stay one country now looks almost prescient.

“Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing. But that’s exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves,” Biden wrote in a 2006 New York Times op-ed he co-authored. “Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq.”

We’ll never know if the idea of splitting Iraq up into a federal republic (funny how Biden doesn’t seem to think our federal republic is great, since he serves the Democrat Party and a president who seems to despise anything other than naked federal executive power). A few Republicans and Democrats also were pushing that plan, as well, including early in the war. When it comes to sectarian conflict, let’s remember a few things. First, much of that, by the time 2006 rolled around a goodly chunk of the violence was being fueled by outside forces which were streaming in to Iraq and/or meddling. Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist/terrorist groups. Islamists from around the world were in Iraq fighting. Iran and Syria were meddling. The Bush plan was not working, and failed to stop the influx of foreign fighters. Then they wen t with the Surge. Democrats will proclaim that it did not work, and they would be wrong. The Surge allowed more political reconciliation, reducing conflict.

What Biden was 100% correct on was when he said “The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training”. Iraq has been Barack Obama’s since January 20, 2008, when he assumed the Office of the Presidency. At that point, George W. Bush had no control over US policy in Iraq. What has happened in the 5+ years since is partly the result of Obama’s poor foreign policy. Obviously, we cannot simply Blame Obama for everything. Bush still bears some blame, and we cannot forget about the role that the Iraqi government has played. Nor the role that hardcore Islamists have played. But, as the saying went while Bush was president and it was learned how much occurred in setting up the September 11th attacks during the Clinton years “who’s president now?” It’s not like the rest of Obama’s Middle East policies (among other foreign policy) has worked particularly well.

And a Joe Biden prediction from 8 years ago and two presidential elections has only come to fruition thanks to the guy he works for. But, is hardcore terrorism really “sectarian conflict”?

Of course, you know what’s really important?

(Newsbusters) As city after city in northern Iraq falls to deadly Islamist extremist militias pressing onward to Baghdad, questions are now being raised about the wisdom of the United States’ swift exit from the Middle East nation just a couple of years ago at the direction of President Obama. But leave it to MSNBC to preemptively shut down any criticism of the White House.

On the June 12 edition of NewsNation, host Tamron Hall had several foreign policy experts on to analyze the chaos in Iraq specifically and the Middle East more generally. Towards the end of the conversation, Hall felt the need to defend attacks against Obama from the right [MP3 audio here; video below]:

Well, of course. Democrats are great at casting blame, but not particularly good at accepting it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, Was Biden Right About Sectarian Conflict In Iraq? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Yet Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Free Speech

By William Teach June 13, 2014 – 2:51 pm

You’re shocked face probably looks more like a yawn, considering how much this happens. Here’s John Cigliano, director of the environmental conservation program at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, as published by Philly.com

Don’t give equal time to climate-change deniers

Let’s be clear: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.

We know beyond not just a reasonable doubt, but all doubt, that human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is a fact. Even as a scientist trained not to speak or think in such an absolute way, I am very comfortable stating this. This conclusion is backed by thousands of research articles from hundreds of scientists around the world from academia, think tanks, government, and non-governmental agencies. The latest National Climate Assessment report has confirmed this, and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have documented it.

Of course, there’s that pesky fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years, despite rising CO2 levels. And the pesky fact that 95% of Warmist computer models failing. And that many of the Holocene warm periods were warmer than the current one. Facts do not matter when fascism is on the rise

Is it too late to do something about climate change? No. What can we do to slow it down and eventually stop it? Cut down our use of fossil fuels. Use alternative energy or less energy. Persuade local, state, and federal governments to mandate strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Eat less meat. Buy local and in season. Reduce/reuse/recycle, etc., etc.

You’ve heard all this before, but here’s a new one: The media must stop providing ink and air time to climate-change deniers. (snip)

One of the most important strategies we could employ to stop climate change is for the media to stop giving time and space to climate-change deniers. There is only one side of this story: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.

Science as a totalitarian religion. Hitler, Chavez, Mao, Stalin, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, among others, would be proud. They would be even prouder of John’s next paragraph

The real story that should be covered is why, in the face of overwhelming, unequivocal evidence, do people still deny climate change? Is it lack of environmental literacy? Is it due to either political or financial self-interest? Why?

In other words, attack, attack, attack. Rebutting with scientific fact would be silly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is not science, this is politics.

Related, Anthony Watts notes that a professor’s fellowship was terminated right after publishing an anti-climate change op-ed. See more at Climate Depot.

Read: Yet Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Free Speech »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers, Unhinged Tools | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 13, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post noting Obama opening the federal financial database to law enforcement.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Colorado Pot Activists Unhappy About Paying Taxes On Pot

By William Teach June 13, 2014 – 10:06 am

Wait, I thought liberals were gung ho regarding increased taxation (yes, I know, not all pot smokers are liberals. It’s still a valid point)

(Chicago Tribune) A group of marijuana activists in Colorado are suing to prevent the government collecting taxes derived from the state’s legal pot industry, saying it violates the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, filed by local lawyer Rob Corry this week in Denver District Court, asks that a judge issue an injunction ordering the state and city of Denver to halt the practice. (snip)

The 37-page complaint, “which includes a history of marijuana prohibition in the United States,“ said that because of the federal ban, people who buy or sell pot implicate themselves in a crime, which violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“There can be no possible scenario where a person paying … marijuana-specific taxes can also be in full compliance with federal law,” the lawsuit said.

Know what would be funny? If the Court looks at the suit and decides that, yes, the taxes are bad because smoking/selling pot is against federal law, therefore, the ballot measure legalizing pot in Colorado is invalidated due to federal law.

Corry also said the state”s 25 percent combined sales and excise taxes on marijuana sales have undermined what voters intended when they approved legalized cannabis in part to take the criminal element out of marijuana use.

“The tax rates are so high that the underground market has experienced resurgence in Colorado,” Corry wrote.

So, wait, high taxes cause problems? Who woulda thunk it?

Read: Colorado Pot Activists Unhappy About Paying Taxes On Pot »

Posted in Liberal World, Taxation | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Obama’s Extremist EPA Attempting To Change Rules On Navigable Waters

By William Teach June 13, 2014 – 7:13 am

The Environmental Protection Agency was a great idea when it was signed into law by Richard Nixon. Protecting the environment. Who couldn’t be against an agency that does that? Over the years, though, they’ve been invaded by extremist enviro-wackos, and I’m not sure that we can even call it “mission creep” at this point. More like “mission tsunami”. And having an extremist president pushing extremist, dictatorial, totalitarian doctrines doesn’t help

(CFACT) President Obama’s shameful attacks on his fellow citizens are piling up: his “War on Coal” (a new EPA “climate” rule to destroy the coal industry) and his “War on Ranching” (a half-million-acre “national monument” smothering New Mexico ranchers), have now been topped by his “War on Everybody Else.”

By that I mean Obama’s outrageous proposed rule titled “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act” which would remove “navigable” from American water law and redefine nearly everything wet as “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS — and potentially subject us all to permits and fines.

That abomination is equivalent to invasion by hostile troops out to seize the jurisdictions of all 50 states. WOTUS gives untrustworthy federal bureaucrats custody of every watershed, creates crushing new power to coerce all who keep America going and offers no benefit to the victimized and demoralized tax-paying public.

If that sounds overly dramatic, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Wednesday hearing titled “Potential Impacts of Proposed Changes to the Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Rule” promises to make it seem like an understatement.

Gibbs told CFACT’s Ron Arnold that “In my view this is a power grab, nothing more.” Arnold highlights how the EPA has been attempting to gain control of all waters for well over a decade. The pond in your backyard? The stream the runs on your property? The runoff from rain that creates a little standing pool? They want control of it all. The Journal Gazette and Times-Courier notes

The EPA is proposing that puddles, ponds, ditches, ephemerals and isolated wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act and expand the regulatory authority to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA and the Army Corps have the authority over the “navigable waters,” and now the possibility to include the above water features will make it more difficult to farm or change a farming operation to remain competitive and profitable.

If ditches and wet spots in fields are deemed “navigable waters,” many routine farming activities – such as building a fence, applying fertilizer, pulling weeds, etc. – will be deemed to result in a “discharge” to those so-called “navigable waters.” Activities that result in a “discharge” cannot legally go forward without the required permit.

The EPA will have the control to approve and deny a discharge permit. If denied, this would greatly restrict a farmer’s ability to farm. If approved, the farmer would need to provide paperwork and meet reporting requirements. Violations of these permits and reporting requirements carry the same potential penalties as unlawful “discharges” – up to $37,500 per violation per day and may be enforced by the EPA, the state or even interested citizens’ groups.

This rule could heavily impact farmers, which would, shocker of shocker, impact food prices. It could also affect any water that collects temporarily in fields or ditches, subjecting them to the same protections as lakes and streams that can be navigated by boats. This could even affect your decorative pond in your back yard.

This is one of the things we mean when we talk about the problems of Big Government. They grab power, then grab some more, and keep stretching their grubby, power hungry hands out. They’re never satisfied.

Read: Good News: Obama’s Extremist EPA Attempting To Change Rules On Navigable Waters »

Posted in Barry Obama, Enviroweenies | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Romney: Say, Obama’s Foreign Policy Isn’t Working Out So Well, Eh?

By William Teach June 13, 2014 – 6:49 am

He hates to say “I told you so”, but, really, he told you so

(The Hill) Mitt Romney on Thursday blamed President Obama for the Sunni militants’ takeover of key cities in northern Iraq.

“His foreign policy is what has led to these foreign crises all over the world. Try to recapture the lead and keeping these things from happening is going to be a real challenge,” Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said on Fox News’s “Your World with Cavuto” when asked about Iraq.

“This is the result of the president’s missteps over the last several years,” he added.

“Clearly, as the president said, you have to keep all options on the table. The sad thing is the limited options we have are the result of poor decisions made in the past. You’ve got to act at the right time, at the time the opportunity is presented,” he said.

In Syria, for instance, Romney noted that Obama drew a “red line” and said President Bashar Assad must go. Three years later, Romney said the administration is “doing nothing really to make that happen.”

Romney said Obama also failed to get a status of forces agreement in Iraq so a residual force of 10,000 to 15,000 could remain after the 2011 pullout.

“All of these decisions made in the past puts us in a very difficult position now, frankly with very poor options,” he said.

But, but, but, Obama’s (creepy) Truth Team said Obama was super-mega awesome!

How’s that working out?

(WSJ) With the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an offshoot of al Qaeda, rapidly gaining territory, Iran deployed Revolutionary Guards units to Iraq, according to Iranian security officials.

Fortunately, the Obama admin is considering making time to consider the possibility of convening a meeting to think about sending more harshly worded tweets

Fortunately, Samantha Powers

State Department officials on Thursday refused to outline what steps the Obama administration would take if Iranian forces entered Iraq.

Team Obama has pretty much no idea what to do, and, quite frankly, it looks like they just can’t be bothered

https://twitter.com/brooks_rosa/statuses/477255213640728577

Rosa Brooks was counselor to then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy in the Dept of Defense from 2009-2011.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Romney: Say, Obama’s Foreign Policy Isn’t Working Out So Well, Eh? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Romney | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Uses Little Ice Age To Position Climate Change As Bad

By William Teach June 12, 2014 – 3:45 pm

I’ve read this bit of climainsanity 4 times, and it gets nuttier each time

(Daily Beast) In the 14th century, four centuries of mild weather came to an abrupt halt in Europe. Famine and frigid temperatures ensued, and roughly 10 percent of the population died.

“‘Natural’ disasters are most disastrous when humanity gives them a push,” William Rosen asserts, and his lucid exposition of the fatal interaction of ecological, agricultural, economic, and political factors that led to the Great Famine of 1315-1322 should give pause to anyone who thinks we have outgrown such shortsightedness.

Long before the bitter cold winters and drenching rains of the early 14th century announced the end of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Europe had expanded dangerously close to the limits of its resources. Four centuries of unusually mild temperatures (the highest in 8,000 years), prompted the continent’s farmers to plant crops on vast quantities of land previously unsuitable for agriculture; the increased food supply in turn fueled a population explosion that tripled the number of people in medieval Europe.

If you’re thinking “these nutballs aren’t going to Blame mankind for the LIA”, um, yeah, they try

To 21st-century skeptics who cite the initially beneficent effects of the MWP as proof that global warming is no big deal, Rosen responds by pointing out that the MWP was “a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon … there is still little evidence that worldwide temperatures were, on average, warmer than today.” Moreover, the growth fueled by the MWP proved to be unsustainable.

“More and more marginal land was producing a larger and larger percentage of [Europe’s] food,” the author notes. When those marginal lands ceased to produce due to frosts and floods, the millions of extra mouths to be fed remained. Rebellions and civil wars exacerbated the impact of an unprecedented quarter-century of terrible weather and deadly livestock diseases. Two consecutive harvest failures in 1314 and 1315 launched seven years of famine, resulting in the deaths of between 5 and 12 percent of the population of northern Europe.

Except, there’s plenty if evidence of the MWP being worldwide, but, really, I love the suggestion that the MWP was localized to the European area and all that great farming and human activities led to the LIA.

While vividly re-creating a bygone civilization, he invites us to look beyond our significant but ultimately superficial differences and recognize that we too live in fragile equilibrium with the natural world whose resources we recklessly exploit, and that like our medieval forebears we may well be vulnerable to “a sudden shift in the weather.”

Strange how shifts to cool cause so many problems for Mankind while things go well when warm, eh?

Read: Warmist Uses Little Ice Age To Position Climate Change As Bad »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a fish that surely died from the acidic ocean, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theo Spark, with a post offering Boehner and McConnell terms of their surrender.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Change May Prevent Contact With Alien Civilizations

By William Teach June 12, 2014 – 10:55 am

Is there anything that Hotcoldwetdry can’t mess up?

(Phys.org) Enrico Fermi, when asked about intelligent life on other planets, famously replied, “Where are they?” Any civilisation advanced enough to undertake interstellar travel would, he argued, in a brief period of cosmic time, populate its entire galaxy. Yet, we haven’t made any contact with such life. This has become the famous “Fermi Paradox”. (snip)

So why don’t we see advanced civilisations swarming across the universe? One problem may be climate change. It is not that advanced civilisations always destroy themselves by over-heating their biospheres (although that is a possibility). Instead, because stars become brighter as they age, most planets with an initially life-friendly climate will become uninhabitably hot long before emerges. (snip)

However, the universe is immense and a few rare worlds will have had the necessary good fortune. It may just be that Earth is one of those lucky planets – a precious, fragile jewel in space. So, perhaps inevitably, will remain a bane of the continued existence of life on such planets.

via Anthony Watts.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change May Prevent Contact With Alien Civilizations »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Climate Change May Prevent Contact With Alien Civilizations | Trackback URL

Liberal Media Are Very Concerned Over Cantor’s Primary Loss

By William Teach June 12, 2014 – 7:25 am

They are Very Concerned about the extremists taking over or something. Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board

The forces of political nihilism not only remain alive and well within the Republican Party, but they are on the rise. Witness the way they shook Washington on Tuesday by removing from power Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who had been one of the most implacable opponents to the reform of immigration, health care and taxation. His crime (in addition to complacent campaigning)? He was occasionally obliged, as a leader, to take a few minimalist steps toward governing, like raising the debt ceiling and ending a ruinous shutdown.

For that he was pilloried in his Virginia district by a little-known resident of the distant extremes, David Brat, whose most effective campaign tool was a photo showing Mr. Cantor standing next to President Obama. By falsely portraying the seven-term incumbent as just another compromiser, just another accommodationist to the power of big government, Mr. Brat managed the unimaginable feat of bringing down a majority leader in a primary, and by double digits.

And here’s Charles Blow

While the beltway chatter grows over the political death of Eric Cantor, the first House leader to be unseated in a primary, it would be easy to lose sight of just how unsettling his demise is for our politics in general.

On one level, it is a glaring example — and condemnation — of the staggering levels of voter apathy that exist the further an election race is from presidential politics. (WT note: that would be a good reason to repeal the 17th amendment, which would cause citizens to pay way more attention State politics and politics closer to home. That’s different post on its own)

Blow goes on to show that he is Very Concerned with redistricting, which he claims to be a cause, and goes on to whine about Democrats being under-represented. Hey, elections have consequences.

We already have a deadlocked political system in Washington where doing nothing is viewed by many small-government — and some anti-government — conservatives as a victory. Stacking the deck against politicians who deign to compromise with their Democratic counterparts in general, and this president in particular, does not bode well for us as a nation.

In reality, a Republican compromise is usually an overwhelming Democrat win, because of moderates like Cantor.

Cantor’s defeat on Tuesday may now be the subject of schadenfreude and chops licking, but it may also be a terrible omen.

Yeah, it would be a real shame if non-squishy Republicans took over to push their agenda of limited government, reduced spending, reduced federal government interference in, well, everything, increased economic freedom, increased domestic energy production, protecting our borders, increased personal freedom, limited government spying on citizens, and following the Constitution. I wonder where Blow’s concern regarding hardcore, extremist Progressives taking over the Democrat Party is?

Here’s E.J. Dionne, who calls this a “purge”

Republicans who simply want to keep tacking right to maintain their power should also note that if the tea party helped mobilize support for them in 2010, it now threatens to reduce the party to a right-wing sect. (snip)

Appeasing the tea party could create a vicious cycle: The more the party is defined by a hard core, the easier it will be for the most conservative voters to dominate it in primaries involving only the most ardent. (snip)

What the tea party giveth, the tea party taketh away. Its energy in 2010 was directed against President Obama and helped Cantor become House majority leader. Now its sights are set on purifying and purging the Republican Party. But purges, as Cantor has learned, are painful. They can also be dangerous to a party’s long-term well-being.

He’s right about one thing: what we giveth, we can taketh away. And when our Representatives, which we donated to, campaigned for, supported, and voted for fail to follow through on the Conservative agenda, we should vote them out. Another NY Times article notes, as many others have, that Cantor forgot his roots, and was ignoring his constituents in his district in favor of everything else. This isn’t a problem for just Cantor, but a good chunk of Republicans and Democrats. Elected officials too often forget why they were elected, and dismiss the concerns of their constituents, often in favor of national politics.

After carefully considering Cantor’s loss Tuesday, I’m not going to say that it was an “earthquake”, as many have noted. I’d bet that half who voted in the primary had no idea that he was the #2 in the GOP House. This isn’t a purge, this may or many not mean a populist revolution, there may or may not be national implications. What this did show is that Representatives should represent, not think they can say one thing to their constituents then do something else in Washington. That their constituents do not exist to simply re-elected said representative again and again. That Citizens matter. That the middle matters.

The middle? Yes, the middle. At the end of the day, fiscal conservatives/libertarians/Tea Party folks are in the middle of the political spectrum (I’m not including Social Conservatives, who are more towards the Classical Conservative spectrum). Political theory regarding the Democratic model has Socialism on the left, which features heavy control and ownership of the means of production as its primary focus. Classical Conservatism is on the right, which features no government involvement in the economy, along with heavy government involvement in social issues. Classical Liberalism is in the center, and lives by the phrase “the government that governs least governs best”. We believe that government should only get involved in the Moral (this relates to our private lives) and Economic cores when necessary. We are the Radical Middle. In terms of American politics and our Republic, we want more power returned back to the States, where it belongs. We are the Radical Middle, and are tired of the true extremists, both in the Democrat Party and the GOP establishment, taking the country off the cliff.

Anyhow, Cantor and the GOP establishment learned a valuable lesson: stop ignoring constituents.

Read: Liberal Media Are Very Concerned Over Cantor’s Primary Loss »

Posted in GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove