.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Some pictures from "The Alma Blueberry Festival" I previously wrote about in a memo entitled: "A Norman Rockwell Weekend with Jerald and Carole Cohen."
Top left is a picture taken at John Bennett's Blueberry Processing Plant - Lynn, Jerald, Carole, Me and John. We had to wear these stupid hair nets 'cause OSHA said so!
Top right is the Blueberry T Shirt I bought at Cohen's Department store.
Lower left: is a picture of Carole and Lynn shopping at Cohen's.
Lower right is a picture of Carole and Lynn packing the van with blueberries and blueberry trees to give to for friends in Savannah
===
There are some beautiful things in life that the media does capture. Beautiful Thai ad
===
Obama is weighing his Iraq options as if he really has any. He closed the door on that war and said what a smart boy I am. Now he looks a bit stupid but then what difference does it make!
As for Biden, who said Iraq would be just fine, he has proven, once again, never to be right. The man is beyond stupid and that is why Obama chose him to be his V.P. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
===
A different take on Obama's manufactured 'child tragedy.' (See 2 below.)
Obama is weighing his Iraq options as if he really has any. He closed the door on that war and said what a smart boy I am. Now he looks a bit stupid but then what difference does it make!
As for Biden, who said Iraq would be just fine, he has proven, once again, never to be right. The man is beyond stupid and that is why Obama chose him to be his V.P. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
===
A different take on Obama's manufactured 'child tragedy.' (See 2 below.)
===
An Australian's take on climate change. (See 3 below.)
===
Six Supreme Court decisions to be on the look out for. (See 4 below.)
===
John Fund on Cantor!. (See 5 below.)
===
Interesting take on European landscape. (See 6 below.)
===
Interesting take on European landscape. (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1) John McCain on Iraq: U.S. pays heavy ‘price’
By JONATHAN Topaz
.1) John McCain on Iraq: U.S. pays heavy ‘price’
By JONATHAN Topaz
Sen. John McCain continued his blistering attack on President Barack Obama’s handling of Iraq on Friday, again calling for his entire national security team to be replaced and saying his decisions have been very costly.
“The president wanted out and now we are paying a heavy price,” the Arizona Republican said on MSNBC.
McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also reiterated his call for the president to fire his entire national security team, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
“Everyone on the national security team,” he said, when asked who the president should let go. “They have been a total failure.”
McCain, though, did not explicitly advocate a U.S. strategy for helping the crisis now, remaining noncommittal on the potential use of airstrikes against militants in the country. Instead, he called on the president to enlist the advice of retired Army Gens. David Petraeus and Jack Keane, two of the architects of the surge.
The senator linked the situation in Iraq with the civil war in Syria, citing the “failure” of the administration to commit resources in both of the neighboring countries. McCain has often slammed the administration for what he perceives as inaction in Syria and a lack of commitment to the Syrian opposition.
And McCain said that if Obama withdraws completely from Afghanistan, that country will also destabilize rapidly. “You’re going to see the same thing in Afghanistan if we don’t leave a residual force behind,” he claimed, saying he can “guarantee” it.
On Thursday, McCain, who had in 2011 called for troops to be left behind in Iraq to stabilize the situation, called the administration’s pullout a “colossal failure of American security policy.”
The senator has long been a critic of the president on Iraq, dating back to their 2008 presidential campaign. McCain, the Republican nominee in that election cycle, repeatedly criticized then-Sen. Obama for arguing against the troop surge.
1a) The Men Who Sealed Iraq's Disaster With a Handshake
1a) The Men Who Sealed Iraq's Disaster With a Handshake
Obama's rush for the exit and Maliki's autocratic rule ensured that much hard-won progress would not last.
Two men bear direct responsibility for the mayhem engulfing Iraq: Barack Obama and Nouri al-Maliki. The U.S. president and Iraqi prime minister stood shoulder to shoulder in a White House ceremony in December 2011 proclaiming victory. Mr. Obama was fulfilling a campaign pledge to end the Iraq war. There was a utopian tone to his pronouncement, suggesting that the conflicts that had been endemic to that region would be brought to an end. As for Mr. Maliki, there was the heady satisfaction, in his estimation, that Iraq would be sovereign and intact under his dominion.
In truth, Iraq's new Shiite prime minister was trading American tutelage for Iranian hegemony. Thus the claim that Iraq was a fully sovereign country was an idle boast. Around the Maliki regime swirled mightier, more sinister players. In addition to Iran's penetration of Iraqi strategic and political life, there was Baghdad's unholy alliance with the brutal Assad regime in Syria, whose members belong to an Alawite Shiite sect and were taking on a largely Sunni rebellion. If Bashar Assad were to fall, Mr. Maliki feared, the Sunnis of Iraq would rise up next.
Now, even as Assad clings to power in Damascus, Iraq's Sunnis have risen up and joined forces with the murderous, al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which controls much of northern Syria and the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit. ISIS marauders are now marching on the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, and Baghdad itself has become a target.
President Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, December 2011. Getty Images
In a dire sectarian development on Friday, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on his followers to take up arms against ISIS and other Sunni insurgents in defense of the Baghdad government. This is no ordinary cleric playing with fire. For a decade, Ayatollah Sistani stayed on the side of order and social peace. Indeed, at the height of Iraq's sectarian troubles in 2006-07, President George W. Bush gave the ayatollah credit for keeping the lid on that volcano. Now even that barrier to sectarian violence has been lifted.
This sad state of affairs was in no way preordained. In December 2011, Mr. Obama stood with Mr. Maliki and boasted that "in the coming years, it's estimated that Iraq's economy will grow even faster than China's or India's." But the negligence of these two men—most notably in their failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have maintained an adequate U.S. military presence in Iraq—has resulted in the current descent into sectarian civil war.
There was, not so long ago, a way for Mr. Maliki to avoid all this: the creation of a genuine political coalition, making good on his promise that the Kurds in the north and the Sunnis throughout the country would be full partners in the Baghdad government. Instead, the Shiite prime minister set out to subjugate the Sunnis and to marginalize the Kurds. There was, from the start, no chance that this would succeed. For their part, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq were possessed of a sense of political mastery of their own. After all, this was a community that had ruled Baghdad for a millennium. Why should a community that had known such great power accept sudden marginality?
As for the Kurds, they had conquered a history of defeat and persecution and built a political enterprise of their own—a viable military institution, a thriving economy and a sense of genuine national pride. The Kurds were willing to accept the federalism promised them in the New Iraq. But that promise rested, above all else, on the willingness on the part of Baghdad to honor a revenue-sharing system that had decreed a fair allocation of the country's oil income. This, Baghdad would not do. The Kurds were made to feel like beggars at the Maliki table.
Sadly, the Obama administration accepted this false federalism and its façade. Instead of aiding the cause of a reasonable Kurdistan, the administration sided with Baghdad at every turn. In the oil game involving Baghdad, Irbil, the Turks and the international oil companies, the Obama White House and State Department could always be found standing with the Maliki government.
With ISIS now reigning triumphant in Fallujah, in the oil-refinery town of Baiji, and, catastrophically, in Mosul, the Obama administration cannot plead innocence. Mosul is particularly explosive. It sits astride the world between Syria and Iraq and is economically and culturally intertwined with the Syrian territories. This has always been Mosul's reality. There was no chance that a war would rage on either side of Mosul without it spreading next door. The Obama administration's vanishing "red lines" and utter abdication in Syria were bound to compound Iraq's troubles.
Grant Mr. Maliki the harvest of his sectarian bigotry. He has ridden that sectarianism to nearly a decade in power. Mr. Obama's follies are of a different kind. They're sins born of ignorance. He was eager to give up the gains the U.S. military and the Bush administration had secured in Iraq. Nor did he possess the generosity of spirit to give his predecessors the credit they deserved for what they had done in that treacherous landscape.
As he headed for the exits in December 2011, Mr. Obama described Mr. Maliki as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq." One suspects that Mr. Obama knew better. The Iraqi prime minister had already shown marked authoritarian tendencies, and there were many anxieties about him among the Sunnis and Kurds. Those communities knew their man, while Mr. Obama chose to look the other way.
Today, with his unwillingness to use U.S. military force to save Syrian children or even to pull Iraq back from the brink of civil war, the erstwhile leader of the Free World is choosing, yet again, to look the other way.
Mr. Ajami, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "The Syrian Rebellion"
1b) ISIS Rampages, the Middle East Shakes
By Daniel Pipes
1b) ISIS Rampages, the Middle East Shakes
By Daniel Pipes
The jihadis' takeover of Mosul on June 9 won them control of Iraq's second-largest city, a major haul weapons, US$429 million in gold, an open path to conquer Tikrit, Samarra, and perhaps the capital city of Baghdad. The Iraqi Kurds have seized Kirkuk. This is the most important event in the Middle East since the Arab upheavals began in 2010. Here's why:
Regional threat: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a designated terror group, is in a position to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Syria and perhaps beyond, starting with Jordan. Straddling the Iraq-Syrian border, it may both erase the nearly century-old border between these two colonial creations and end their existence as unitary states, thereby overturning the Middle Eastern political order as it emerged from World War I. Rightly does the U.S. government call ISIS “a threat to the entire region.”
Map with towns under the control of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Map with towns under the control of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Unexpected strength: These developments establish that the most extreme and violent form of Islamism, as represented by Al-Qaeda and like groups, can go beyond terrorism to form guerilla militias that conquer territory and challenge governments. In this, ISIS joins the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Nusra Front in Syria, Ansar Dine in Mali, and Boko Haram in Nigeria.
A suicide bomber along with Al-Qaeda's flag (“There is no deity but God, Muhammad is the prophet of God”) and “The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” both below and in the upper right.
Muslims hate Islamism: Thanks to the ferocious reputation ISIS has established in its capital city of Raqqa, Syria, and elsewhere, an estimated quarter of Mosul's population of almost two million has fled. The current round of ISIS brutality will newly render Islamism obnoxious to millions more Muslims.
A suicide bomber along with Al-Qaeda's flag (“There is no deity but God, Muhammad is the prophet of God”) and “The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” both below and in the upper right.
Muslims hate Islamism: Thanks to the ferocious reputation ISIS has established in its capital city of Raqqa, Syria, and elsewhere, an estimated quarter of Mosul's population of almost two million has fled. The current round of ISIS brutality will newly render Islamism obnoxious to millions more Muslims.
Mosul residents fleeing ISIS turned roads into parking lots.
Ultimate frustration: Therefore, however much damage the Al-Qaeda-type organizations an do to property and lives, they ultimately cannot emerge victorious (meaning, a caliph applying Islamic law in its entirety and severity) because their undiluted extremism both alienates Muslims and scares non-Muslims. In the end, tactically cautious forms of Islamism (e.g., that of Fethullah Gülen in Turkey) have the greatest potential because they appeal to a broader swath of Muslims and less worry non-Muslims.
Sunnis vs. Shi'ites: ISIS military advances directly threaten Iraq's Shi'ite dominated, pro-Iran regime. Tehran cannot allow it to go under; accordingly, Iranian forces have already helped retake Tikrit and greater Iranian involvement has been promised. This points to a replica of the ethnic lines in Syria's civil war, with Turkish-backed Sunni jihadis rebelling against an Iranian-backed Shi'ite-oriented central government. As in Syria, this confrontation leads to a humanitarian disaster even as it turns Islamists against each other, thereby serving Western interests.
The Mosul Dam looms: In the 1980s, Saudis and other Arabs funded a poorly constructed, quickie dam on the Tigris River about 35 miles northwest of Mosul. Substandard construction means it leaks and needs constant grouting and other expensive measures to avoid cataclysmic collapse. Will ISIS hotheads continue these repair works? Or might they skimp on them, thereby threatening not just Mosul but much of inhabited Iraq with catastrophic flooding?
American failure: More clearly than ever, the success of ISIS forces exposes the over-ambitious goals of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (and, likewise, of Afghanistan), which cost the West thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars. The fancy façade of $53 billion in American-sponsored institutions, from failed hospitals to the Iraqi National Symphony, have been exposed as the fiasco they are. ISIS soldiers standing triumphant atop U.S.-supplied military equipment brings home the folly of once-high American hopes for “a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq.”
Republicans: Republicans unfairly blame the ISIS victories on Barack Obama: no, George W. Bush made the commitment to remake Iraq and he signed the “Status of Forces Agreement” in 2008 that terminated the American military presence in Iraq at the close of 2011. For the Republican Party to move progress in foreign policy, it must acknowledge these errors and learn from them, not avoid them by heaping blame on Obama.
Democrats: The execution of Osama bin Laden three years ago was an important symbolic step of vengeance. But it made almost no difference operationally and it's time for Obama to stop crowing about Al-Qaeda being defeated. In fact, Al-Qaeda and its partners are more dangerous than ever, having moved on from terrorism to conquering territory. The well being of Americans and others depend on this reality being recognized and acted upon.
Western policy: This is basically a Middle Eastern problem and outside powers should aim to protect their own interests, not solve the Middle East's crises. Tehran, not we, should fight ISIS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Obama's Children's Crusade
2) Obama's Children's Crusade
The Children’s Crusade that has invaded our southern borders has an amazing number of well-fed gangster types, grabbing their crotches and giving the finger to the news cameras. These adult-sized gangsters are not children, and they don’t act like children. They are doing sex, dope, and almost certainly work in criminal collusion with the biggest Mexican drug cartel, Sinaloa. They certainly look more like drug smugglers and mules for the youngsters who have apparently been abandoned by their real parents and by governments south of the border, to go wandering north under conditions that simply invite abuse.
Would you send your own kids in wild mobs to a strange land? Do Hispanics love and protect their children less than we do? No. This is another Obama agit-prop stunt, like the Tahrir Square “spontaneous demonstration” that brought Muslim Bro Mohammed Morsi to power in Egypt. Bill Ayers was involved in those demonstrations at Egypt’s borders with Gaza, where he agitated for the barriers to come down and let Hamas into Egypt. Then the Egyptians came to their senses, and overthrew Morsi for El Sisi, a man in the mold of Anwar Sadat.
Mob agitation is a standard operating tactic of these people, in close collusion with leftist media and agitator groups like the Ruckus Society, and of course our Rotten Media.
So now we have a U.S. president assaulting our southern borders. Think about that.
Isn’t it always the same in this administration?
Three power centers had to come together to fake this refugee crisis -- with the healthiest-looking refugees in history.
First is the Obama Administration, which has a long history of doing this -- based on Alinsky and ACORN training manuals. The Children’s Crusade is just another variation of Occupy Wall Street, filled with rich trust-fund kids from Upper Manhattan, who had to take the subway all the way down to Wall Street for their heroic demos against “the 1%” -- like their parents. Ayers always said that “kill your parents” is the key to The Revolution. Well, the Wall Street Occupishers trashed and excreted on the streets for the eager cameristas of the New York Times (which helped organize the demos), leaving the black and Hispanic workers of the Sanitation Department to clean up.
The second big power center colluding in this assault are governments south of the border, which always play footsie with the radical left down there, like La Raza, and the cartels.
Newspapers in Central America have been actively encouraging children to throw themselves on the mercy of the American people, and to overwhelm our Border Patrol. In any civilized nation that is criminal child abuse, and in this case it is large-scale, highly organized criminal child abuse, probably a defined crime against humanity.
Valerie Jarrett met “several times” with La Raza and its ilk, who want to turn the United States into “Azatlan.” -- because they are entitled to own this country, of course. Our Rotten Media are playing along, as we have seen a thousand times.
The third colluding organization is the Sinaloa Cartel, the biggest and most dangerous organized drug mob, which received arms from this administration in the Fast and Furious scandal. Sinaloa used those weapons to destroy their competition south of the border, and to intimidate the U.S. Border Patrol.
Sinaloa had to be involved in the Children’s Crusade, because they control the southern border, probably more effectively than we do.
What we are seeing therefore is an Obama-La Raza-Sinaloa alliance at work.
You need to know only three facts about Sinaloa: they are huge, they are very dangerous, and they have penetrated our political-media class in cities like Chicago. This follows Alinsky doctrine that the left rises to power by building alliances with the criminal mafia against the middle class.
This administration seems to love radical gangs of all kinds, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (slogan: All we want is to die in the way of Allah!); to Hamas, which has just received de facto recognition as part of the Pals; to Hizb’allah, the Iranian proxy terror group, which runs Lebanon and does widespread drug smuggling in South America; to Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, which is being supported by the United States and Qatar to head-chop all the infidels they want, in exchange for slicing up Assad’s control of Syria.
As SecState, Hillary Clinton allowed high-level Moob infiltration by such as Huma Abedin, her “close aide,” and former Moob magazine editrix. In this administration, if the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t know something, it’s not worth knowing.
Add that to Obama’s utter surrender to the mullahs’ nuclear program, and there is no more reasonable doubt: this administration sides with our most ferocious enemies.
That is the political context for the Children’s Crusade today, timed exquisitely to coincide with the amnesty bill the RINOs were going to help Obama to push through Congress.
Just an amazing coincidence, you see.
When the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam, desperate Vietnamese clung to the last helicopters lifting off from our embassy roof. They were truly desperate, because soon they were going to be killed or corralled in death camps, as we later saw from the Vietnamese Boat People, who sometimes made it on rafts to the safety of U.S. Navy ships, years later. Those people deserved our compassionate help to escape the death grip of Ho Chi Minh.
Today’s Children’s Crusade is a very different thing. These well-fed and reportedly sexually-active kids are not refugees. They don’t look desperate. Their long bus ride across the U.S. border is not an act of desperation, and their parents, aunts, and uncles are not far behind. No; this is an organized mob, run by adults (including Valerie Jarrett and her kind), in collusion with governments and mafias south of the border -- to give our radical leftist media a chance for another tear-jerking photo op for the Hopeless Suckers of America. This is community disorganizing the Obama way. It is the scofflaw pattern we have learned to expect from this Chicago Way administration. For the internationalist media it’s Hurricane Katrina playbook, repeated to the point of boredom. Haven’t we seen these stunts before?
Americans do not want to believe it, but everybody is beginning to smell massive corruption and national betrayal in this administration. We are seeing terrorist and gangland penetration. Terror gangs like Hizb’allah also deal drugs throughout Latin America. Just look at the facts.
The medieval Children’s Crusade ended in death and slavery for the children who were enticed into it. In this case, La Raza, ValJar, Obama and the Sinaloa drug cartel seem to be in collusion in a crime against human rights.
The DEA stated two years ago that the Sinaloa Cartel is “so deeply embedded in Chicago, we have to operate the way we do on the border.”
Which throws a whole new light on this administration. For example, the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal is usually thought to be an anti-gun stunt by Obama and Holder. But factor in the Sinaloa Cartel in Chicago, and Alinsky’s preaching for a radical alliance with the Chicago mafia -- then Fast and Furious begins to look like gunrunning to benefit the Sinaloa Cartel, so it could kill off the competition on the Mexican border. Sinaloa wants to break down border enforcement, and being armed to the teeth works just fine for them.
A similar political-mob alliance was negotiated in Chicago a dozen years ago by Jesse Jackson. Obama rose in the Illinois Machine, mentored by the Godfather, Emil Jones. Connect the dots...
When Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan right before the Bergdahl surrender speech at the Rose Garden, it was proclaimed to be a gesture of appreciation for the troops, despite the fact that Mohammed Karzai, the embattled but elected president of Afghanistan, didn’t want him there and remained aloof during the visit. (Imagine the media response if something like that had happened to George W. Bush.)
The fact – as Karzai well knows – is that Obama is getting ready to surrender Afghanistan to the worst terrorist, woman-hating, child-abusing, America-fighting gangs, because that is his ideology.
Read that again if you don’t believe it, and then simply look at the facts. Obama’sDreams of my Father is a tribute to his Mau Mau-supporting biological father, the Third World radical. The Mau Mau operated by head-chopping isolated white farm families in Kenya, slaughtering thousands before the Brit authorities brought them under control. .
That is standard operating procedure for “liberation terrorists” in Obama’s book. For Obama, the Al Qaeda affiliates who decapitated children in the Christian Syrian village of Ma’aloula were not committing the greatest evil humans are capable of. Those kids were only unlucky bystanders in the guerilla theater of jihadist Islam. The children and adults who were butchered in Nairobi’s Western Mall for the world to see were both white and black. But Al Qaeda didn’t care, because Allah will know his own when their souls fly to heaven for judgment. The 300 (by now) Nigerian girls who were stolen from their families and sold into Arab slavery -- like all the ancestors of American blacks -- are not really important in Obama’s cold mind. Nor were the young people in Tehran demonstrating against the sadistic mullahs in Iran at the start of this administration important. Who cares if mullahs quote from Allah to authorize the rape of women on death row?
The ACORN manual says it plainly: In politics, might is right. That is a Hitler slogan. Most Americans are political dopes and dupes, but some of us remember who gave Osama bin Laden safe haven in Afghanistan, to plan and execute 9/11/01. The Taliban are Wahhabi fanatics, a carbon copy of Al Qaeda.
The Haqqani network that captured Bowe Bergdahl is in cahoots with Iran, but Islamic fascists make tactical alliances all the time. They have a common enemy -- all the infidels of the world, especially America and Israel.
As for Western Europe, it has already surrendered to a massive infiltration campaign, paid for by the oil regimes.
A few weeks ago, Tony Blair wrote an article proposing that Europe must combine with Russia to fight Islamic imperialism. He is right -- Europe by itself has lost the will to live. Europe has more than 300 million educated people, but only Russia understands the danger of militant Islam, and acts without mercy. Soon enough, Europe will appeal to Russia for military protection. If our political class remains blind, deaf and dumb we may yet have to appeal to Putin and China to save us from the Obamas of this world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell
The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil
carbon dioxide that we are trying to
suppress - it’s that vital chemical
compound that every plant requires to
live and grow and to synthesize into
oxygen for us humans and all animal
life.
I know....it's very disheartening to
realize that all of the carbon emission
savings you have accomplished while
suffering the inconvenience and expense
of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric
grocery bags, sitting up till midnight
to finish your kids "The Green
Revolution" science project, throwing
out all of your non-green cleaning supplies using only two squares of toilet paper using a broken toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your
bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent
light bulbs with $10.00 light
bulbs.....well, all of those things you
have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the
Earth's atmosphere in just four days -
yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in
Iceland has totally erased every single
effort you have made to reduce the evil
beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud EVERY
DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your
parade too much, but I should mention
that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo
erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it
spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for
over one year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this
'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and
mention the effect of solar and cosmic
activity and the well-recognized
800-year global heating and cooling
cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to
affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to
this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of
the matter is that the bush fire season
across the western USA and Australia
this year alone will negate your efforts
to reduce carbon in our world for the
next two to three years. And it happens
every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus
'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t
mention 'Global Warming' anymore,
but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by
0.7 degrees in the past century and
these global warming bullshit artists
got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might
yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme -
that whopping new tax - imposed on
you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from
erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax...... and have a nice
day!"
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian
geologist, professor emeritus of earth
sciences at the University of Melbourneprofessor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide and director of mining and exploration and
mining companies. He has published
130 scientific papers, six books and
edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)-- Six Supreme Court Decisions to Watch for This Month --- and Why They Matter
By Grant Burningham
It’s that time of year again, when the Supreme Court wraps up its term ahead of the summer and court watchers anxiously await decisions in the year’s major cases.
Already this term, the nine justices have handed down some momentous decisions: They struck a blow toaffirmative action, opened the door to more campaign spending from rich donors and gave a green light toprayer in public meetings.
But some of the court’s biggest cases have yet to be decided. Between now and June 26, the Supreme Court will rule on issues from the Affordable Care Act to abortion clinic protections to labor unions.
Here’s a look at the top cases to expect this month—and why they matter.
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. andConestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius: In the most closely watched cases this term, the Supreme Court’s decision will uphold or strike down the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance plans include coverage for all contraceptive options approved by the federal government. In the two cases, religious business owners argued that the law violates their religious liberty by forcing them to provide their employees with benefits they object to on religious grounds.
On its face, Obamacare’s contraception coverage rule—and coverage for at least tens of thousands of employees and their family members—is on the line. But in the long term, the case could have ramifications on business’s ability to claim religious exemptions from federal laws, ranging from coverage of other medical procedures to minimum wage requirements.
The case is likely to come down on the last day of the term, currently scheduled for June 26. As is true of many cases on this ideologically divided court, all eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy as the likely deciding vote.
The case has garnered considerable attention, with conservatives generally concerned about freedom of religion issues while liberals want to protect women’s access to reproductive coverage options. Newsweek covered the oral arguments, as well as the ins and outs of the legal issues at stake.
Harris v. Quinn: An under-the-radar labor case with potentially huge consequences, Harris v. Quinn could decide the future of public sector unions. At issue is whether government employees’ mandatory payment of union dues is constitutional.
In this case, home-care providers in Illinois who are paid with Medicaid funds are arguing that compulsory payments to the SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana, the union that has negotiated with the state of Illinois to represent home-care workers, violate their First Amendment rights of free speech and association. These mandatory dues are not used for any of the political activities the union undertakes.
Public sector unions have been a target of Republican lawmakers in recent years, as GOP governors like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker have sought to roll back unions’ bargaining rights. Many conservative groups are supporting Harris and her fellow home-care providers in the case.
But this case could produce a twist on that trend: If the unions prevail, they may have conservative Justice Antonin Scalia to thank. In a 1991 case, Scalia wholeheartedly endorsed the idea that workers who benefit from union negotiations should not be allowed to be “free riders.” At oral arguments, Scalia appearedsympathetic to the union’s argument.
For millions of public employees, constitutional scholar Garrett Epps wrote after oral arguments in January, “Their collective-bargaining rights are hanging by a thread.”
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning: Fascination with this complex case about the president’s recess appointment power has largely been limited to history and politics nerds. But it could cripple the power of the presidency.
At issue is the president’s power to make recess appointments, a common practice in which the president can appoint judges and top administration officials for limited terms without the Senate’s approval when Congress is not in session.
A little history is in order to explain this case. The Founding Fathers included the recess appointment authority as an exception to the general rule that important appointments receive the “advice and consent” of the Senate because, especially in the 18th century, travel made it hard for all Senators to gather quickly. Now, as obstruction of presidential nominees has become common practice in Washington, presidents have coped by using their recess appointment power more often. The Senate has tried to combat this by using technicalities to keep the Senate from officially being in recess, even when the Senate isn’t conducting any business for weeks at a time.
This reached a fever pitch under President Obama, and in particular in Republicans’ refusal to allow any of his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Without a quorum on the five-member board, the NLRB could not function. So in January 2012, when the Senate was not technically yet for all intents and purposes in recess, he appointed three new members.
A soft drink company, Noel Canning, challenged the NLRB appointments in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the recess appointment clause was vastly narrower than any president has interpreted it: The D.C. Circuit Court held that the Constitution only allows for recess appointments during the brief recess that occurs every two years between sessions of Congress, and that it only applies to vacancies created during that recess. Essentially, the court nullified the recess appointment power.
At the Supreme Court, oral arguments looked grim for the government defending the recess appointment power as even the liberal justices couldn’t find justification for a broad recess appointment power in the Constitution.
In the short term, a decision restricting the appointment power will have little effect. But over the next several years, it could cripple a president’s ability to appoint judges, run the executive branch, and allow anti-NLRB Republicans to essentially kill a government agency by refusing to seat a president’s nominees, crippling labor unions who depend on the NLRB.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.: This case pits the major broadcasters against an online video-streaming startup, but more than the future of one small company is at stake.
Aereo, a two-year-old company, allows its subscribers to stream local, broadcast television over any Internet-connected device. Even though Aereo is pulling content off public airwaves, the broadcasters argue that Aereo is stealing their content.
If Aereo wins, Americans across the country may soon begin to circumvent cable companies by streaming local TV online. Broadcasters may retaliate by taking popular content like the Super Bowl off public television.
But it’s not Americans’ TV-watching routines that is keeping copyright experts up at night. What’s most worrisome is whether the Supreme Court throws copyright law into chaos when it hands down a decision. That could spell trouble for services that use the same technologies as Aereo—major companies using cloud-based storage like Amazon and Dropbox.
As one such worried expert told Newsweek in April, "The possibility for upsetting the apple cart considerably with respect to those other services I think is pretty high.”
McCullen v. Coakley: This case combines the two issues in which passions run particularly high: the First Amendment and abortion.
Over the past several decades, certain states have responded to heated protests and occasional violence outside abortion clinics by placing limits on how close a protester can be to a clinic—seeking to strike a balance between the rights of patients and public safety on one side and the free speech rights of those who oppose abortion on the other. In 1994, the federal government barred the use of intimidation, force and obstruction outside clinics.
In Massachusetts, the state passed a so-called “buffer zone” law prohibiting people from congregating within 35 feet of a clinic entrance, exit or driveway. The law prevents Eleanor McCullen, a 77-year-old grandmother and the plaintiff in this case, from trying to offer information about alternatives to abortion to women entering the clinic. Lawyers for McCullen and other protesters argue that the law discriminates against people like McCullen for their beliefs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and silences speech protected under the First Amendment.
After oral arguments, it seems that Massachusetts is unlikely to find five votes to uphold its law. The question for many court watchers is not whether Massachusetts's law is struck down, but whether the court will hand down a sweeping ruling striking down buffer zone laws across the country with it.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus: This case is yet another First Amendment challenge brought by abortion advocates. This time, the dispute centers on an Ohio statute that criminalizes intentionally false statements made in political advertisements.
In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works to elect pro-life candidates, ran radio spots claiming that then-Representative Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, voted for taxpayer-subsidized abortion. In fact, Driehaus had simply voted for the Affordable Care Act. His lawyers sounded off to Susan B. Anthony List, and Driehaus complained to the state election commission about a violation of Ohio’s truth-in-politics law.
Driehaus lost his election and moved to Africa, but Susan B. Anthony List was so incensed by the statute that they pressed forward with a challenge to the law in court.
At oral arguments, Scalia expressed concern about a “ministry of truth” chilling the free exchange of political ideas. (What’s a First Amendment case without a reference to George Orwell’s 1984?) Other justices pondered whether our public discourse is well served if political advertisements can falsely accuse politicians of murder while enjoying First Amendment protections.
For procedural reasons, the court may only rule on whether Susan B. Anthony List is a proper party to challenge the law, saving the big questions for another day. But if the court reaches the merits of the Ohio statute—and statutes like it in 15 other states—expect it to be struck down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His departure may have spared us a terrible revision of the Voting Rights Act.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, many liberals privately mourn the departure of Eric Cantor from the ranks of the House GOP leadership. At a symposium on Wednesday sponsored by the Hill newspaper on “Voting in America,” several of the attendees told me that they and Majority Leader Cantor were within striking distance of a compromise to restore many of the provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court last year as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that certain provisions that singled out certain states and jurisdictions for special oversight based on 50-year-old data were obsolete and could no longer be justified. Liberal civil-rights groups were furious and vowed to pass a “restoration” bill restoring all of the Justice Department’s power over federal elections.
“It was a heavy lift for Cantor, but we were closer to getting him to be reasonable than with any other senior Republican in leadership,” one civil-rights attorney told me. “We found we could do business with him.”
Now, all that “cooperation” may be in ruins with Cantor’s stunning departure.Slate’s Dave Weigel reports that with Cantor’s defeat the “effort to restore the Voting Rights Act to its former glory is certainly dead.” I would agree, if the time frame is before the November election. But the plan was always to convince Cantor and other GOP leaders to go along with the Voting Rights Act restoration after the November elections in an omnibus bill in which this provision would be lumped in with “must-pass” provisions and pushed through as a package. No single vote would likely be taken that would identify which Republicans wanted to cave in to liberal pressure groups on the issue. “No fingerprints, no evidence for primary challengers,” is how Susan Carleson of the conservative American Civil Rights Union put it to me.
Representative Cantor has been strangely silent on the Voting Rights Amendment Act since it was introduced in January with the support of 80 liberal groups along with renegade GOP representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who recently demonstrated in a James O’Keefe “sting” video just how little he understands his own bill.
Many constitutional scholars point out that the sections of the Voting Rights Act that were untouched by last year’s Supreme Court ruling are completely adequate to deal with voting discrimination. Section 2 is a permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting, and the Justice Department is empowered under it to sue local governments if any laws result, even unintentionally, in discriminatory “results.” Section 3 allows a court to impose a pre-clearance requirement for any election-law change in any jurisdiction where the court finds there is intentional misconduct.
But for civil-rights groups, the need to maintain their stranglehold over the election laws of all or part of 16 states is paramount. Indeed, their bill goes far beyond restoring the provisions struck down by the Supreme Court. It would give Attorney General Eric Holder and his successors dramatically expanded power to challenge “any act prohibited by the 14th and 15th Amendments” of the Constitution. This would allow the attorney general to become involved in a whole range of cases unrelated to race discrimination, including such highly partisan events as recounts like the Bush v. Gore fiasco of 2000. “The bill’s stated purpose is to prevent racial discrimination, but under the bill low voter turnout by white voters would not count as a violation, even if they are a minority of voters in the district,” wrote Hans von Spakovsky and Michael Carvin, two former attorneys in Justice’s Civil Rights Division. “If adopted, this would mark the first time that the Voting Rights Act actually excluded some Americans from protection based on their race.”
“The bill that Cantor was talking about backing would have fundamentally changed American elections into race-reliant battlefields,” says Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, a nationwide group promoting vote-integrity measures. Eric Cantor may no longer be around to negotiate a “compromise” on such dangerous additions to the Voting Rights Act, but there are no guarantees that his successor or other Republican leaders won’t succumb to pressure and allow a bad bill to be rushed through in a lame-duck session after the November election. Members of Congress are acutely sensitive to charges of racism, and in the past there has been little they haven’t been stampeded into doing under the right pressure.
But Eric Cantor’s defeat shows that at least Republican voters are looking for leaders made of sterner stuff — leaders who will resist calls to permanently make American elections about the color of our skin, not the content of our political character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
6)
These alarming results, coupled with increasing anti-Semitism and last month’s deadly attack that killed three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, have led many to caution the direction Europe is taking.
To address these concerns and gauge the status of Europe’s relationship with the United States and Israel, Near East Report interviewed Elinadav Heymann, executive director of the European Friends of Israel (EFI).
Born and raised in Israel, Heymann has served as a staffer in the Israeli Knesset for three different parties, as well as in the European Parliament in Brussels as a policy advisor on foreign affairs. Heymann’s organization aims to improve the overall relationship between the European Union and Israel.
NEAR EAST REPORT: Your group, the Brussels-based European Friends of Israel, has often been cited as an organization that does AIPAC-like advocacy in Europe. You have focused on building political relationships in the European Parliament, and increasingly in individual member states. As you step back for a moment, what are some of the bigger trends facing your organization and the pro-Israel movement in Europe today?
ELINADAV HEYMANN: On a more macro scale we face several trends that could be a cause of concern in the future.
First, the European Union is seemingly linking its punitive and incentive-based policies towards Israel to the success or failure of the Middle East peace process. As a result, Israel has often faced the possibility of punitive measures based on the European understanding of the peace negotiations, and the reasons for their success or failure.
Linked to this, the European Parliament, like any parliament, has a tendency to swing back and forth in its policies, ideology and understanding of the Middle East. We have witnessed a swing toward a willingness to accept a Palestinian narrative above an Israeli one, and that has created a challenge—but one that we expect to overcome in the future.
Second, we are seeing a growing movement to try to focus the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the one issue of settlements, while ignoring the wider context and challenges operating in the region. This move has not been wholly successful, and has presented an opportunity for European Friends of Israel (EFI) to provide timely and relevant briefings and information on the Middle East.
NER: The European Parliament held elections last month, which as you recently suggested in a Times of Israel op-ed, “sent alarm bells ringing across the EU.” In your mind, what contributed to the rising number of voters casting their ballots for very left- and-right-wing candidates, including some from fascist and neo-Nazi backgrounds?
EH: The success of the extreme right wing in Europe can be attributed to widespread economic dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement, which have led to high unemployment rates and a growing popular opinion that European leadership has failed the people. These conditions have created rife grounds for far-right activism and recruitment.
This has been seen in Greece, where the economic depression gave way to the rise of the Golden Dawn [an extremist party], while in Hungary, Jobbik [a radical nationalist party] drew support by stating that its minority communities are at fault for ruining the integrity and strength of the country.
Additionally, these difficulties have been compounded by a widely held view that the European Parliament has failed to create strong incentives to support its unified governing structure.
This has been rightly viewed as a warning sign for many across Europe and in Israel, and we are all well aware of the direct danger that these groups pose.
However, we are confident that such extreme groups will not manage to dictate this parliament. Our team is optimistic that the far right will not successfully unify to form a collectively strong front, or act in unison as they are portraying.
For example, the U.K. Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage, has already promised not to enter into a coalition with the French National Front due to the latter’s historical extremism, anti-Semitism and racism. This means that the 24 seats that UKIP and the National Front each won in last month’s elections will remain split in strength.
Furthermore, the coalition that Marie Le Pen is forming under the banner of the ‘European Alliance for Freedom’ has so far gained some 40 seats (with a potential for a few more) out of the possible 751, making the group a force to watch, but by no means strong enough to influence legislation.
Finally, it is worth noting that the most extreme and violent of these groups, including Jobbik, Golden Dawn and the Germany’s neo-Nazi Udo Voigt, constitute just 8 seats out of the 751. While this number doesn’t eliminate the threat, it does diminish these groups’ ability to influence policy on a transnational level.
NER: You were often quoted in Israeli media after the election suggesting that the results “have acted as a warning sign, while also giving some reason for optimism.” Given your concerns about Europe’s political trends, what elements make you optimistic?
EH: The reasons outlined above, and the disunity that we are seeing in the extreme right give us reasons to remain optimistic. The fact that the violent and racially motivated parties such as Jobbik and Golden Dawn will be isolated and weakened, along with the clear divisions between the French National Front and U.K. Independent Party, gives us some hope that the far right is not as strong as projected.
Second, we are optimistic because key friends of Israel who have worked hard to deepen and further the relationship between the EU and Israel have been re-elected to their seats, and EFI has developed strong working relationships with these decision makers. Moreover, several individuals across the political spectrum who have been vocal in opposing Israel and the EU-Israel relationship have lost their seats. This gives us a welcomed sense of balance and optimism.
Finally, we have seen some among the leadership of the European Union act positively toward the EU-Israel relationship in such areas as security cooperation, transport and economic ties.
NER: European anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have become increasingly prevalent in recent years, highlighted by the recent murders at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. Do you believe these trends will become even more pronounced in the coming months and years?
EH: The answer to this is complicated. What we witnessed in the Brussels shooting was shocking and saddening.
We, alongside EU security experts, are concerned about the prospect of further attacks and growing anti-Semitism from individuals who have travelled to and been radicalized in Syria during the conflict, as Mehdi Nemmouche [the perpetrator of the Jewish Museum attack] proved was possible. We continue to work to address the challenge of how to handle fighters returning from the civil war.
Importantly, the Brussels shooting is being viewed as a moment of European awakening to the widespread threat that Islamist terror poses.
Following the attack, we are witnessing a substantive internal policy debate as to what concrete steps should be taken next to prevent this and other threats to Europe.
I hope we are only witnessing a warning sign, and not a permanent trend or state of affairs.
NER: What can the United States and Israel do to combat growing hostility from Europe?
EH: I think we need to slightly refute the premise of the question. I don’t fully believe we are witnessing a growing hostility from Europe. We are certainly witnessing the most hostile of groups and individuals receiving the most coverage and being the most vocal. However, Europe speaks with many voices—many of which have and will work hard to deepen the EU-Israel relationship.
There is certainly a need for the EU, U.S. and Israel to enter into a growing trilateral dialogue and cooperation on many levels. We need to see closer security ties, shared trade, and diplomatic exchanges between all three.
To this end, EFI was very pleased to play a role in the United States-Europe-Israel National Security Forum, an initiative led by AIPAC that brings together senior political and policy officials from the three regions. This tri-lateral summit is highly effective because of the unique security issues shared between all three partners.
We need to make sure that groups seeking to hinder this alliance cannot succeed, and that we continue working to ensure that the EU-U.S.-Israeli strategic alliance is stronger than ever.
NER: You have been very involved with AIPAC over the years. The European Friends of Israel consistently hosts the largest delegation of international elected officials and VIPs to the annual AIPAC Policy Conference. How has your organization’s relationship with AIPAC helped your European pro-Israel advocacy work?
EH: We have been very fortunate to have worked so closely with AIPAC over the years, and have gained a lot from this cooperation.
Practically, our relationship has been useful for the parliamentarians who work with us to understand and see that they are not alone, and that they have friends and colleagues from across national and political borders who share their support for Israel.
It has been great to be able to share best practices, strategies and information with AIPAC. In doing so, we have improved our efficiency and understanding of the challenges and opportunities that we face as a pro-Israel advocacy force in Europe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment